Autor: Lonergan, Bernard J.F.

Buch: The Trinune God: Systematics

Titel: The Triune God: Systematics

Stichwort: Kirche, Theologie, Geschichte, transkulturelles Problem; das Erste: für uns, in sich; Bewegung: transkulturell, theologisch, dogmatisch; patristisches, mittelalterliches ... prior

Kurzinhalt: Furthermore, we can distinguish a transcultural movement, a theological movement, and a dogmatic movement. A transcultural movement is a movement from a 'scriptural prior' to a 'patristic prior,' or ...

Textausschnitt: 83b Now let us come to the theological question. It was inevitable that a transcultural problem arise among Christians. On the one hand, divine revelation was given to a particular people at definite times and under definite circumstances; thus, the words of scripture and the apostolic preaching of the gospel were directed to particular human beings and so were necessarily implicated in and bound up with their cultural conditions. Yet, on the other hand, the church of God is for all people, at every place, in every culture. Therefore our transcultural problem is already constituted by the fact that a universal and Catholic1 church was founded under particular historical circumstances. Indeed, in the New Testament period itself, at the very origins of the church, when it was decided against the advice of the Judaizers not only to preach to the Gentiles but also to exempt them from Mosaic rituals, the transcultural problem was clearly and distinctly displayed, and, moreover, a magnificent example was given of a solution to the same problem. (Fs)

83c Still, if we are to proceed more systematically, we have to develop further the distinction already made between what is prior in itself and what is prior for us. What is prior in itself remains the same, but it may be called a 'systematic prior,'2 a 'theological prior,' or a 'dogmatic prior.' And what we called 'prior for us' should be subdivided into a 'scriptural prior,' a 'patristic prior,' and a 'contemporary prior,' to signify respectively what was prior, better known, more obvious to an ancient Semitic or Palestinian mentality, or to the faithful of the patristic period, or to the faithful of this or that place, time, or culture. (Fs)
85a Furthermore, we can distinguish a transcultural movement, a theological movement, and a dogmatic movement. A transcultural movement is a movement from a 'scriptural prior' to a 'patristic prior,' or from either of these to a 'contemporary prior.' A theological movement is a movement from a 'scriptural or patristic prior' to 'a systematic prior.' And a dogmatic movement occurs when a 'systematic prior' is confirmed, taught, and defined by the church's magisterium. So the entry of the Gentiles into the inheritance of the people of God was a transcultural movement. Likewise, the medieval creation of catenae, of glossae, and of collections of patristic opinions was transcultural. Transcultural movements are investigated both by missiology and by the more profound type of pastoral theology. But conceiving the divine persons as consubstantial, conceiving the incarnation of the divine Word as a union of two natures in a single person, conceiving divine graces as absolutely supernatural habits and motions, and conceiving sacraments as efficacious signs of grace were all theological movements. Finally, the dogmatic movement is illustrated by the Council of Nicea, which defined that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, by the Council of Chalcedon, which defined that Christ is a single person in two natures, and by the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council, each of which employed a large number of theological elements both to state and to define the faith. (Fs)

85b On this basis we can say that what is set down in the scriptures is not different from the correct conclusions that theologians arrive at. Rather, the same thing is stated in each, in accord with one or another type of priority. Again, what is set down in the scriptures is not different from what is set down in ecclesial definitions. Rather, the same thing is stated in each, though in accord with one or other type of priority. Finally, the primitive Palestinian faith and Hellenistic faith and medieval faith and contemporary faith are not different faiths. Rather, the same thing is believed in all of them, even though expositions differ in accord with one or other priority. (Fs) (notabene)

85c Accordingly, comparing these movements with one another yields the conclusion that a transcultural movement terminates, say, at a Hellenistic phase or at a medieval phase or at some other contemporary phase, whereas a properly theological movement, since it terminates at what is prior in itself, does not terminate at a Hellenistic phase or at a medieval phase or at some other phase bound to particular cultural circumstances. By the same token, then, to regard the homoousion as merely Hellenistic or transubstantiation as merely medieval is to disparage the dogmatic movement. And finally, there is an enormous difference between a theological movement and a dogmatic movement, for while they may coincide conceptually, still it is one thing to offer a judgment on the private authority of a theologian and quite another to state the faith itself infallibly, under the guidance of the Spirit of God. (Fs) (notabene)

87a We still have to determine the great difference that exists between the general transcultural problem and that same problem as it is found in Catholicism. We have seen how historians pass with consummate skill and astuteness from one relative view to another relative view, without daring to ascend to what is prior in itself and absolute, because philosophers propose so many and such diverse teachings. Yet the church of God not only accomplishes such transcultural movements, but also in one and the same voice it can speak to all cultures and all times. For it does ascend to what is prior in itself and, moreover, passes an infallible judgment on its own ascent. (Fs) (notabene)

1.Kommentar (27/03/08): Interssant hier das Argument als prior in itself.

87b Finally, we must not overlook how intimately this analysis of history squares with what has already been said about the goal of theology, about the act whereby the goal is attained, and about the movement whereby we proceed to that act. For in this section we have added only one element to those considerations, namely, the ambiguity and equivocity of the category that announces what is prior, better known, more obvious with respect to us. Still, once this element is added, there immediately come to light in their main lines (i) a historical series of cultural differences, (2) the Catholic transcultural problem, (3) the importance of the dogmatic way that proceeds from what is prior for so and so to what is prior in itself, (4) the importance of the systematic way that explores in an ordered fashion what is prior in itself, and (5) how great a difference there is between transcultural movements, theological movements, and dogmatic movements. And once all this is grasped, the dogmatic way and the systematic way will be seen not only to enter into their proper concrete historical context, but also are perceived to exercise a special task within the historical process itself. (Fs)