Autor: Lonergan, Bernard J.F.

Buch: The Trinune God: Systematics

Titel: The Triune God: Systematics

Stichwort: Theologie, Geschichte: drei Beispiele: Nizäa (Nicea) Athanasius (Beispiel göttlicher Vorsehung), homoousion; Chalcedon

Kurzinhalt: Yet how greatly the intention of divine providence exceeds human intentions is evident from the fact that even Athanasius would not have affirmed such a general principle

Textausschnitt: 91a First, then, in the Arian controversy that raged through most of the fourth century, there was one question that was primary and was posed openly, namely, 'Is the Son of God a creature?' And there was another question that was secondary and somehow remained hidden, namely, 'Can an explicit and obligatory profession of faith employ words other than those that we read in the sacred scriptures?' Now in fact, as regards this secondary question, Council of Nicea did use the word homoousion. And in fact, after the Council was accepted, there was never any doubt about using nonscriptural language in the symbols of faith. That means that in fact there was firmly established the legitimacy of a shift from the scriptural 'prior to us' to something that is prior in itself. Yet how greatly the intention of divine providence exceeds human intentions is evident from the fact that even Athanasius would not have affirmed such a general principle. When he defended the decrees of Nicea, he was not defending any dogmatic or theological method, but an exception. He thought it was quite satisfactory that every confession of faith be made in scriptural language, but he contended that homoousion was necessary to root out more effectively the Arian heresy. (Fs)

91b Thus, even after Nicea it remained possible to believe that the only licit transition is one that proceeds from a scriptural 'prior for us' to a patristic 'prior for us.' That is what Severus of Antioch thought. Since he found that the Fathers used the word 'nature' to mean a complete, concrete being, so that every nature is also a supposit, he acknowledged only one nature in Christ God and man, and so he rejected the Council of Chalcedon as Nestorian. It would seem, then, that what happened in the case of these Monophysites is not that they defected from the faith because of a christological error,1 but that they refused to comply with the church and the ecumenical council because of a methodological error. Yet the case of the Monophysites was so unclear that it could not keep others from believing that a 'scriptural prior' should never be abandoned except for a transition to a 'patristic prior.'

91c And so we have the third example: the medieval conflict between the Augustinians and the Aristotelians. John Peckham, O.F.M., Archbishop of Canterbury, described the dispute in a letter to Rome:
... and that the Holy Roman Church might please notice how the teaching of the two orders [Franciscans and Dominicans] is almost completely opposed today on every debatable question. The teaching of one of these orders rejects and often contemns the positions of saintly authors. It rests almost entirely on philosophical dogmas. Thus, the house of God becomes filled with idols and with the futility of disputed questions foretold by the apostle. Great danger lies ahead on that route for the church of future generations. Smash the pillars
and the house will fall. Nothing is more inevitable. Despise the teachings of Augustine and other authentic doctors, and in will come the prince of evil as truth collapses before falsehood.2

93a The author seems to have failed to distinguish adequately the two different operations of the mind. Asking 'What is it?' is different from asking 'Is it so?' If, in answering this second question, you do indeed cast aside the teachings of the saints and for all practical purposes depend entirely on philosophical presuppositions, no doubt you do stray from the faith. But if faith is not the issue, if the argument is entirely about questions that really are debatable, how is it possible that the house of God is being filled with idols, or that authentic teachers like Augustine are being contemned, or that the teaching of one of the orders rests almost exclusively on philosophical dogmas? The only ground for such comments seems to be that the commentator was not a sagacious witness, although he was probably no less sagacious than others of the same period. The issue in these debatable questions was not truth but understanding, and not philosophical but theological understanding. The achievement of the thirteenth century, even among the Augustinians, was the transition from what was prior for the scriptural and patristic people of faith to the theological and systematic 'prior in itself.' (Fs)