Old and New in Theology
Archival Number: A531
Author: Lonergan, B.
4 handwritten schematic pp. headed 'Old and New in Theology'
Database and descriptions © Copyright 2017 by Robert M. Doran
Transcription by R. Doran, added Nov 12 2011
Old and New in Theology
α internal elaboration of doctrina sacra: lectio, quaestio, disputatio
comm in libros sentent
qq disputatae: collectiones, series
comm in summam
initial development similar in Canon Law
divergence: CL – Roman lawyers Justinian
Th – Aristotle Topics Metaphys. Post Anal: no serious synthesis
β division of wisdom & prudence theologia mystica Gerson 1363-1429
Congar 423 f.
per se subject
static account of virtue theologia moralis – separate – last quarter xvi – Congar 424
γ positive theology
1 name from 1509 – current by end of xvi century Congar 426-30
2 theology of Jerome Augustine Gregory [return to sources]
3 humanist influence – literary studies – expository style
evidence of scholastic technical terms, rigorous argument
4 polemical: defense of later dogmas (Trent) and scholastic conclusions[?]
5 positing principles before drawing conclusions: argument from Ss PP
= relation of dogmas to Xtian sources, development to origin Congar
Cano “ponere principia” Congar 426 – cf. Gregory of Valencia 427
cf ? de la foi Congar 429
δ apologetic, fundamental: sources & dogmas as related to human reason
separate hardly (?) before middle of xvii
2 Modern Butterfield – Origins of Modern Sc. Catholic ghetto Mediaeval
P. Hazard – The European Mind Renaissance CReform
Y. Congar – from about 1680
α “Dogmatic” Theology Congar 482
springs from positive theology
divides theology into: “common to all” to be accepted
free questions “in ? libertas”: omitted [or]
presented as opinion of a school
exposition (in accord with Cano) thesis, status quaest., preuves positives d’autorité, preuves de la raison théologique, solution of diff & corollaries, esp. corollaries for life & piety
β “ancilla” tendencies to system, encyclopedia, methodologies 433 f
drawing on (1780-1880) Descartes, Leibniz & Wolf, Kant or Fichte, Schelling, Hegel & Schleiermacher, Malebranche, Locke, Condillac, Rousseau, Lammenais
“Aeterni Patris” and related docs 437 f.
Scheeben 442 f
γ xix century, new human science, biblical criticism, history of dogma, comparative religion // “scientific” study of man/religion/?
δ xx century: ? de l’enseignement 1890-1910 Congar 439 f. Xiberta
modernism Lamentabili, Pascendi, Iusiurandum
Deus sc Dom
Divino afflante Spiritu Periodical literature
Humani generis Monographs
Vatican ii Dictionaries
ε Problems Congar 444 “Positive” “Science”
3 The Contemporary Transformation
α The New Context – Break out from Wolffian ghetto
Phil Psych Ethics
?-? qq in Nat Sc (? Medicine)
Depth psych., phenomenology
History of cultures, literatures, ideas
Science & history of religion
β The New Methods Research interpretation history
concretely apprehended, ? art (??), grounded in convention
w/o anachronism archaism infidelity extrinsicism [= thinking things thought]
(1) to normative documents cf old positive “dogmatic” theology
scr PP CC TT esp Aq.
obedience of old “dogmatic” – origin --> development not principles to conclusions
- barrier of ?/specialized/probable
between dogmatist & sources
(2) not for immediate dogmatic or apologetic purpose – get things right at each stage
(3) ? a theology in oratione obliqua – theol of Is Mark Paul John
(4) de facto, heading towards reconstruction, thematization of whole Xtian culture [Fr. Wulf, Philologie]
complete explanation of all phenomena
γ Involvement in the New Anthropology
(1) as tool of interpretation/history – evolution of a pretechnical meaning, implicit belief, cf. systematic concepts /doctrines
not one definition, system but perspectivism, pluralism growth in range of applications, in depth of grasp
(2) emergence of new doctrinal theol – understan hist of doct <-> understand the doctrine
(3) emergence of new systematic/speculative/explanatory theol.,
Historie --> Geschichte [Existenz in history]
account --> encounter vs theory or practice]
Heilsgeschichte α interpretation of Scr
kerygma β a new type of syst theol
Hebr GK --> Med <-> Mod.cs.
The Problem Contemporary – Congar – “Science” – “Place of Positive” within theology
α For seven centuries theology has been conceived as analogously a science
What “science” was it analogous to? in what sense was it analgous?
First q. only possible answer is Aris Post Anal.
Second q. many answers / need not bother about
β Only part of organon – logos as thematic
Ideal construction based on nature of syllogistic demonstration
conclusions are from principles
demonstration neither by infinite regress nor circular
there must be basic premises
they must be necessary, eternal, universal, per se, essential, true, certain
they are either proper to particular ?
[or] answers to many or all ?
they arise from sense via rally-in-rout
γ New Notion
what arises from sense via rally in rout
is empirical intelligibility, developing, descending to ? concrete, includes statistical
not structured or on ? analogy of subject & predicate, moving towards truth, probable
what science moves towards is not abstract part of reality but complete explanation of all phenomena
in nat. sc., in hum. sc., in the contemporary tendency of theology
A Not two notions of science, of man, phil approach
B Are there no common principles? is there just a universal flux? relativism
if there are, do they too arise from sense?
if not, what is their genesis?
are they necessary, eternal, universal, abstract?
understand developing comprehensive concrete ?
ε Existence of problem:
in nat sc – mechanist determinism – relativity, QT, obscurity
in hum sc – interpretation, what are the categories of human mind?
are mythic, Hebraic, Gk, modern mind essentially different?
What is interpretation?
in history – is there any structure that extends over history of doctrines, ideas, modes of ?
What is history?
in phil – rationalists Thomists idealists relativists
empiricists Scotists Kantians existentialists
in theol – Aug Ar xiv & xv De auxiliis “Dogmatic”
what is relation between special fields? what is a special field? does biblical scholar[ship] have to be a matter of development of dogma?
does doctrinal theology have to be a biblical scholar?