The New Theology 539

The New Theology 539
Sku: 53900D0E060
Archival Number: A539
Author: Lonergan, B.
Language(s): English
Decade: 1960
Open 53900D0E060.pdf

Description:
5 handwritten schematic pp. Headed 'The New Theology.'

Transcription:

53900DTE060

Transcription by R. Doran of 53900D0E060

The New Theology

1 Not la nouvelle théologie: not of opinions considered in Humani generis. But theology as it has been developing in xxth century. DTC, LTK, Fries, Biblical, liturgical. New with respect to ‘dogmatic’ or ‘dogmatic-scholastic’ theology that had its origins about 1680 and has been in permanent crisis since about 1900.

1680

1900 ? of biblical criticism, history of dogma, comparative religion

1939-46 For last forty years

2 α ‘Dogmatic’ theology – what Catholics accept as of faith, as necessarily connected with faith.

β Does not include any technically developed ‘intelligentia fidei.’

Aug Ar controversy

De auxiliis disputed qq a permanent feature of theological horizon

critical problem existed long before Kant

γ tends to acceptance and repetition of formulae and popular understanding

3 Period 1680-1900 apostasy of European cultural & working classes

α Dogmatic theology held the fort

β It did not get to the heart of ? Method: α′ It was not equipped

β′ ? involved in mechanist determinism

γ It remained ‘classicist’: Bossuet, Perrone, Franzelin, Garrigou, Boyer

it did not step in & dominate the new anthropology

it was not equipped

the new anthropology was idealist, indifferentist, Lebensphil

it accepted eventually the findings – critical method wt exaggerations

[page 2]

4 The last 65 years

(1) 1890-1910 program of reform of seminary studies – 1930 Deus Sc Dominus

(2) Increase of ‘positive’ output: Biblica – Bulletin de theol anc & med – Altaner

(1) not any explicit notion of science, old or new, modernists were theorists – positive theol no

(2) de facto carry into theology (? in seminars, dissertations) techniques, procedures, assumptions proper to empirical method, proper to new anthropology (Hebr concepts vs Gk), basically naive re interpretation/history: to work on basis of epistemology of interpretation/history and to be extrincisist[?]

similarly to consider any large implications of their procedure

in CBQ – Cahill, theologian

(3) ‘Dogmatic’ assigned new function

quomodo ab Ecclesia definita doctrina contineatur in fontibus

α always ‘proved’ from Scr, CC, PP, TT, ??

but proof vitiated by anachronistic interpretation of texts

controversy w Prot. archaism

β process of development recognized since Vat I

‘implicit’ to ‘explicit’ – some sort of ‘logical’ process ^..^. not illogical

what is ‘implicit’ in interpreter’s mind reading Paul

what was ‘implicit’ in Paul’s mind writing

→ tend to be identical from classicist static vp

tend to differ toto caelo as fact of development taken seriously

γ history of dogma, theology reveal process â”‚before Aq – after Aq

â”‚before Ioan a S Th – after

↓

when documents studied from vp of what they explicitly stated

when priority of explicit acknowledged

when priority of correct interpretation over dogmatic/apologetic purposes acknowledged

easily done on TT PP – conclude earlier state ≡ context of NT

theory of development has to be understood before data for development are apprehended

[page 3]

(4) Elimination of ‘dogmatic’ theology

A in place of terms fixed by definition: don’t dispute about words

doctrines found identical at all times: via anachronosm

developing terms, doctrines

α incomplete series of specialist studies: research/interpretation/history

β with non-dogmatic purpose: not to ascertain certain even if minimum

but to move toward complete explanation

of all phenomena

γ with no methodical principles to guide, criticize investigators

to put together results in critical fashion

uncritical (except sources)

no critique of interpreter/?

have all before in fundamentals

Between ‘dogmatic’ & SSc

& Fathers in an enormous barrier arises

& TT ? Aq varying

& Councils degrees

The dogmatic theologian is not a specialist in all fields

if he were, he could not keep abreast

if he could keep abreast, he would have to introduce new method

concentrating on certain results

gain approval of it

convince his students of existence of approval

if he did introduce it etc., he would still need large theoretic

equipment to handle element γ above

B Simultaneously ‘dogmatic’ theologian learning the new anthropology

grasping its relevance to theologians’ task

finding it employed by positive theol in

interpretation of SSc PP MM

the old insights concepts questions answers are more & more

regarded as obsolete

the new insights concepts questions answers are everywhere the topic

C Foundational qq – is OT NT mythic expression of rlg experience slighted

not thoroughly treated

did mythic expression lead to dogmatic affirmation

[page 4]

(4) Biblical Theology LTK etc. a page of references in German

[page 5]

(4) The New Theology as Biblical Theology

α study of any human document involves

research: what did x_i say

interpretation: what did x_i mean

history: how does meaning of x_i compare with meaning of x_i-1, x_i-2 x_i-2 x_i-3 ,,, x_i+1 x_i+2 x_i+3

β what is meant & implied by interpretation & history varies with philosophic horizon – in general one may presume, until contrary evidence is forthcoming, that the phil hor is naive

interpretation is entering into another’s mind, thinking his thoughts, in his categories, cf. art intepretation, ‘Romantic’ hermeneutics

history is determining wie es eigentlich gewesen ... the movie & sound track of the past

γ biblical documents can be studied as any similar religious documents

Die Religionsgeschichtlicher Schule RGG_{1 2 3}

or they can be taken as manifestions of a divine intervention in human affairs

a specific religious Judaeo-Xtian horizon

hence research, interpretation, re Is, Mk, Paul, John

yields the general theology of Is Mk Paul John

the concrete historical process that underlies Mk Paul John and believers and me is Heilsgeschichte

δ on naive assumptions no problem of transition from biblical categories to a contemporary account of biblical categories

? interpretation eliminates mind of interpreter, no eisegesis

? the mind of interpreted, comes to think his thoughts etc.

biblical theology can leap over millennia

theology is the interpretation of faith, biblical theology the interpretation of original faith

There are also a lot of developments – up to dogmatic theologies

a lot of problems – parousia ? etc – give us time ??