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.'

Database and descriptions © Copyright 2006-2011 by Robert M. Doran

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 │before Aq – after Aq

                                                                            │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 xi say

          interpretation: what did xi mean

          history: how does meaning of xi compare with meaning of xi-1, xi-2 xi-2 xi-3 ,,, xi+1 xi+2 xi+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 RGG1 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 ??