Archival Number: A573
Author: Lonergan, B.
17 handwritten pp. Dated May 28. Headings: Narrative and history, Mediatio, Mediation of the New Man in Christ Jesus, What Is a Dogma?, Distinction of Positive and Dogmatic Theology, Overlapping A, Need Not Fight, Dogmatic Theology, Overlapping B, Illustrations, Systematic Theology, Methodical Functions. From spring 1963 course De Methodo Theologiae.
57300D0L060 May 28
Part 1 of transcription (not all of the transcription could fit, but since the document is in English it can be read from the .pdf file.)
History: Gnoseology à criterion of history
Metaphysics à reality of history
as reality: it is what man does, makes;
what man undoes, replaces
homo ||se[cun]dum evolutionem: Destiny
|se[cun]dum conversion: Decision
||Highest level of reflection on human action
|concrete context of existential decision
Past: ||sets the stage: situationem
|provides the needs, exigences, opportunities
|provides collaboration & opponents
Decision, [labor] -----------, meets the occasion
Nature & History
not Hegelian – Hegel [contrasts] ||derivation of Nature
|account of Nature /
Spirit transcendental (missed) & transcendent (misconceived)
Nature in scales of Spirit
1) Polus originarius
2) but must add polus exsistentialis
not per se which just limits polus exsistentialis
3) Intellect & will Intellectuallism vs Voluntarism
a) highest level of consciousness is not speculative
not practical (classical dire[m]ptio[n])
but rational self-consciousness
disposing of self
b) in highest level intellect can & should lead
reflective understanding à judg[ment] of Value ® Will
||Speculative (systematic) on action: tool of practical man
on man: illumination of existential decision
Catholic: faith that operates through charity
relation || of the parts with one another
|between the parts and the whole
-mechanical: deest pars ||inutile |periculosa
- organic: mediates itself ||develops & maintains parts by which it functions;
|is a mediation of the species
- human: ||psychological ||immediate operations;
|operations on the mediators: (language, math[ematics], logic); technically organized universe
(nat[ural] |hum[ane] |theo[logical] sciences)— |subiect (critical methodical exsistential destiny)
|social: whole constituted by ||common apprehension
|cultural: the character of apprehension
|the [interaction] of the assent
- Catholic: Non est Iudaeus neque Graecus / a new principle transformation:
||Jew & Greek subsidiary particularly
|catholic, universal perpetual
Mediation of the New Man in Christ Jesus Neither Jew nor Greek Gal 3,28
-Non technical mode of understanding in commonsense development
example, preaching, summaries (creeds, catechism), liturgy, church discipline}
mediated communication: letters, documents, books
V[etus] T[estamentum], N[ovum] T[estamentum], written official decisions, X[ris]tian litterature (sources, present kerygm[a])
-Technical: mode of understanding that defines terms & deduces conclusions
mode of communication proper to a universal, perpetual curch: neither Jew nor Greek
dogmatic moment: transposition from the nonâ€‘technical to the technical
same truth, same sense but different categories & context –DB 1792, 1800, 2714
transition from biblical to catholic categories & context
systematic moment: rounds out the field of technical statement Intelligentia myst[eriorurm]: Analogia [cum iis quae naturaliter cognoscimus], Nexus [mysteriorum inter se]
-Methodical: reflects on process ||positive, |dogmatic, |systematic, |kerygmatic
distinguishes parts, assigns limits, determines functions of each
relates each to the others, works out foundations, excludes radical errors
prevents confusions, mutilations, distortions
Subiect, interiority, polus orig[inarius]
exsist[entialis], as foundation of all that can be ||said |known.
N[on]–t[echnical]: Aut Judaeus aut Graecus;
Tech[nical] Cath[olic]: Neque Judaeus neque Graec[us];
Meth[odical]: et Judaeus et Graecus et Cath[olicus]
1) Technical expression —homoousios, duo physeis duo thelêmata physika—
|a solemn declaration,
Non-technical understanding: ousia, physis are not given a scientific explanation
2) idem verum 1792 eodem sensu 1800 2314
aliae categoriae et contextus —“implicit”
3) What takes place – transition from biblical to Catholic categories context
biblical: mentality of a given author, given milieu, treating issues for particular p[urposses]
catholic: universal & perpetual church stating its doctrine for everyone, everywhere
They can know what is meant without a doctorate in Scripture
4) Not romantic hermeneutics – thinking oneself into the mind of Paul, John.
Winckelmann, Schleiermacher, Dilthey.
Not a deduction per se â€‘ some dogmas are, Ephesus (?) â€‘ but a transposition
5) How is it implicit – possibility:
transc[endental] always implicit;
less determinate implicit
Transcendental categories are implicit in every mind —esse, non esse, nature, [part]. Dogmatic schemata less determinate than biblical —infinite, finite;absolute, relative.
6) Process: Is Christ the Son of God? Is it true that Christ is a) man; b) not merely a man; c) not a creature; d) not the Father; e) from the Father; f) given divine predicates; g) Son in a singular meaning? Did Paul, John, think of that? ||theologically infused (?) knowledge |what can be proved is 1 to 7.
Distinction of Positive & Dogmatic Theology
1) Olier, Congar DTC 29 ||scholastic vs positive
|dogmatic vs moral º parts of Scholastic —as arising from subsequent development, literaryâ€‘histor[ical] studies
2) Development º process of differentiation & integration.
Differentiation occurs, is clarified, is understood & formulated
integration: distinct & complementary functions.
3) Total Method: ||description
Horizon ||se[cun]dum evol[ution]:
Includes ||genesis of all dogmas & all systems
|refutation of all heresies & all errors.
4) Involves two types of operation
intelligence ||developing in c[ommon]-s[ense]
|developing in sc[ience’s]
C[ommon] S[ense]: Transcendental implicit.
Understands things as related to us; implies relations to one anoth[er].
Understands things as related to Isaias, M[ar]k, Paul, John, Athan[asius], &c.
Does not attempt moving over to things as related to one another;
patterns independent of standpoint of Jew & Greek
Syst[em]: a) transcendental becomes explicit;
b) dichotomy: genera entis, divisio entis, &c;
c) understanding of relations to one another.
Dogmatic & Positive
1) Differ in mode of Expression.
D[ogmatic]: oratio recta: God the Son became Man;
P[ositive]: oratio obliqua: John said Verbum caro…; meant ---- ---- ----
2) Differ in object.
D[ogmatic]: God & all things in relation to God;
P[ositive]: What X said, meant, re God &c.
3) Differ in formal object: D[ogmatic]: its own problematik questions, terms, answers, systematization;
P[ositive] a) an author’s concerns, language, horizon, synthesis Di[rect], Obl[ique];
b) especially with regard to God.
4) Differ in mode of understanding:
D[ogmatic] moves to technical & expounds theor[y];
P[ositive] stays with particular works, authors, cultures, even technical writing studied by nonâ€‘technical type of understanding: —understanding Aquinas is not a theory about Aquinas