Bernard Lonergan’s typescript of Method in Theology, chapter 5
Archival Number: A809
Author: Lonergan, B.
Lonergan's chapter 5 typescript, was at one time chapter 2, 'The Tasks of Theology'
BL's ts of MiT, chapter 5.
Was at one time chapter 2 (MiT II at top), with title `The Tasks of Theology.'
-- pt 127, 7: ts has (crossed out): `Logic, of course, might seem to dictate that one begin from the theoretical grounds. But I have found it difficult to make such grounds clear without first indicating, at least roughly, what is being grounded.'
-- pt 129, par. `Besides ...' ts has (crossed out): `Besides its materials and its aim, dialectic has its starting-point in existing apologetics. For dialectic is a generalized apologetic. Where apologetic persuades by appealing implicitly to values it feels it can take for granted, dialectic makes explicit the spectrum of intellectual, moral, and religious values. Where apologetic is content with ad hoc explanations that are calculated to satisfy a given range of readers, dialectic seeks generally valid'
-- pt 131, 2: circumstances = ts circumstance.
-- pt 132, sec. 6: ts had `(6) Doctrines present what traditionally are referred to as the truths of faith or the teachings of the church' and `(6) Doctrines state what is so or what ought to be. They are the specialty successor not only to dogmatic but also to moral, ascetical, mystical'
-- pt 135, 19: `explicitly' not in ts, was added later.
-- pt 138, 15: `undifferentiation' is in ts `indifferentiation'
-- pt 138, - 10: `what was considered' is in ts `what it considered'
-- pt 139, - 14: `As we have seen' is in ts `As we saw in Chapter I'
-- pt 139, - 4: ts has no comma after Simmel.
-- pt 139, -1: two efforts crossed out: `However, if I cannot identify theology with religion itself or with proclamation or preaching, as today many wish,' and `However, if I deem it a blunder to identify theology with religion or with prayer or with preaching, as today many wish, I am far from condoning a withdrawal that does not end in a return'
-- pt 141, - 7: ts has (crossed out) `Such reciprocal dependence is not to be confused with the logician's vicious circle, for vicious circles are mistakes in deductions and so can occur only in deductions'
-- pt 142, - 14: `remains' is in ts `remain'--changed to this by hand
-- pt 144, 4: `objectifies' is in ts `objectify '
-- pt 144, - 19: `in, at least, an indirect interdependence' is in ts `in an at least indirect interdependence'
-- pt 144, - 16: ts has (changed) `as a result of such changes and developments. If it seems new as a conception of theology, it corresponds with what in fact has been going forward down the centuries, even at times when an opposed ideal was dominant.' note: the reverse of this page in ts has handwritten material on fideism, with mentiion of Barth, Hamilton, van Buren, and Death of God. (I will make this A810).
-- pt 145, 3: ts has (crossed out): `Such a conception of theology arises from the contemporary context described above. As one turns from logic to method, the old question about the nature of theology has now to be met with an account of what theologians do. As one drops even analogies from the Posterior Analytics and accepts the model offered by modern science, theology ceases to be a habit in a mind or a doctrine in a book to become an on-going communal enterprise. With the acknowledgment that nature is less human than history, theologians in a first phase of their task look to the past and, in a second, face the future.'
Database and descriptions © Copyright 2017 by Robert M. Doran
No transcription available.