Pub Date : 2022-12-26DOI: 10.1177/10638512221139784
M. Levering
This essay takes up recent Protestant concerns about Catholic theology's understanding of the Church's mark of catholicity. Wesleyan and Reformed authors have argued that the (Roman) Catholic Church is “Roman” but not “catholic.” In their view, the problem is that the Catholic theological conception of catholicity focuses on union with the pope (or bishop of Rome). In a nutshell, Rome has decreed that to possess the mark of universality means to be in communion with Rome. Recent Protestant authors have made the point that not only is this arrogant and narrow, but also it is implausible given that the majority of Christians in the world are not (Roman) Catholic. My essay's first section lays out these concerns, which of course are not new. In my second section, I examine recent Catholic theological perspectives on catholicity. I conclude by suggesting a threefold path forward.
{"title":"Catholicity and the Catholic Church: Protestant Concerns and (Roman) Catholic Perspectives","authors":"M. Levering","doi":"10.1177/10638512221139784","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512221139784","url":null,"abstract":"This essay takes up recent Protestant concerns about Catholic theology's understanding of the Church's mark of catholicity. Wesleyan and Reformed authors have argued that the (Roman) Catholic Church is “Roman” but not “catholic.” In their view, the problem is that the Catholic theological conception of catholicity focuses on union with the pope (or bishop of Rome). In a nutshell, Rome has decreed that to possess the mark of universality means to be in communion with Rome. Recent Protestant authors have made the point that not only is this arrogant and narrow, but also it is implausible given that the majority of Christians in the world are not (Roman) Catholic. My essay's first section lays out these concerns, which of course are not new. In my second section, I examine recent Catholic theological perspectives on catholicity. I conclude by suggesting a threefold path forward.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134365244","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-30DOI: 10.1177/10638512221139756
C. Stringer
In this article I voice and defend Bonaventure's argument from divine simplicity to the Trinity from two versions of its negation, one Christian (Robert Jenson) and one subordinationist/Platonist (Plotinus). I point out that Bonaventure's supremely simple Trinitarianism has internal purchase on the Plotinian system: he makes available arguments that should pull subordinationist Christians/Platonists in the direction of his own view. Moreover, I observe that Bonaventure's metaphysical arguments in favor of the Trinity—exactly those that have purchase on Plotinian systems—would be available, however surprisingly, within contemporary “natural theology.”
{"title":"Supremely Simple Trinity and Contemporary “Natural Theology”: Bonaventure Beyond Jenson and Plotinus","authors":"C. Stringer","doi":"10.1177/10638512221139756","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512221139756","url":null,"abstract":"In this article I voice and defend Bonaventure's argument from divine simplicity to the Trinity from two versions of its negation, one Christian (Robert Jenson) and one subordinationist/Platonist (Plotinus). I point out that Bonaventure's supremely simple Trinitarianism has internal purchase on the Plotinian system: he makes available arguments that should pull subordinationist Christians/Platonists in the direction of his own view. Moreover, I observe that Bonaventure's metaphysical arguments in favor of the Trinity—exactly those that have purchase on Plotinian systems—would be available, however surprisingly, within contemporary “natural theology.”","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134117353","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-23DOI: 10.1177/10638512221123921
Phillip Cary
{"title":"Editor’s Note","authors":"Phillip Cary","doi":"10.1177/10638512221123921","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512221123921","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126960766","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-13DOI: 10.1177/10638512221129971
Michael Brain
This study investigates the purpose of trinitarian theology in relation to theological knowledge, examining whether the doctrine of the Trinity is designed to serve an apophatic or cataphatic purpose. Through a comparative analysis of Karen Kilby and Robert Jenson, I argue that trinitarianism serves a hermeneutical and incorporative function in theology, encompassing both apophatic and cataphatic language, connecting our knowledge of God with God's revelation in the missions of the triune persons. Kilby and Jenson represent apophatic and cataphatic tendencies respectively, but their differences largely concern methodology. Regarding the purpose of trinitarian doctrine, they each hold that the dogma functions as an interpretive grammar for the Scriptures, so that by patterning our lives on the biblical narrative, human beings may be incorporated into Trinity itself. These hermeneutical and incorporative principles create room within Nicene trinitarianism to accommodate varying methods and theories of theological knowledge while preserving the doctrine's core functions.
{"title":"The Grammar of Salvation: The Function of Trinitarian Theology in the Works of Karen Kilby and Robert Jenson","authors":"Michael Brain","doi":"10.1177/10638512221129971","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512221129971","url":null,"abstract":"This study investigates the purpose of trinitarian theology in relation to theological knowledge, examining whether the doctrine of the Trinity is designed to serve an apophatic or cataphatic purpose. Through a comparative analysis of Karen Kilby and Robert Jenson, I argue that trinitarianism serves a hermeneutical and incorporative function in theology, encompassing both apophatic and cataphatic language, connecting our knowledge of God with God's revelation in the missions of the triune persons. Kilby and Jenson represent apophatic and cataphatic tendencies respectively, but their differences largely concern methodology. Regarding the purpose of trinitarian doctrine, they each hold that the dogma functions as an interpretive grammar for the Scriptures, so that by patterning our lives on the biblical narrative, human beings may be incorporated into Trinity itself. These hermeneutical and incorporative principles create room within Nicene trinitarianism to accommodate varying methods and theories of theological knowledge while preserving the doctrine's core functions.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128714971","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-23DOI: 10.1177/10638512221124053
Bruce D. Marshall
For Paul Molnar, “A Catholic Appraisal” unfairly holds Barth to be inconsistent in claiming that God has his being in his act of revelation, and he shows that Barth often says the opposite of this. This does not resolve the inconsistency, but simply makes it more apparent. For Paul Hinlicky, the essay unfairly assumes that Barth needs to be consistent in the first place. Reflection on the law of identity shows how unfruitful it is for theologians to think they can dispense with basic logical truths. The essay concludes with arguments on the saving significance of baptism, the human refusal of God, and what theology can accomplish, in response to Katherine Sonderegger.
{"title":"Reasons to Say Farewell","authors":"Bruce D. Marshall","doi":"10.1177/10638512221124053","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512221124053","url":null,"abstract":"For Paul Molnar, “A Catholic Appraisal” unfairly holds Barth to be inconsistent in claiming that God has his being in his act of revelation, and he shows that Barth often says the opposite of this. This does not resolve the inconsistency, but simply makes it more apparent. For Paul Hinlicky, the essay unfairly assumes that Barth needs to be consistent in the first place. Reflection on the law of identity shows how unfruitful it is for theologians to think they can dispense with basic logical truths. The essay concludes with arguments on the saving significance of baptism, the human refusal of God, and what theology can accomplish, in response to Katherine Sonderegger.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"150 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115896811","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-15DOI: 10.1177/10638512221123972
Katherine Sonderegger
Like a love affair that has grown cold, Bruce Marshall has lost his affection and loyalty to Karl Barth. The reasons are complex, intellectual, and personal, and certainly, exceed the reasons proposed in this essay. Several are proposed all the same: that Marshall considers proper Nicene theology to consist in answers; that the reading of Holy Scripture that inspired Barth is not plausible or consistent with Marshall's doctrinal commitments; and that the Doctrines of God and of Salvation do not readily cohere with Catholic magisterial teaching. Barth can however be defended against these charges, drawing on his Doctrine of Justification as an epistemic as well as Soteriological teaching, and his strong notion of corporate existence in the redeeming work of Christ.
{"title":"A Farewell to All That","authors":"Katherine Sonderegger","doi":"10.1177/10638512221123972","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512221123972","url":null,"abstract":"Like a love affair that has grown cold, Bruce Marshall has lost his affection and loyalty to Karl Barth. The reasons are complex, intellectual, and personal, and certainly, exceed the reasons proposed in this essay. Several are proposed all the same: that Marshall considers proper Nicene theology to consist in answers; that the reading of Holy Scripture that inspired Barth is not plausible or consistent with Marshall's doctrinal commitments; and that the Doctrines of God and of Salvation do not readily cohere with Catholic magisterial teaching. Barth can however be defended against these charges, drawing on his Doctrine of Justification as an epistemic as well as Soteriological teaching, and his strong notion of corporate existence in the redeeming work of Christ.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124962901","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-06DOI: 10.1177/10638512221124042
C. Holmes
In dialogue with Christiane Tietz's engrossing biography, this review essay addresses the different conflicts that characterize Barth's life. I discuss what conflicts we should be grateful for and what conflicts we should regret. My main interest is in how the story of Barth's personal and private life intersects with the story of his extraordinary theological career. My working assumption in this review is that there is an indirect line between his theology and his adultery.
{"title":"Discerning Barth’s Legacy: Sorting the Good Conflicts From the Bad","authors":"C. Holmes","doi":"10.1177/10638512221124042","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512221124042","url":null,"abstract":"In dialogue with Christiane Tietz's engrossing biography, this review essay addresses the different conflicts that characterize Barth's life. I discuss what conflicts we should be grateful for and what conflicts we should regret. My main interest is in how the story of Barth's personal and private life intersects with the story of his extraordinary theological career. My working assumption in this review is that there is an indirect line between his theology and his adultery.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129189615","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-31DOI: 10.1177/10638512221122281
P. Hinlicky
In this contribution the author responds to Bruce Marshall's Thomist critique of Barth's theology, at the cost of a certain revision of Barth's mature exploration of the “being-for-others” of the eternal Son in CD IV/1. Affirming the eternity of the Son, the Logos asarkos and thus of the immanent Trinity, socially modeled, the article argues that this revision follows the cutting-edge of Barth's thought and provides a dispositional ontology which both allows for a properly divine mutability in the incarnation and at the same time preserves the freedom of reconciling grace.
{"title":"The Incarnation of the Eternal Son: Fitting, not Necessary","authors":"P. Hinlicky","doi":"10.1177/10638512221122281","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512221122281","url":null,"abstract":"In this contribution the author responds to Bruce Marshall's Thomist critique of Barth's theology, at the cost of a certain revision of Barth's mature exploration of the “being-for-others” of the eternal Son in CD IV/1. Affirming the eternity of the Son, the Logos asarkos and thus of the immanent Trinity, socially modeled, the article argues that this revision follows the cutting-edge of Barth's thought and provides a dispositional ontology which both allows for a properly divine mutability in the incarnation and at the same time preserves the freedom of reconciling grace.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132843483","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-29DOI: 10.1177/10638512221122310
P. Molnar
This article explores Bruce Marshall's objections to Barth's doctrine of God and his view of salvation. Whereas Marshall's key objection to Barth's doctrine of God centers on his view that “Barth equates who God is with what God does” and that this assertion, when carried out consistently, “undoes the deep grammar of the Nicene faith—the Catholic faith,” I demonstrate that Marshall has misread Barth by assuming that he has collapsed the immanent Trinity into the economic Trinity. Marshall thinks that for Barth, “God simply has no being other than his being for us.” I explain that Barth always made a key distinction between the eternal self-sufficient being and act of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and his free and loving actions toward us in the economy.
{"title":"Karl Barth and Catholic Theology: Does Barth Undo the Deep Grammar of Nicene Faith?","authors":"P. Molnar","doi":"10.1177/10638512221122310","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512221122310","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores Bruce Marshall's objections to Barth's doctrine of God and his view of salvation. Whereas Marshall's key objection to Barth's doctrine of God centers on his view that “Barth equates who God is with what God does” and that this assertion, when carried out consistently, “undoes the deep grammar of the Nicene faith—the Catholic faith,” I demonstrate that Marshall has misread Barth by assuming that he has collapsed the immanent Trinity into the economic Trinity. Marshall thinks that for Barth, “God simply has no being other than his being for us.” I explain that Barth always made a key distinction between the eternal self-sufficient being and act of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and his free and loving actions toward us in the economy.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123551273","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-06DOI: 10.1177/10638512221108610
P. Cary
{"title":"Editor's Note","authors":"P. Cary","doi":"10.1177/10638512221108610","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512221108610","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116793100","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：