Pub Date : 2023-01-12DOI: 10.1177/00211400221144751
D. Norman
The article aims to show that the ontological objection to women’s ordination fails to convince when examined in light of the trinitarian theologies of Bonaventure and Hans Urs von Balthasar. The former argued for the Incarnate Son of God as the coincidence of opposites of the Father and the Holy Spirit, and of Creator and creature; the latter expressed the difference between the immanent and economic Trinity by means of ‘trinitarian inversion,’ where the roles of the Son and the Holy Spirit in the immanent Trinity are reversed in the economic Trinity. Trinitarian inversion becomes central to the full configuration of men and women to Christ the High Priest. Restricting the ministerial priesthood to men is theologically unsound. Since both women and men, who have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ (the ‘coincidence of opposites’), both are the face of Christ to and for the world.
{"title":"The Trinitarian Theologies of Bonaventure and Balthasar and the Ontological Objection to the Ordination of Women","authors":"D. Norman","doi":"10.1177/00211400221144751","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00211400221144751","url":null,"abstract":"The article aims to show that the ontological objection to women’s ordination fails to convince when examined in light of the trinitarian theologies of Bonaventure and Hans Urs von Balthasar. The former argued for the Incarnate Son of God as the coincidence of opposites of the Father and the Holy Spirit, and of Creator and creature; the latter expressed the difference between the immanent and economic Trinity by means of ‘trinitarian inversion,’ where the roles of the Son and the Holy Spirit in the immanent Trinity are reversed in the economic Trinity. Trinitarian inversion becomes central to the full configuration of men and women to Christ the High Priest. Restricting the ministerial priesthood to men is theologically unsound. Since both women and men, who have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ (the ‘coincidence of opposites’), both are the face of Christ to and for the world.","PeriodicalId":55939,"journal":{"name":"Irish Theological Quarterly","volume":"88 1","pages":"39 - 55"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49445158","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-27DOI: 10.1177/00211400221144749
Kathleen Cavender-McCoy
This article argues that an analogical approach to the metaphysics of bodily sex difference, such as that found in Erich Przywara and William Desmond, offers a fruitful way forward in a fraught global discussion on sexed embodiment and the imago Dei. After discussing the unique ‘horizontal’ and ‘vertical’ dimensions of Przywara’s anthropology of sex difference, I discuss the common intersex condition called Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and how Przywara’s system accommodates it as an authentic form of human being imaging God. I then draw from William Desmond’s metaxological approach to sexed bodies to show the great flexibility provided by analogical anthropologies and suggest that theology begin to rely more heavily on these models in future inquiries into sexed embodiment.
{"title":"An Analogical Anthropology of Sex Difference: Erich Przywara, William Desmond, and the Imago Dei in Intersex Persons","authors":"Kathleen Cavender-McCoy","doi":"10.1177/00211400221144749","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00211400221144749","url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that an analogical approach to the metaphysics of bodily sex difference, such as that found in Erich Przywara and William Desmond, offers a fruitful way forward in a fraught global discussion on sexed embodiment and the imago Dei. After discussing the unique ‘horizontal’ and ‘vertical’ dimensions of Przywara’s anthropology of sex difference, I discuss the common intersex condition called Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and how Przywara’s system accommodates it as an authentic form of human being imaging God. I then draw from William Desmond’s metaxological approach to sexed bodies to show the great flexibility provided by analogical anthropologies and suggest that theology begin to rely more heavily on these models in future inquiries into sexed embodiment.","PeriodicalId":55939,"journal":{"name":"Irish Theological Quarterly","volume":"88 1","pages":"22 - 38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49311313","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-23DOI: 10.1177/00211400221144752
E. Schlesinger
This article draws upon the theology of Bernard Lonergan, particularly as expanded upon by Robert Doran in order to provide a theological basis for the claim that ‘the Eucharist makes the church.’ Doran’s use of the so-called ‘four-point hypothesis’ from Lonergan’s trinitarian theology provides the basis of a revised articulation of the psychological analogy for the Trinity, this one drawn from the supernatural order. A consideration of Lonergan’s theologies of eucharistic sacrifice and of the mystical body of Christ in concert with the revised psychological analogy affords a framework for understanding the Eucharist’s role in recruiting humanity into the mission of God and constituting the church as Christ’s body.
{"title":"Opus Dei, Opus Hominum: The Trinity, the Four-Point Hypothesis, and the Eucharist","authors":"E. Schlesinger","doi":"10.1177/00211400221144752","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00211400221144752","url":null,"abstract":"This article draws upon the theology of Bernard Lonergan, particularly as expanded upon by Robert Doran in order to provide a theological basis for the claim that ‘the Eucharist makes the church.’ Doran’s use of the so-called ‘four-point hypothesis’ from Lonergan’s trinitarian theology provides the basis of a revised articulation of the psychological analogy for the Trinity, this one drawn from the supernatural order. A consideration of Lonergan’s theologies of eucharistic sacrifice and of the mystical body of Christ in concert with the revised psychological analogy affords a framework for understanding the Eucharist’s role in recruiting humanity into the mission of God and constituting the church as Christ’s body.","PeriodicalId":55939,"journal":{"name":"Irish Theological Quarterly","volume":"88 1","pages":"56 - 75"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41462182","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-22DOI: 10.1177/00211400221144753
Nigel K Zimmermann
This article responds to Emmanuel Levinas and his critique of reason in the Western philosophical tradition, contrasting it with a continuity of approach taken by recent Bishops of Rome, including Francis, Benedict XVI, and John Paul II. Levinas provides an important corrective to aspects of the way reason has been deployed, especially with regard to violence and war. It will be argued that Levinas helps refine and humble theological reflection, but his argument is not altogether applicable to theology. A Catholic tradition of theology relies on philosophy in terms of ‘naming names,’ an activity responsive to Levinas’s critique, and counters it in terms of moral goodness. Responding to Levinas helps to confidently articulate theology as an intelligent participation and performance of the good in a thoroughgoing reasonableness.
{"title":"The Reasonableness of Theology: Recent Pontifical Approaches in Response to the Critique of Emmanuel Levinas","authors":"Nigel K Zimmermann","doi":"10.1177/00211400221144753","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00211400221144753","url":null,"abstract":"This article responds to Emmanuel Levinas and his critique of reason in the Western philosophical tradition, contrasting it with a continuity of approach taken by recent Bishops of Rome, including Francis, Benedict XVI, and John Paul II. Levinas provides an important corrective to aspects of the way reason has been deployed, especially with regard to violence and war. It will be argued that Levinas helps refine and humble theological reflection, but his argument is not altogether applicable to theology. A Catholic tradition of theology relies on philosophy in terms of ‘naming names,’ an activity responsive to Levinas’s critique, and counters it in terms of moral goodness. Responding to Levinas helps to confidently articulate theology as an intelligent participation and performance of the good in a thoroughgoing reasonableness.","PeriodicalId":55939,"journal":{"name":"Irish Theological Quarterly","volume":"88 1","pages":"3 - 21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44579067","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-31DOI: 10.1177/00211400221127119
W. Crozier
While Robert Grosseteste’s contribution to the 13th-century debate on the reason for the Incarnation is well known, his novel theory of what caused Christ’s death, and in particular the role which it plays in shaping his understanding of the atonement, has largely gone unexplored. This article first outlines Grosseteste’s belief that Christ died not as a result of the cross, but rather as a result of his divine will, focusing specifically upon on his scientific arguments showing that at the moment of his death Christ’s body was still ‘healthy and whole.’ The article then shows how Grosseteste makes his theory of Christ’s self-immolation central to his account of satisfaction. Particular attention is paid to the role of suffering in Grosseteste’s theory of the redemption and how he places charity and the Aristotelian notion of friendship at the heart of Christ’s satisfactory act, thereby prefiguring something of Aquinas’s key ideas.
{"title":"The Anatomy of Salvation: Robert Grosseteste on Christ’s Death, Passion, and Satisfaction","authors":"W. Crozier","doi":"10.1177/00211400221127119","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00211400221127119","url":null,"abstract":"While Robert Grosseteste’s contribution to the 13th-century debate on the reason for the Incarnation is well known, his novel theory of what caused Christ’s death, and in particular the role which it plays in shaping his understanding of the atonement, has largely gone unexplored. This article first outlines Grosseteste’s belief that Christ died not as a result of the cross, but rather as a result of his divine will, focusing specifically upon on his scientific arguments showing that at the moment of his death Christ’s body was still ‘healthy and whole.’ The article then shows how Grosseteste makes his theory of Christ’s self-immolation central to his account of satisfaction. Particular attention is paid to the role of suffering in Grosseteste’s theory of the redemption and how he places charity and the Aristotelian notion of friendship at the heart of Christ’s satisfactory act, thereby prefiguring something of Aquinas’s key ideas.","PeriodicalId":55939,"journal":{"name":"Irish Theological Quarterly","volume":"87 1","pages":"280 - 296"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44852967","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-31DOI: 10.1177/00211400221127126
H. Moore
This study provides an original theological interpretation of Immanuel Kant’s (1724–1804) Transcendental Unity of Apperception in light of Nicholas of Cusa’s (1401–1464) apophaticism. The study will show that Kant’s Transcendental Unity contains a thoroughly anti-theological premise. This is namely that our own ‘I think’ grounds the distinction between the transcendent (that which we think but don’t know) and immanent (that which we know). This premise is then contrasted with Cusa’s conception whereby the distinction is grounded in the transcendent itself. Whilst for Kant our thought itself produces the distinction between ‘thinking’ (Denken) and ‘knowing’ (Erkennen), for Cusa the distinction between ‘knowing that’ (quia est), and ‘knowing what’ (quid est) is produced by God himself.
{"title":"The Transcendental Unity of Apperception and Christian Apophaticism","authors":"H. Moore","doi":"10.1177/00211400221127126","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00211400221127126","url":null,"abstract":"This study provides an original theological interpretation of Immanuel Kant’s (1724–1804) Transcendental Unity of Apperception in light of Nicholas of Cusa’s (1401–1464) apophaticism. The study will show that Kant’s Transcendental Unity contains a thoroughly anti-theological premise. This is namely that our own ‘I think’ grounds the distinction between the transcendent (that which we think but don’t know) and immanent (that which we know). This premise is then contrasted with Cusa’s conception whereby the distinction is grounded in the transcendent itself. Whilst for Kant our thought itself produces the distinction between ‘thinking’ (Denken) and ‘knowing’ (Erkennen), for Cusa the distinction between ‘knowing that’ (quia est), and ‘knowing what’ (quid est) is produced by God himself.","PeriodicalId":55939,"journal":{"name":"Irish Theological Quarterly","volume":"87 1","pages":"334 - 356"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43206589","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-31DOI: 10.1177/00211400221129404d
David K Kennedy
liturgical celebration exclusively to the texts used; there is no mention to the prayers at the presentation of the gifts, but also no mention that the elements used in the Eucharist itself are bread and wine, and in other sacramental celebrations water, oil, and other gifts of the earth. McDonagh goes onto state that ‘. . . [in] the Eucharist prayer found in the Apostolic Tradition, which dates from 215 CE, God is thanked for the gift of creation’ (p. 9); the support for this assertion given in the endnotes on p. 153 is the 1945 edition of ‘The Shape of the Liturgy’ by Gregory Dix. Current research works, notably by Paul Bradshaw and others, have shown that the Apostolic Tradition is a piece of living literature reflecting traditions of different eras and probably different places, which did not reach its final state until much later. This is especially true for the anaphora found in it; no serious liturgist would today use this edition of Dix without the many corrections made to it by many scholars over the last 30 years. This little book is an important contribution to what is now a crucial debate on the future of this planet and indeed of creation. It clearly outlines how theology is challenged and indeed changed by ecology, and Dermot Lane bravely sets out possible avenues of responding to these crucial questions.
{"title":"Book Review: The Politics of Irish Primary Education: Reform in an Era of Secularisation","authors":"David K Kennedy","doi":"10.1177/00211400221129404d","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00211400221129404d","url":null,"abstract":"liturgical celebration exclusively to the texts used; there is no mention to the prayers at the presentation of the gifts, but also no mention that the elements used in the Eucharist itself are bread and wine, and in other sacramental celebrations water, oil, and other gifts of the earth. McDonagh goes onto state that ‘. . . [in] the Eucharist prayer found in the Apostolic Tradition, which dates from 215 CE, God is thanked for the gift of creation’ (p. 9); the support for this assertion given in the endnotes on p. 153 is the 1945 edition of ‘The Shape of the Liturgy’ by Gregory Dix. Current research works, notably by Paul Bradshaw and others, have shown that the Apostolic Tradition is a piece of living literature reflecting traditions of different eras and probably different places, which did not reach its final state until much later. This is especially true for the anaphora found in it; no serious liturgist would today use this edition of Dix without the many corrections made to it by many scholars over the last 30 years. This little book is an important contribution to what is now a crucial debate on the future of this planet and indeed of creation. It clearly outlines how theology is challenged and indeed changed by ecology, and Dermot Lane bravely sets out possible avenues of responding to these crucial questions.","PeriodicalId":55939,"journal":{"name":"Irish Theological Quarterly","volume":"87 1","pages":"368 - 370"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47881025","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-31DOI: 10.1177/00211400221129404a
Colmán N. Ó Clabaigh
{"title":"Book Review: The Dissolution of the Monasteries: A New History","authors":"Colmán N. Ó Clabaigh","doi":"10.1177/00211400221129404a","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00211400221129404a","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":55939,"journal":{"name":"Irish Theological Quarterly","volume":"87 1","pages":"362 - 364"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47289032","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-31DOI: 10.1177/00211400221129404c
Liam M. Tracey
{"title":"Book Review: Theology and Ecology in Dialogue: The Wisdom of Laudato Si’","authors":"Liam M. Tracey","doi":"10.1177/00211400221129404c","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00211400221129404c","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":55939,"journal":{"name":"Irish Theological Quarterly","volume":"87 1","pages":"366 - 368"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46119463","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","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：