HOME SOME THEMES IN ENGLISH THEOLOGICAL THEMES AUDIENCE AND METHOD
AUDIENCE
AND METHOD WHICH DIFFER
Giuse Phạm Thanh Liêm, S.J.
I.
Rahner’s theological thought
A. Foundation of Rahner’s theological thought
1. Transcendental anthropology
II.
Schillebeeckx’s early theology. 7
1. Incarnation as starting point of
Christology
2. Church as constitutive element of salvation
III.
Schillebeeckx’s later theology. 11
1. Experiences of this secular world as data
of theological reflection
Relation between dogmatic meaning and forms of
expression
2. Jesus Christ- universal love for human
beings
Both
Karl Rahner and Edward Schillebeeckx are famous theologians of the twentieth
century. Each of them has his own particularity in his theology, and has his
own definitive contribution to theology. Each of them is an expert in the
Second Vatican Council. However, their theologies are different from each other
in a certain view. One may question what makes their theologies so different
from each other. By my opinion it is the audience and thereby the starting
points and methods, which make their theologies different.
To
justify my opinion I will give an overview of the theological thought of Karl
Rahner and of Edward Schillebeeckx. I will then determine the foundations of
their systematical thoughts. Afterward through an examination of their
theological imaginations, I will detect those ideas which make the theologies
differ.
Rahner’s
systematical theology is founded on the philosophical thoughts that can be
found in his books Spirit in the World and the Hearer of Word and
most recently in the Foundations of Christian Faith.
Epistemology
is the foundation of intellectual work. There have been many theories of
knowledge, for example, Plato’s theories of reminiscence of the human soul.
Rahner’s epistemology is the same as Aristotle’s and Saint Thomas Aquinas’,
which defended the argument that human beings obtain knowledge through the
contact of the human senses with material things.
In
the present state, human knowledge is gained when the senses come into contact
with material objects. Human beings can know not only material things but also
spiritual realities. This theory is related to Aristotle and Saint Thomas
Aquinas’ theories on knowledge. It is against Plato’s theory of knowledge by
reminiscence.
The
human being is both body and spirit. Human beings know via their senses. Human
beings know the rules or laws that generate the universe or material things.
With this knowledge there are sciences, for example, physics, chemistry, and
mathematics. Moreover, human beings know the transcendental reality, which is
beyond the senses. This knowledge is acquired by transcendental experiences.
The
transcendental experience is not a thematic or categorical knowledge. It is
unthematic knowledge. It is free and existential for everyone. Human beings
recognize themselves as finite beings, then they experience “something” that is
infinite and envelops all. From transcendental experience the human being has
transcendental, categorical and thematic knowledge. Hence the human being does
not demonstrate the existence of God, but recognizes the existence of God
through a transcendental experience and expresses it through a categorical
knowledge. For this reason, it is comprehensible when someone does not accept
the existence of God, because nobody can demonstrate a reality that is beyond
himself and his or her capacity. What the human being can demonstrate belongs
to the same ontological level with the human being, but God is beyond the human
being. This idea is similar to a famous Chinese thinker:
“The Way that can be described
is not the eternal Way. The name that can be spoken is not the eternal Name.”[1]
Once
human beings accept transcendental knowledge, they can talk about God as
thematical knowledge. There is a correlation between the transcendental and
categorical knowledge. Here we can remember what Emmanuel Kant called the noumena
and the phenomena, and that, according to Kant, the human being should accept
three transcendental realities: immortality of soul, freedom of the human
being, and existence of God. These three realities are not demonstrated, so the
human being must postulate them.
Transcendental
condition is supposed to recognize or understand the Christian reality, for
example,
“An act of hope in one’s own
resurrection is something which takes place in every person by transcendental
necessity either in the mode of free acceptance or of free rejection. For every
person wants to survive in some final and definitive sense, and experiences
this claim in his acts of freedom and responsibility, whether he is able to
make this implication of the exercise of his freedom thematic or not, and
whether he accepts it in faith or rejects it in despair.”[2]
In
Christian language, the human being is a “person who is to be hearer of the
Christian message.”[3] The human
being is a person and a subject who can transcend the finite things, and is
responsible for his or her acts of freedom. From finite things the human being
recognizes the infinite being. From intelligent reality the human being
recognizes the absolute intellect. From the love of person the human being
recognizes God as a person who loves. The transcendental method is supposed in
theology.
Rahner’s
audience is Christians, so he started his theology with Christian dogmas. He
did his Christology from below and from above. In other words, Rahner began his
theology with the Christian belief “Jesus is God incarnate” as a dogmatic
theologian.
“In connection with this I would
call attention right away to the following: in giving a justification for our
faith in Christ, the basic and decisive point of departure, of course, lies in
an encounter with the historical Jesus of Nazareth, and hence in an “ascending
Christology.” To this extent the terms “incarnation of God” and “incarnation of
the eternal Logos” are the end and not the starting point of all Christological
reflection. Nevertheless, we need not exaggerate the one-directional nature of
such an ascending Christology. If Jesus as the Christ has ever actually
encountered someone, the idea of a God-Man, of God coming into our history, and
hence a descending Christology, also has its own significance and power. If in
what follows, then, ascending Christology and descending Christology appear
somewhat intermingled, this is to be admitted without hesitation at the outset.
It need not be a disadvantage, but rather it can serve as a mutual
clarification of both of these aspects and both of these methods.”[4]
Rahner
is a dogmatic theologian, so even though he talked of fundamental theology,
which is the foundation of theology, it is understood that it is written to
Christians who have already the same transcendental suppositions.
Peter
Schineller classified theologies in four categories based on their positions in
regard to Christ and Church. The first one regards Jesus Christ and Church as constitutive
and exclusive way of salvation. The second one considers Jesus and Church as
constitutive but not exclusive way of salvation. The third views Jesus and
Church as normative but not constitutive way of salvation. The fourth one holds
that Jesus Christ is one of many ways of salvation.[5]
For an inclusivist theologian as Rahner, the problem “Jesus Christ in
Non-Christian Religions” is important. By a non-Christian view, Christ is not
absolute, is not God incarnate, and is not Christ for them.
For
Rahner, Jesus is “the unsurpassable climax of all revelation”:
“Insofar as this revelation has
a history because of the historicity of reflection upon God’s self-gift to man
in grace- and indeed this history is differentiated within universal history-
the history of revelation has its absolute climax when God’s self-communication
reaches its unsurpassable high point through the hypostatic union and in the
incarnation of God in the created, spiritual reality of Jesus for his own sake,
and hence for the sake of all of us. But this takes place in the incarnation of
the Logos because here what is expressed and communicated, namely, God himself,
and, secondly, the mode of expression, that is, the human reality of Christ in
his life and in his final state, and, thirdly, the recipient Jesus in grace and
in the vision of God, all three have become absolutely one.”[6]
Jesus
Christ is also present in non-Christian religions, but when affirming this
Rahner must stand on dogmatic theology.[7]
Nobody can affirm the Absoluteness of Jesus Christ without Christian faith;
otherwise there would be no other religions.
For
Rahner, world religions exist as a fact, but it is better for them to disappear
before Christianity; more precisely, they can be a means God uses to save their
respective believers, but they all are saved by Jesus Christ.
In
summary, Rahner’s theology supposes transcendental anthropology and Christian
dogmas. His theology is addressed to Christians. Rahner’s theology is suitable
to Christians, but not non-Christian believers.
Edward
Schillebeeckx in the beginning of his life adopted the Christological dogma of
Chalcedon as the starting point of his theology.
In
early time of his life, Schillebeeckx’s Christology is based upon the
incarnation mystery expressed in the Chalcedon council. Schillebeeckx’s
theology supposes a fundamental idea:
“We are able to reach God only
by way of creatures, this desire is by its nature powerless.”[8]
“Personal communion with God is possible only in and through God’s own generous
initiative in coming to meet us in grace.”[9]
Salvation
possesses a sacramental characteristic that includes religion as “by way of
creatures”. Religion is above all a saving dialogue between man and the living
God. It is therefore essentially a personal relation of man to God, a personal
encounter or a personal communing with God.[10]
Grace never comes just interiorly. To separate religion from Church is
ultimately to destroy the life of religion. If one is to serve God, to be
religious, one must also live by Church and sacrament.[11]
Schillebeeckx’s
Christology started with the dogmatic definition of Chalcedon “one person in
two natures”.
“The incarnation is the whole
life of Christ, from his conception in the womb, through all his further life
of action, completed finally in his death, resurrection and being established
as Lord and sender of the Paraclete; it is prolonged everlastingly in his
uninterrupted sending of the Holy Spirit.”[12]
From
this incarnation view, Schillebeeckx built his Christology. Jesus is God
incarnate, so acts of Jesus are acts of God. Jesus expresses the love of God
Father to human beings.[13]
Jesus’ death became the means of redemption.[14]
Christ is the sacrament by which human beings encounter God. The Church,
established by Christ as His presence in the world, is the sacrament by which
human beings encounter God as well.
For
young Schillebeeckx the Church is constitutive of all human salvation. Jesus
Christ is the one person in two natures. He is God in a human way, and He is
man in a divine way. Everything he does as man is an act of the Son of God. His
love for human beings is God’s love for humankind. Jesus Christ is the sacrament
by which God wants to save human beings.
The
Church is the People of God. Jesus Christ, through his death and resurrection,
becomes the head of the People of God. The earthly Church is the visible
realization of this saving reality in history. It is a visible communion in
grace, and is the visible expression of Christ’s grace and redemption, realized
in the form of a society that is a sign.
“The Church therefore is not
merely a means of salvation. It is Christ’ salvation itself, this salvation as visibly
realized in this word. Thus it is, by a kind of identity, the body of the
Lord.”[15]
“What Christ is doing invisibly
in this world through his Spirit, he is at the same time doing visibly through
the mission of his apostles and of the members of the Church community.”[16]
“The earthly body of the Lord,
the Church, is at the same time the Lord’s pleroma; being filled with Christ,
it in turn fills the faithful.”[17]
The
Church realizes the redemptive work of Christ by celebrating the sevenfold
ecclesial realization that is seven sacraments.
Therefore,
nobody, even those outside of the Church, can be saved without Jesus Christ who
is the Son of God incarnate. Nobody can be saved without belonging to the
Church, which implies a personal relationship between man and God.[18]
“If one is to serve God, to be
religious, one must also live by Church and sacrament.”[19]
The
Church is constitutive means that God uses it to save all human beings.
Religions
and churches are the sacrament of salvation in the world. Thus, in his early
life Schillebeeckx wrote that the Church is “a visible communion in grace,”[20]
and it is Jesus’ redemptive community, established by God, having its head as
Jesus Christ, assembled in his death, the Church is “the visible expression of
Christ’s grace and redemption, realized in the form of a society which is a
sign (societas signum).”[21]
The Church therefore is not merely a means of salvation, but also “Christ’s
salvation itself, this salvation as visibly realized in this world. Thus it is,
by a kind of identity, the body of the Lord.”[22]
For
young Schillebeeckx, the audience of his writings is Christians. Therefore, we
recognize the similarity between Rahner and Schillebeeckx.
There
is a shift of audience for Schillebeeckx’s writings, so there is a change of
starting point. The audience of early Schillebeeckx is Christians of the
“perennis” mentality, but the audience of later Schillebeeckx is Christians of
the post-modern mentality, in his own language, “marginal” Christians of the
Church. Because people today are informed by a scientific mentality,
Schillebeeckx used the secular world as data.
Experiences
of this secular world and theology as science are foundational to
Schillebeeckx’s theology. Human beings today are understanding realities in
their own way through their experiences. Moreover, revelation occurs through
their experiences.
For
Schillebeeckx, there can be no revelation without experience.[23]
By experiences in daily life, human beings discover the world around them.
Revelation supposes experiences of the world and relations between human
beings. Through revelation, human beings have faith in the ultimate Reality.
Christian revelation includes the experiences of Abraham, Moses, God’s people
during the Exodus, the history of Israel, and the experiences of the apostles
and the early disciples of Jesus. Therefore, Christianity is a religion of
revelation in history and is based on experiences.
Revelation
includes experiences about reality. These experiences which are described in
first person in language come from witnesses. The experiences of witnesses become
testimonies for believers who heard and answered by faith. Someone can receive
revelation as experiences of another, but the believer himself has to live that
experience. “Faith comes from hearing, but it is completed and mediated only in
a personal experience”[24].
The
negative experiences that culminate in human histories of suffering cause us to
revise previous insights on the basis of the resistance of reality, and create
opportunities to understand or accept revelation.
“The great moments of the revelation
of reality lie here in and through the finite experiences of human beings… The
deepest experiences that dislocate and bear along our lives are thus also
conversion experiences, cross- experiences that force us to a change of
meaning, action and being. Such experiences destroy and fragment us, but only
for the sake of leading to a new integration.”
[25]
Secularization in the view that God works continually
in the world is a positive phenomenon through that human beings can experience
God. Thus, the world that is created is the work of God from the first time on.
The world belongs to God, depends upon God, but is not identified with God.
Human beings rely on the laws of nature, for example of physics, of psychology
and etc., but human beings are free and responsible beings. Today human beings
take reason as the most precious standard of judgment; consequently for some
people Christian beliefs are not of the same value as they were in former time.
All is created by God and therefore is always the prestige of God. Thus
Christians can talk about God to human beings through the creatures of the
secularized world. That human beings live according to their reason is also a
sign of human beings’ development. We have to believe in God and in human
beings, even in the secularized world.
“In searching for the elements
of secular experience which could point toward mystery, theological analysis
should begin with man’s basic pre-reflexive trust in life and his
self-commitment to the goodness and meaningfulness of human existence.”[26]
Distinguishing
the phenomenon of secularization and its interpretation, and believing that God
works always in his creatures at any time, the Christian will be an optimist to
talk about God in any situation.
Critical
theory with its rational, empirical and practical characteristics influenced
Schillebeeckx’s theology. Thus, for Schillebeeckx, there are two theological
views. One is classical and one is new.
“The new theology can be
positively defined as a science which is based on a rational, empirically
deduced theory which can only be formulated after the results of religious
sociology and psychology have been fully assimilated and worked out.”[27]
Schillebeeckx’s
theology is rational. Similarly, critical theory is to be found in the critical
movement of the enlightenment, trying to bring the church’s tradition to be
understood by means of hermeneutics.[28]
In other words, “this theology is a rational and empirically deduced theory.”[29]
Schillebeeckx’s
theology has also empirical characteristic by means of the secularized world
with negative experiences of contrast as data.
“Insofar as they are empirical
data, religion, Christianity and the church all belong to those social forms
the structure and function of which merit specific analysis.”[30]
If theology is not conscious of this need and has not assimilated critical
theory into its own design, it may well become an unscientific ideology.[31]
Praxis
is another characteristic of his theology.
“The relationship between theory
and praxis as worked out by Habermas especially is, of course, of great
importance to us if we want to understand correctly the hermeneutic process of
this actualising theology… Critical theory’s understanding of itself as the
self-consciousness of a critical praxis is also undoubtedly correct.”[32]
“Theology is the critical
self-consciousness of Christian praxis in the world and the church.”[33]
Schillebeeckx
wants to build his theology as a science: secularized world with negative
experiences of contrast as data, his theology as postulate proposed and being
verified by praxis.
Relation between dogmatic meaning and forms of
expression
In
the course of history the dogmatic meaning rests unchanged but the forms of its
expression are possible to be changed. The word dogma had various meanings, for
example, the divine edict in Hellenistic Judaism, every truth directly revealed
either explicitly or implicitly by God at the time of the Renaissance, only
those truths of faith called dogmas in canon law of 1917, only truths revealed
by God and as such defined by the Church’s extraordinary teaching authority in
a stricter sense. So dogmas are the Church’s authentic expressions of a reality
of revelation.[34]
With
Catholic faith, all dogmas that express the Catholic belief are true. However,
with time the human understanding of human beings changes, therefore, some
dogmas do not express exactly what they did in times past, so the Church needs
to reinterpret dogmas. The reinterpretation of dogma can therefore have both an
orthodox and an unorthodox significance.
Theologians
need to distinguish between truth in itself and truth as a spiritual possession
of man as some modernists did.[35]
There are some various thoughts about concepts, for example, in idealism human thought
produces its contents and therefore truth. With “representational realism” the
content of our concepts is an exact reflection of reality without any reference
to a human act which confers meaning. In modern phenomenologists the objective
signification of a reality can be found only in the meaning that this reality
has in relation to man. In “philosophia perennis” implicit in the relative
meanings given by man, there is an absolute meaning in reality.[36]
All
formulation has its limit. So the movement towards the reality of salvation by
means of dogma has to be satisfied with imperfect concepts.[37]
Reinterpretation
of formulae of faith is important work. It helps people today to better
understand God and his revelation. Thus, the development of doctrine is the
Church’s effort to express correctly God or truths revealed through dogmas and
authoritative teachings. This work is also the goal of hermeneutics in
protestant theology.[38]
For
Schillebeeckx, reinterpretation of the dogmas is very important, otherwise
Christians could not understand correctly what is revealed and could be
unfaithful to revelation:
“It will become clear why living
orthodoxy can be attained only within a reinterpretative present-day
understanding of faith which is faithful to the biblical interpretation of
faith. We can, after all, never dispense with interpretation of a
previously given (and originally, a biblical) interpretation, which becomes
authentically understood precisely in the reinterpretation.”[39]
He
continued:
“Simply to repeat the
earlier formulae of faith word-for-word is to misconceive the
historicity of our existence as men and is therefore a grave danger to
genuinely biblical orthodoxy.”[40]
Reinterpretation
of dogma is to say the same thing in a different way. For Schillebeeckx,
“the road that led from the
Bible to Chalcedon is no different from that which led, for example, from the
original image of Christ to that of the synoptic and Paul and later to that of
John.”[41]
For
Schillebeeckx, principles to reinterpret of dogma are not only “the kernel and
its mode of expression”[42] or “what is said” (das Gesagte) and “what is
intended” (das Gemeinte)[43] but also “the past in the light of the present”[44] and “both the present and the past within the sphere
of the promise”[45] and “permanence in the present, past and future.”[46]
The
Church is not the principle of hermeneutics,[47] but the Christian reality of faith is brought to
light and thus brought to the world in the Church, so theology, which is an ecclesial
and apostolic undertaking, must be done within the Church in the service of the
world.[48]
For
Schillebeeckx, creation, and eschatological imagination, and Jesus Christ are
principal axes of theology.
God
willed to create the world as it is and human beings as they are.[49]
Thus, dualist and emanationary views regarding the finitude of human beings
come from the evil or from the concern to preserve God’s transcendence, but the
correct Christian view has to recognize that the creature is made as it is. If
the creation notion were truly understood the world would be respected as it
must be, and human beings would find God in the creature.
“God remains in and with the
contingent, the other-than-God, the world in its nature as world, and mankind
in its autonomous but finite humanity.”[50]
The
creature as it is, created by God, reflects God, and becomes the locus where
human beings encounter God and perfect themselves. The finitude of human beings
did not come from another but from God. Creation is a symbol of God’s presence
to reality, because God is transcendent and immanent in the world. Therefore,
through and in creature, even through and in their own finitude human beings
recognize and depend upon God.
“Nature and history are
authorities in which and through which God discloses himself as creator, in and
through our fundamental experiences of finitude.”[51]
God
creates human beings as a principle of his own human action, who will thus
himself shape the world and its future and bring his plans into effect within
contingent situations.
“Christian salvation is
salvation of and for human beings, not simply the salvation of souls but the
healings, making whole, wholeness, of the whole person, the individual and
society, in a natural world which is not abused. Thus Christian salvation also
comprises ecological, social and political aspects, though it is not exhausted
by these.”[52]
Hence,
there is not salvation outside the world (extra mundum nulla salus).
Eschatological
imagination is very important in Schillebeeckx’s theology. Eschatology treats
problems related to human beings such as death, resurrection, eternal life and
salvation. Schillebeeckx so concerned about the people of today that it could
be said that his theology has as its point of departure the secularized world.
Eschatology
is related very closely to Christology. For Christians, death is presupposed by
belief in the resurrection and particularly the physical resurrection of Jesus.
“For without this resurrection
Jesus of Nazareth is one of the many utopias.”[53]
He
continued:
“Thus belief in the physical
resurrection is openness to an event, an event which is not identical with
dying itself, but is rather the free event of God’s own divinity which
overcomes even death.”[54]
Eschatology
is related to the Church, because the Church is the present and eschatological
reality. Eschatology is connected intimately to human beings and their ways of
living. Schillebeeckx states that eschatology supposes:
“understanding and trusting God
on the basis of Jesus’ life and death, that is, looking through Jesus to God,
means coming to terms with our own incompleteness, with the character of our
existence which is not justified and not reconciled. A Christian who believes
in the resurrection is therefore freed from the pressure to justify himself and
from the demand that God should publicly take under his protection and ratify
all those who believe in him.”[55]
He
continues:
“Like Jesus, the Christian dares
to entrust himself and the justification for his life to God; he is prepared to
receive this justification only where Jesus did: beyond death.”[56]
Creation
is an event that happened in the past. No one was eyewitness to this event;
eschatology is what will happen in the future that no one has yet seen. By
Jesus Christ the Church guessed and foresaw creation and eschatology and
therefore knows how to live in the world today.
The
role of Jesus Christ in the salvation of all human beings is a great
theological problem for pluralist theologians. It includes problem of the
salvation of people who lived before and after Jesus. If people before Jesus
were saved by Jesus Christ, then all human beings are saved by Jesus Christ. The
scholastic theology explained it by anticipation. God wants to save all human
beings, and in the eternal design Jesus will exist. Therefore, everyone would
be saved or not by choosing the good or the bad, by choosing Jesus Christ in
the case he recognized him as God incarnate.
“The world and human history in
which God wills to bring about salvation are the basis of the whole reality of
faith; it is there that salvation is achieved in the first instance… or
salvation is rejected and disaster is brought about. In this sense it is true
that extra mundum nulla salus, there is no salvation outside the humanum
world.”[57]
For
Schillebeeckx, salvation is very concretely found in Jesus Christ.
“The universality of Christian
salvation is an offer of salvation from God to all men and women…. The
salvation that is founded in Christ as a promise for all becomes universal, not
through the mediation of an abstract, universal idea, but by the power of its
cognitive, critical and liberating character in and through a consistent praxis
of the kingdom of God. So this is not a purely speculative, theoretical
universality, but a universality which can be realized in the fragmentary forms
of our history only through the spreading of the story of Jesus confessed by
Christians as the Christ, and through Christian praxis.”[58]
Jesus
is unique, and his message is universal to human beings.
“The God of all men and women
shows in Jesus of Nazareth who he is, namely universal love for men and women.
Jesus Christ is the historical, culturally located expression of this universal
message of the gospel.”[59]
However
if Jesus is not absolute,[60]
he cannot be the cause of the salvation of all people.
Late
in his life, Schillebeeckx thought that religions and churches were not salvation,
but, of the order of the sign, a sacrament of salvation.[61]
Belief is a constitutive element of all religions. Belief in God as the ground
and source of our world and the history of human liberation in the midst of all
kinds of chance, determination and indeterminacy, is not merely a belief in the
existence of God.
“It is belief in God as
salvation of and for human beings whom he brought to life in this world. It is
a belief in God’s absolute saving presence among men and women in their
history.”[62]
The
world of creation is the sphere of God’s saving action in and through human
mediation. “The history of the religions is only one segment of a
broader history; the religions are the place where men and women become
explicitly aware of God’s saving actions in history.”[63]
In
Christianity, Christians experience Jesus as the supreme density of divine
revelation in a whole history of experiences of revelation.[64]
Christians find God above all in Jesus Christ.[65]
The Holy Spirit is considered as source and foundation of all authority,
including official authority, in the church, and the variety of instruments
through which it works.[66]
“There are also intrinsic
ecclesiological reasons for preferring a democratic exercise of ministerial
authority in the church to oligarchical, monarchical or feudal forms of
government.”[67]
Previous
to this, Schillebeeckx had used Nicea’s dogma as a starting point for his
Christology.[68] He
developed his Christology with traditional formulas. Later, however,
Schillebeeckx would assert, “although institutions and dogmatic positions are
essential aspects of religion, they remain subordinate to religious
experience.”[69]
“Doctrine merely serves to hand
on and call forth experiences which have already been had. The doctrine itself
is only a considered ordering and reflection upon the content of salvation, of
which Christians have had an interpretative perception in the event of Jesus.”[70]
For
Schillebeeckx in his late life, Jesus is one among others and the Catholic
Church is one among other religions God used to save humankind.
Rahner
and the Young Schillebeeckx have the same audience that is Catholics, and the
same starting point of theology, namely, the Christological dogma of Chalcedon.
Therefore, Rahner and young Schillebeeckx’s theologies are very “traditional”
by the Roman Catholic view. In that time, for both Rahner and Schillebeeckx,
Jesus Christ is God incarnate, so Jesus is the Absolute and constitutive
salvation of all humankind. Moreover, since human beings need mediation for encountering
God, the Church is the necessary means of salvation.
Late
in his life Schillebeeckx wrote to “non-believers and marginal Catholics.”[71]
It is the audience that makes Schillebeeckx change his methodology. Thus,
non-believers and marginal Catholics, who are people in the modern world living
and thinking in the way of modern sciences. First, about the starting point of
theology, they don’t accept Christian belief simply on the authority of others,
but accept only what they see or experience in their daily lives and can be
experimented on or proved, so Schillebeeckx took the starting point of his
theology that is this secularized world as data for theological reflection. For
Schillebeeckx in his late life, Catholic dogmas are no longer supposed as standards
to build his theology. Secondly, Schillebeeckx considered theology as science
which is rational and universal to everyone, not only Christians but also
non-Christian believers. Therefore, both human reason and the pragmatism are
the standards to judge the validity of theologies according to Schillebeeckx.
In
summary, it is the audience and thereby the methodology, which make Rahner and
Schillebeeckx’s theologies different. Rahner’s theology is more appropriate to
Roman Catholics, and Schillebeeckx’s theology is more fitting to American
Catholics and even non-Christian believers.
Rahner, Karl. Foundations of Christian Faith: An
Introduction to the Idea of Christianity. New York: Crossroad, 1995.
Rahner, Karl. Esprit dans le Monde. Mame, 1965.
Rahner, Karl. A l’ Ecoute du Verbe. Mame,
1969.
Schineller, J. Peter, S.J.. “Christ and Church: a
Spectrum of views”, in Theological Studies 37 (1976).
Schillebeeckx, Edward. Christ the Sacrament of the
Encounter with God. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963.
Schillebeeckx, Edward. Christ: The Experience of Jesus
as Lord. New York: Crossroad, 1981.
Schillebeeckx, Edward. "Experience and Faith"
in Christlicher Glaube in Moderner Gesellschaft, XXIV
Schillebeeckx, Edward. "Five Questions Facing the
Church Today" in The Crucial Questions: On Problems Facing the
Church Today. Ed. by Frank Fehmers. New York: Newman Press, 1969
Schillebeeckx, Edward. The Understanding of Faith:
Interpretation and criticism. New York: Seabury Press, 1974
Schillebeeckx, Edward. Revelation and Theology.
Translated N.D. Smith. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968
Schillebeeckx, Edward. God the Future of Man.
New York: Sheed & Ward, 1968
Schillebeeckx, Edward. God Among Us: The Gospel
Proclaimed. New York: Crossroad, 1983.
Schillebeeckx, Edward. Church: The Human Story of God.
New York: Crossroad, 1990.
Schillebeeckx, Edward. Christ the Sacrament of the
Encounter with God. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963.
Schillebeeckx, E.. Interim Report on the books Jesus
& Christ. New York: Crossroad, 1981.
Schoof, Ted. The Schillebeeckx Case: Official Exchange
of Letter and Documents in the Investigation of Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx by the
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1976-1980.
New York: Paulist Press, 1984.
HOME SOME THEMES IN ENGLISH THEOLOGICAL THEMES AUDIENCE AND METHOD
Chúc bạn an vui hạnh
phúc.
Giuse Phạm Thanh Liêm, S.J.
[1] Tao Te Ching, 1
[2] K. Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity, (New York: Crossroad, 1995) p. 268.
[3] Karl Rahner, Op. cit., p. 24
[4] K. Rahner, Op. cit., p. 177
[5] J. Peter Schineller, S.J., “Christ and Church: a Spectrum of views”, in Theological Studies 37 (1976) pp. 545-566.
[6] K. Rahner, Op. cit., p. 174
[7] K. Rahner, Op. cit., p. 312-313
[8] E. Schillebeeckx, Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God, (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1971) p. 4.
[9] Ibidem
[10] E. Schillebeeckx, Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God, (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1971) p. 4.
[11] E. Schillebeeckx, Op. cit., p. 10
[12] E. Schillebeeckx, Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God, (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1971) p. 25.
[13] E. Schillebeeckx, Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God, (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1971) p. 17.
[14] E. Schillebeeckx, Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God, (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1971) p. 20.
[15] E. Schillebeeckx, Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God, (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963), p. 48.
[16] E. Schillebeeckx, Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God, (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963), p. 50.
[17] E. Schillebeeckx, Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God, (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963), p. 51.
[18] E. Schillebeeckx, Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God, (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963), p. 4.
[19] E. Schillebeeckx, Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God, (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963), p. 10.
[20] E. Schillebeeckx, Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God, (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963), p. 47.
[21] E. Schillebeeckx, Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God, (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963), p. 48.
[22] E. Schillebeeckx, Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God, (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963), p. 48.
[23] Edward Schillebeeckx, Christ: The Experience of Jesus as Lord (New York: Crossroad, 1981), p. 45.
[24] Edward Schillebeeckx, "Experience and Faith," Christlicher Glaube in Moderner Gesellschaft, XXIV, p. 3.
[25] Edward Schillebeeckx, "Experience and Faith," Christlicher Glaube in Moderner Gesellschaft, XXIV, p. 9.
[26] Edward Schillebeeckx, "Five Questions Facing the Church Today," The Crucial Questions: On Problems Facing the Church Today, ed. by Frank Fehmers (New York: Newman Press, 1969), p. 54.
[27] E. Schillebeeckx, The Understanding of Faith: Interpretation and criticism (New York: Seabury Press, 1974), p. 136.
[28] Edward Schillebeeckx, Op. cit., p. 102
[29] Edward Schillebeeckx, Op. cit., p. 112
[30] Edward Schillebeeckx, Op. cit., p. 140
[31] Edward Schillebeeckx, Op. cit., p. 140
[32] Edward Schillebeeckx, Op. cit., p. 142
[33] Edward Schillebeeckx, Op. cit., p. 154
[34] E. Schillebeeckx, Revelation and Theology, translated N.D. Smith (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968), pp. 23-24.
[35] E. Schillebeeckx, Revelation and Theology, translated N.D. Smith (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968), p. 13.
[36] E. Schillebeeckx, Revelation and Theology, translated N.D. Smith (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968), p. 5-6.
[37] E. Schillebeeckx, Revelation and Theology, translated N.D. Smith (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968), p. 26.
[38] Edward Schillebeeckx, God the Future of Man, (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1968), p. 6.
[39] Edward Schillebeeckx, God the Future of Man, (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1968), p. 21.
[40] Edward Schillebeeckx, God the Future of Man, (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1968), p. 24.
[41] Edward Schillebeeckx, God the Future of Man, (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1968), p. 7.
[42] Edward Schillebeeckx, God the Future of Man, (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1968), p. 10.
[43] Edward Schillebeeckx, God the Future of Man, (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1968), p. 13.
[44] Edward Schillebeeckx, God the Future of Man, (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1968), p. 21.
[45] Edward Schillebeeckx, God the Future of Man, (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1968), p. 35.
[46] Edward Schillebeeckx, God the Future of Man, (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1968), p. 38.
[47] Edward Schillebeeckx, God the Future of Man, (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1968), p. 17.
[48] Edward Schillebeeckx, God the Future of Man, (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1968), p. 43.
[49] Edward Schillebeeckx, God Among Us: The Gospel Proclaimed, (New York: Crossroad, 1983), p. 91.
[50] Edward Schillebeeckx, God Among Us: The Gospel Proclaimed, (New York: Crossroad, 1983), p. 93.
[51] Edward Schillebeeckx, God Among Us: The Gospel Proclaimed, (New York: Crossroad, 1983), p. 91.
[52] Edward Schillebeeckx, God Among Us: The Gospel Proclaimed, (New York: Crossroad, 1983), p. 100.
[53] Edward Schillebeeckx, God Among Us: The Gospel Proclaimed, (New York: Crossroad, 1983), p. 134.
[54] Edward Schillebeeckx, God Among Us: The Gospel Proclaimed, (New York: Crossroad, 1983), p. 135.
[55] Edward Schillebeeckx, God Among Us: The Gospel Proclaimed, (New York: Crossroad, 1983), p. 136.
[56] Edward Schillebeeckx, God Among Us: The Gospel Proclaimed, (New York: Crossroad, 1983), p. 136.
[57] Edward Schillebeeckx, Church: The Human Story of God, (New York: Crossroad, 1990), p. 12.
[58] Edward Schillebeeckx, Church: The Human Story of God, (New York: Crossroad, 1990), p. 176.
[59] Edward Schillebeeckx, Church: The Human Story of God, (New York: Crossroad, 1990), p. 179.
[60] Edward Schillebeeckx, Church: The Human Story of God, (New York: Crossroad, 1990), p. 165-166.
[61] Edward Schillebeeckx, Church: The Human Story of God, (New York: Crossroad, 1990), p. 13.
[62] Edward Schillebeeckx, Church: The Human Story of God, (New York: Crossroad, 1990), p. 11.
[63] Edward Schillebeeckx, Church: The Human Story of God, (New York: Crossroad, 1990), p. 12.
[64] Edward Schillebeeckx, Church: The Human Story of God, (New York: Crossroad, 1990), p. 26.
[65] Edward Schillebeeckx, Church: The Human Story of God, (New York: Crossroad, 1990), pp. 102 ff
[66] Edward Schillebeeckx, Church: The Human Story of God, (New York: Crossroad, 1990), pp. 216 ff
[67] Edward Schillebeeckx, Church: The Human Story of God, (New York: Crossroad, 1990), p. 220
[68] E. Schillebeeckx, Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God, (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963), pp. 13ff
[69] Edward Schillebeeckx, Interim Report on the books Jesus & Christ, (New York: Crossroad, 1981), p. 5.
[70] Edward Schillebeeckx, Interim Report on the books Jesus & Christ, (New York: Crossroad, 1981), p. 8.
[71] Edit. Ted Schoof, The Schillebeeckx Case: Official Exchange of Letter and Documents in the Investigation of Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1976-1980, (New York: Paulist Press, 1984), p. 119.