- John R. Betz
- Martin Bieler
- Peter Casarella
- J. Augustine Di Noia
- Michael Hanby
- David Bentley Hart
- Reinhard Hütter
- Bruce D. Marshall
- Bruce L. McCormack
- Kenneth Oakes
- Richard Schenk
- John Webster
- Thomas Joseph White
- John R. Betz
- Martin Bieler
- Peter Casarella
- J. Augustine Di Noia
- Michael Hanby
- David Bentley Hart
- Reinhard Hütter
- Bruce D. Marshall
- Bruce L. McCormack
- Kenneth Oakes
- Richard Schenk
- John Webster
- Thomas Joseph White
Analogy of Being: Invention of the Antichrist or Wisdom of God?
456
Analogy of Being: Invention of the Antichrist or Wisdom of God?
456Paperback
-
PICK UP IN STORECheck Availability at Nearby Stores
Available within 2 business hours
Related collections and offers
Overview
- John R. Betz
- Martin Bieler
- Peter Casarella
- J. Augustine Di Noia
- Michael Hanby
- David Bentley Hart
- Reinhard Hütter
- Bruce D. Marshall
- Bruce L. McCormack
- Kenneth Oakes
- Richard Schenk
- John Webster
- Thomas Joseph White
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780802865335 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Eerdmans, William B. Publishing Company |
| Publication date: | 12/01/2010 |
| Pages: | 456 |
| Product dimensions: | 6.00(w) x 8.90(h) x 1.20(d) |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
The Analogy of Being
Invention of the Antichrist or the Wisdom of God?William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
Copyright © 2011 William B. Eerdmans Publishing CompanyAll right reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-8028-6533-5
Chapter One
After Barth: A New Introduction to Erich Przywara's Analogia EntisJohn R. Betz
As a consequence of Erich Przywara's work — which cannot be admired enough — the term analogia entis developed into a controversial theological formula that has doubtless been invoked more often than it has been even remotely understood. — Eberhard Jüngel
It is, of course, not unheard of in the history of Christianity for theological doctrines to turn upon a single phrase — such as homoousios (concerning the divinity of Christ as the incarnate Son), filioque (concerning the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son), and the Reformation's shibboleth sola fide (concerning salvation), to name some of the most obvious examples. In the first decades of the twentieth century, however, at least in Germany, no single phrase was the subject of more theological controversy than the seemingly innocuous metaphysical term analogia entis. Compared with the significance of these other catchphrases, the analogia entis might not seem especially important. Indeed, an outsider to this controversy might legitimately think it a suitable matter of discussion for specialists and academic theologians who have the time to be exercised by abstruse metaphysical questions, but hardly relevant to the church — and the beliefs of Christians — at large.
And yet, as the participants in the debate recognized, what was at issue with the analogia entis was not just any theological doctrine, but in some sense the most basic of all doctrines: the doctrine of the relation between God and creation. To Erich Przywara, S.J., its most important and brilliant proponent, it was a succinct way of stating the Catholic understanding of creation over against what he perceived to be the dialectical extremes of "pantheism" (ancient and modern) and Lutheran-Reformed "theopanism" (as he saw exemplified in the theology of the early Barth). To Karl Barth, however, its most vociferous critic, the analogia entis represented everything that was wrong with natural theology and, by extension, the Catholic Church. In fact, in the preface to his Church Dogmatics, he went so far as to denounce the analogia entis as "the invention of Antichrist," and to say that, by comparison, all other reasons for not becoming Catholic were "shortsighted" and "frivolous."
The tenor of these remarks is familiar; Barth expresses himself with similar vehemence in such works as his Römerbrief (1922) and his Nein! Antwort an Emil Brunner (1934). On the face of it, therefore, one could reasonably take such remarks as simply another example of his characteristically bombastic, hyperbolic style — as exaggerated rhetoric and nothing more. And yet, as was the case with these other works, it is clear that Barth was quite serious. Indeed, from the programmatic nature of his preface, there is no denying that he viewed the analogia entis (metonymically identified with the Catholic Church) as antithetical to the entire project of his Church Dogmatics, in which he proposes to steer his own via media between the supposed Scylla of Roman Catholicism and the Charybdis of liberal Protestantism. For any number of reasons, therefore, his charges against the analogia entis continue to warrant careful consideration — on the part of Catholic theologians, who would want to defend or clarify the teachings of the church; on the part of Reformed theologians, who may wish to reassess their own position; and on the part of anyone interested in the possibility of ecumenical dialogue, which Barth's peremptory verdict perhaps prematurely foreclosed.
Of course, it may turn out upon more careful examination of Przywara's doctrine that Barth was mistaken about the analogia entis; it may be, in von Balthasar's judgment, that "nothing whatever can be found of that ogre Barth has made of the analogy of being." Before any final judgments can be made, however, it would seem obligatory to know what Przywara himself understood by the analogia entis, since it was Przywara whom Barth had in mind in rejecting it — and, with it, the Catholic Church. Is the analogia entis a refurbished version of natural theology, which gives the creature a metaphysical "hold" on God and thereby compromises the novelty and due theological priority of faith and revelation, as Barth seems to have feared? Or is it, beyond the sphere of natural theology, a formal principle that pertains even to the content of faith and revelation, as Przywara tirelessly insisted? To put it as sharply as possible, is the analogia entis "the invention of Antichrist," or is it in fact a doctrine based in and commended by Scripture, which declares in a passage echoed in Paul's letter to the Romans: "From the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator" (Wis. 13:5; cf. Rom. 1:20)?
Unfortunately, any effort to answer these questions today is greatly hindered by the fact that what the analogia entis actually means (or at least what it meant to Erich Przywara) has to a great extent been forgotten — along with any memory of Przywara himself, around whom, like the quiet center of a storm, this great theological controversy turned. Admittedly, the term analogia entis is not original to Przywara; it can be traced back to Cajetan and can be found thereafter as a terminus technicus among the religious orders. But it was Przywara who reintroduced the term and gave it a more comprehensive meaning, transforming it, in the words of Karl Rahner, "from a scholastic technicality into the fundamental structure of Catholic theology." And, importantly, it was in this form that the analogia entis became the subject of ecumenical debate. In the following, therefore, as a matter of necessity, given his current obscurity, I will first give a brief account of Przywara's place in modern theology. Second, going back to the roots of the analogia entis in the philosophical and theological tradition, I will discuss its provenance both as a term and as a metaphysical concept. Third, I will set forth the meaning of the analogia entis as Przywara himself understood it: in his early work and lectures from 1922 to 1925, and then in his Religionsphilosophie katholischer Theologie (1926) and Analogia Entis (1932). Finally, with the real analogia entis in view, and not some chimera or caricature, I will assess the legitimacy of Barth's criticisms of it, asking whether Przywara was, after all, right to consider it a "fundamental form" of Catholic theology.
I. Erich Przywara (1889-1972)
In view of Przywara's prominence as a Catholic theologian among the intellectual elite of Europe during the first half of the twentieth century, it is somewhat baffling that he is so little known and studied today. To give some indication of his importance, he was a leading editor of the Jesuit journal Stimmen der Zeit from 1922 until it was shut down by the Nazis in 1941; he was a regular public lecturer (e.g., at the famous Davos seminar in 1928); and he was the prolific author of over forty monographs and as many as 800 articles and reviews. Aside from the Analogia Entis (1932), arguably the most important work of Catholic metaphysics in the twentieth century, these works include studies of Kierkegaard (1929), Kant (1930), and Hölderlin (1949); popular anthologies of Augustine and Newman (Przywara was also the editor of the first German edition of Newman's translated works); a massive three-volume commentary on Ignatius's Spiritual Exercises, entitled Deus Semper Maior (1938); an equally massive 900-page compilation Humanitas (1952), which covers a shocking range of thinkers and literary figures of the Western tradition from Heraclitus to Thomas Wolfe; several works of biblical exegesis, including Christentum gemäß Johannes (1954) and Alter und Neuer Bund (1956); a fascinating if somewhat arcane metaphysical anthropology, simply titled Mensch (1959); ecclesiological works such as Kirche in Gegensätzen (1962) and Katholische Krise (1967), not to mention several collections of hymns, prayers, liturgical reflections, and works of religious poetry.
Simply put, there is no German Catholic theologian of the first half of the twentieth century who can match the range of Przywara's erudition or the remarkable acuity of his intellect. And so it stands to reason that Barth felt compelled, in one way or another, to be in conversation with him—inviting him to his seminar in Münster in 1929 and in Bonn in 1931. As Barth describes Przywara in a letter from this time:
He also knows everything, everything which we think we know, except that, always right at the proper moment, he does not make use of it. The Catholic Church is becoming for me more and more the amazing phenomenon. In comparison, our Protestant opponents look very much like dwarfs, don't you think? ... This Jesuit was really something I had never seen before. He also told me that I too am for him the opponent par excellence. He is a little man with a large head, but that doesn't mean he is not the giant Goliath incarnate.
As C. Chalamet has commented, it would be "an understatement to say that Barth was impressed by Przywara," who remained for Barth as well the opponent par excellence, against whom even Barth's late doctrine of an analogia fidei (relationis) is defined.
If Przywara was this highly regarded by the most famous Protestant theologian of the twentieth century, he was no less admired by Karl Rahner and Hans Urs von Balthasar, his most famous students, who speak glowingly of Przywara as a teacher and clearly reflect in their own theologies particular aspects of his work and thought. Consider, for example, von Balthasar's remarkable statement in 1945 that Przywara was "the greatest spirit I was ever permitted to meet"; or the words of Rahner in 1965: "One must not forget Father Erich Przywara. For the Catholics of Germany in the twenties, thirties, and forties he was considered one of the greatest minds. He had a great influence on all of us when we were young."
It would seem that Rahner and von Balthasar first came into contact with Przywara during their philosophical studies at the Jesuit Berchmanskolleg (at the time in Pullach), just outside of Munich. In von Balthasar's case the fruit of his study with Przywara between 1930 and 1932 is reflected in his philosophical dissertation from 1933, "Erich Przywaras Philosophie der Analogie," and his thorough assimilation of Przywara's Analogia Entis, which he reviewed the same year in the Schweizerische Rundschau. By all accounts, von Balthasar's early study with Przywara, including his later collaboration with him as an editor of Stimmen der Zeit between 1936 and 1938, was formative. Indeed, as Werner Löser points out, Przywara's doctrine of analogy not only was fundamental to von Balthasar's own theology but remained throughout, allowing for certain modifications, at the center of von Balthasar's theology: "Von Balthasar never wavered from the conviction that the doctrine of the 'analogia entis' was of decisive significance for every right-thinking philosophy and theology. It determines, whether implicitly or explicitly, all the expressions of his thought." We should not be surprised, then, that von Balthasar speaks warmly of Przywara as the "old master," or that Przywara, in turn, speaks of von Balthasar as his friend and "old student." 18 Their friendship is reflected, furthermore, in the fact that von Balthasar defended Przywara in his book on Barth, that he apparently cared for Przywara during periods of illness, and that he edited and published the three-volume edition of his Schriften, which appeared in 1962. Though the extent of Rahner's early contact with Przywara is less clear, one can gauge something of his esteem and their later friendship from the fact that Rahner apparently made regular trips to Murnau to visit him until Przywara's death in 1972.
Another important Catholic figure he influenced was the recently canonized philosopher Edith Stein. Przywara was not only friend and spiritual director but also an important philosophical interlocutor. It was Przywara, for instance, in the capacity of a friend and spiritual director, who first suggested that Stein take up more intensive study of Aquinas by way of a translation of Aquinas's De veritate — a suggestion that decisively shaped the development of her philosophy, as is evident from her subsequent comparison of Husserl and Thomas, which appeared in Husserl's Festschrift in 1929. So, too, Przywara's Analogia Entis, which we know Stein to have read and to have commented upon, clearly pointed the way from phenomenology to metaphysics, given that (as a metaphysics) it begins precisely with phenomenological questions. And in general, it seems that throughout their friendship Przywara consistently encouraged Stein to develop her own philosophy. Not surprisingly, therefore, she notes in the preface to Finite and Eternal Being that the exchange of ideas that took place between them between 1925 and 1931 decisively influenced this work and continued to be a "powerful stimulus" when she subsequently resumed her philosophical research.
In any case, it is clear that Rahner, von Balthasar, and Stein all learned from Przywara and considered him a model Christian intellectual. For their part, Rahner and von Balthasar even indicate that Przywara's thought possesses an abiding significance — indeed an abiding novelty — that remains to be appreciated and is important for the future of the church. As von Balthasar puts it, "Whoever goes through [Przywara's] school, wherever one's own path may eventually lead, will bear the marks of this encounter in one's thought and life." Moreover, he says that "every return to the old master will leave one oddly shaken, perhaps because one comes to realize how much younger this old master has remained than all who have come after him." Elsewhere, von Balthasar spells out more precisely the ways in which Przywara's thought both anticipated the Second Vatican Council and remains a necessary "corrective" to some of its (perhaps) unintended effects:
[Przywara] had long anticipated the opening of the Church to the world [das All] that came with the council, but he possessed in addition the corrective that has not been applied in the way that the council's [teachings] have been inflected and broadly put into practice: namely, the elemental, downright Old Testament sense for the divinity of God, who is a consuming fire, a death-bringing sword, and a transporting love. Indeed, he alone possessed the language in which the word "God" could be heard without that touch of squeamishness that has led to the tepid, half-hearted talk of the average theology of today. He lives like themythical salamander in the fire: there, at the point where finite, creaturely being arises out of the infinite, where that indissoluble mystery holds sway that he baptized with the name analogia entis.
Rahner also recognized the novelty of his "old teacher" and his importance to the contemporary church. In his laudatio from 1967, for example, he admits that in the noisy marketplace of ideas Przywara's voice is hardly heard anymore. And yet he asks, "Does this mean that the Catholic generation of today has learned what it had to learn from him and, now that it is able to forget the old teacher, can continue nonchalantly to march along the path of the future of the Church without him?" "Without being a prophet," Rahner adds, "I feel compelled to say that we, the generation after him, as well as future generations still have critical things to learn from him." Indeed, he says, "The whole Przywara, especially the late Przywara, is yet to come. He stands at a place in the road that many in the church have yet to get past." Rahner then concludes his laudatio with the words of von Balthasar: "It is almost unthinkable that Przywara could have founded a school, but Przywara himself never reckoned with one. He remains an incomparable teacher — every thinker should have to think through what he shows us — and yet he must content himself with letting those who have caught something of his fire go their own way."
(Continues...)
Excerpted from The Analogy of Being Copyright © 2011 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Excerpted by permission of William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Foreword Archbishop J. Augustine Di Noia, O.P. xi
Acknowledgments xiii
Introduction: The Analogia Entis Controversy and Its Contemporary Significance Thomas Joseph White, O.P. 1
I Reconsidering the Theological Contours of the Original Debate
1 After Barth: A New Introduction to Erich Przywara's Analogia Entis John R. Betz 35
2 Karl Barth's Version of an "Analogy of Being": A Dialectical No and Yes to Roman Catholicism Bruce L. McCormack 88
II Ecumenical Proposals
3 The Cross and the Analogia Entis in Erich Przywara Kenneth Oakes 147
4 Analogy as the discrimen naturae et gratiae: Thomism and Ecumenical Learning Richard Schenk, O.P. 172
5 Hans Urs von Balthasar, Erich Przywara's Analogia Entis, and the Problem of a Catholic Denkform Peter Casarella 192
III The Analogy of Being and Thomistic Ressourcement
6 Attending to the Wisdom of God - from Effect to Cause, from Creation to God: A relecture of the Analogy of Being according to Thomas Aquinas Reinhard Hütter 209
7 "Through him all things were made" (John 1:3): The Analogy of the Word Incarnate according to St. Thomas Aquinas and Its Ontological Presuppositions Thomas Joseph White, O.P. 246
8 Christ the End of Analogy Bruce D. Marshall 280
9 Analogia Entis as an Expression of Love according to Ferdinand Ulrich Martin Bieler 314
IV The Analogy of Being and the Renewal of Contemporary Theology
10 Creation as Aesthetic Analogy Michael Hanby 341
11 Perfection and Participation John Webster 379
12 The Destiny of Christian Metaphysics: Reflections on the Analogia Entis David Bentley Hart 395
Epilogue: Analogy of Being - Invention of the Antichrist or the Wisdom of God? Looking Back, Looking Forward Richard Schenk, O.P. 411
Select Bibliography 417
Contributors 433
Index of Names 437
Index of Names 439