I'm reading and was following up to: "De Lubac’s hermeneutical insights—based on his Platonic sacramental ontology—looked to the Old Testament as a sacrament containing the mystery of the reality of Christ."
There I wondered why it was necessary to use the word "sacrament" when "anology" is perfectly apt. The better the anology the more it would reveal of Christ's mystery. But to reason that it works as an analogy because it is a sacrament.... doesn't that lend too much divinity to analogies? You could call such analogies a lesser "sacramental" and still have to fully explain what you mean.
I would not object to the term ‘analogy.’ in my approach, it serves the same purpose as the term ‘sacrament.’ But my reason for also using the latter is precisely the apprehension expressed in your question: The language of analogy often assumes a separation between nature and the supernatural. The language of Sacramento mentality does not allow us to assume such a separation.
If there is no distinction, it seems like you fall into a sort of naturalism and you end up understating the gratuity of grace. I'll have to read Surnaturel some day.
This is a good formulation of the question that I was thinking as I read through the article. I thought Fr. Boersma argued well that we need an understanding of formal and final causality, and a sense of participatory being. However, I was lost as to why the Nouvelle theologie was the solution to that and what Thomism and Scholasticism lacked in this regard.
Thank you for this article… I am a Baptist pastor and have been pursuing a sacramental ontology for some years now. Your book Heavenly Participation has been very helpful in this process. Do you have any recommendations on where to start if someone like me wants to read Lubac?
Thanks, Bill! I typically recommend his book "Scripture in the Tradition," which is the best (relatively) quick entry into his understanding of hermeneutics. His book "Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man" is beautiful. If you're more adventuresome and want to get in to the nature-supernatural debate, "The Mystery of the Supernatural" and "Augustinianism and Modern Theology" are the best place to start.
Many thanks for this. Such richness to explore. I was a bit surprised by the statement that the Catholic Church “has kept advocating for a world government”. Please can you elaborate ?
Maybe have a look in Laudato si. I think it’s in par 175. This is perhaps the most explicit statement, but in continuity with earlier Catholic social teaching.
Thank you, Hans. I am so grateful for your encouragement to read de Lubac. What a treasure.
Excellent! Thanks so much.
Superb. Thank you, Hans.
I'm reading and was following up to: "De Lubac’s hermeneutical insights—based on his Platonic sacramental ontology—looked to the Old Testament as a sacrament containing the mystery of the reality of Christ."
There I wondered why it was necessary to use the word "sacrament" when "anology" is perfectly apt. The better the anology the more it would reveal of Christ's mystery. But to reason that it works as an analogy because it is a sacrament.... doesn't that lend too much divinity to analogies? You could call such analogies a lesser "sacramental" and still have to fully explain what you mean.
I would not object to the term ‘analogy.’ in my approach, it serves the same purpose as the term ‘sacrament.’ But my reason for also using the latter is precisely the apprehension expressed in your question: The language of analogy often assumes a separation between nature and the supernatural. The language of Sacramento mentality does not allow us to assume such a separation.
If there is no distinction, it seems like you fall into a sort of naturalism and you end up understating the gratuity of grace. I'll have to read Surnaturel some day.
True. That’s why we do need a distinction. Gos is taking us to his own supernatural life.
To me though it begs the question: what is a sacrament that makes it different from an analogy? Are they interchangeable?
Very fair question. You’ll have to forgive me for not responding to this on substock as the question deserves.
This is a good formulation of the question that I was thinking as I read through the article. I thought Fr. Boersma argued well that we need an understanding of formal and final causality, and a sense of participatory being. However, I was lost as to why the Nouvelle theologie was the solution to that and what Thomism and Scholasticism lacked in this regard.
Thank you for this article… I am a Baptist pastor and have been pursuing a sacramental ontology for some years now. Your book Heavenly Participation has been very helpful in this process. Do you have any recommendations on where to start if someone like me wants to read Lubac?
Thanks, Bill! I typically recommend his book "Scripture in the Tradition," which is the best (relatively) quick entry into his understanding of hermeneutics. His book "Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man" is beautiful. If you're more adventuresome and want to get in to the nature-supernatural debate, "The Mystery of the Supernatural" and "Augustinianism and Modern Theology" are the best place to start.
Many thanks for this. Such richness to explore. I was a bit surprised by the statement that the Catholic Church “has kept advocating for a world government”. Please can you elaborate ?
Maybe have a look in Laudato si. I think it’s in par 175. This is perhaps the most explicit statement, but in continuity with earlier Catholic social teaching.
I would also point to John Paul II's optimism about global institutions in Centessimus annus.
Ok thank you. I had not understood this as advocating for a “world government”. But hopefully I understand your point thank you.
Thank you! You are not least an epistemological ophthalmologist.