Paragraph at bottom of pg.116. 'The only thing that we can take exception to in Scheeben is a certain ahistoricity in his theological design.' Also could you say something about the' polemical and negative impulse with which he began.', same paragraph..What does he mean by 'ahistoricity'?

Pg. 104 ''Romantic theology failed as it did not sufficiently distinguish between creation and revelation'. Our sunday morning homily failed in the same way. Was it only ours?. Rita.

-- Anonymous, November 11, 2002

Answers

Rita, Good to get started on this discussion site!

About "ahistoricity": when you put an "a..." before something, it means an absence of that something; thus "atemporal" means outside time, "ahistorical" means lacking a proper historical dimension and "ahistoricity" means a lack of a proper historical perspective in his (Scheeben's) theology.

As regards the "polemical and negative impulse with which he began, I think Balthasar is referring to the very sharp distinction that Scheeben makes between this world and the realm of grace: Negative in that it is a denial of the Romantic confustion of nature and grace, and polemical in its attack on that confusion: see p. 105: "Scheeben's basic intuition is very simple. A negative, polemical thesis serves as its foundation and as the springboard from which to aattain a total religious-aesthetic outlook. // As against Romantic theology, Scheeben defends with unrelenting sharpness the separation between nature and supernature.... All connecting lines that could naturally lead from below into the Realm above are severed by Scheeben.... (on to p. 108) The initial antithesis directed against the Romantic confusion of nature and supernature results, first of all, in a certain sealing off of the supernatural cosmos of mysteries."

Hope this helps!

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2002

Another question Philip,

Pg's. 118/119.

119 The living God is neither an existent, nor being itself...

What is- 'Being itself, as it manifests and reveals itself essentially in everything that makes it's appearance in form'- if not God. Cheers, Philip, See you tomorrow night D.V. Rita.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2002

Good question! What can be meant by "Being itself"? Properly, in Thomistic philosophy, God is Being. I'll have to think about this one as I read Balthasar's treatment, to see if he is faithful to Thomas Aquinas in his exposition. More on this later--or at our seminar.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2002