ma dissertation 26.08.05

8/11/2019 MA Dissertation 26.08.05

1/31

CTC Dissertation: Candidate number: V42326

From Patristic realism to postmodern retrieval: a critical overview of the role of the universal in Catholic theolo!"

#e!throp Collee$ %niversit! of &ondon

'( in Contemporar! Theolo! in the Catholic Tradition

D)**+,T(T)-. /(uust 2001

From Patristic realism to postmodern retrieval: a critical overview of the role of the

universal in Catholic theolo!"

The mind of one who knows has been freed of concepts and is open to what is. Tao Te Ching: 27.

Abstract

Platonism (and Neo-Platonism) provided a working conceptual framework for thetheologians of the Patristic period (including the Cappadocian athers and !tAugustine) who contributed in a decisive wa" to the shaping and development of ke"Christian doctrines. Central to this Platonism was the eternal and immutable orm#the supra-sensible archet"pe of the real# represented b" the idea or the universal inthe human intellect. The universal was regarded as a conceptual window onto the$eal# including the transcendent realit" of %od# and this perspective came to governthe e&pression of Christian doctrine in man" theological areas. 'ainl" as a result ofthe rediscover" of the metaph"sical writings of Aristotle# this realist position wasrevised b" theologians like Auinas# !cotus and ckham. *hile the denial of realismhad a formative influence on the theolog" of the $eformation (and# ultimatel"# thepostmodernism of our own era)# the Catholic Church embraced a moderate realismin which the universal# abstracted from sense perception# continued to provide

access to definitive truth. +n the course of the revival of Thomism in the nineteenthcentur"# traditional Thomism continued to emphasise the centralit" of the concept#whereas Transcendental Thomism# in relativising the concept in relation to the,udgement# became the catal"st for the theological pluralism that characterised theperiod after atican ++. +n recent times# Catholic theologians# including onergan#!chillebeeck Panikkar and Pieris# have sought to retrieve and redefine theuniversal as a d"namic s"mbol that can mediate theological meaning.


2/31



Platonism in the Patristic Period

While the familiar (tongue-in-cheek) comment that two thousand years of westernhilosohy consists of !footnotes to "lato# 1has its detractors$ the more rosaic

%udgement that the first thousand years of Christian theology is im&ued with the sirit

of "lato is an uncontested truism. Christianity$ initially a de'eloment within udaism$

&ecame esta&lished and ultimately flourished in a cultural and intellectual

en'ironment that understood itself in terms of thought categories and atterns that

were deri'ed from reek hilosohy. *n any historical eriod it is usually ossi&le to

identify a set of shared assumtions a&out the nature of things that constitutes a

working concetual framework (a kind of !folk ontology or eistemology# that

academic thought seeks to refine). *n our own times$ what asses for !common

sense# endorses ontological and eistemological realism$ though it is more cautious

a&out morality and aesthetics. *n the second century$ a century of raid growth and

consolidation &y the Christian Church$ the general intellectual outlook in +uroean

society was ermeated with ideas that were deri'ed from reek hilosohy and$ in

articular$ the thought of "lato. The Church#s understanding of itself$ together with

some of its foundational doctrines a&out Christ$ od and human nature$ would &e

worked out and de'eloed$ initially in dialogue with$ and later entirely from within a

redominantly ,ellenistic "latonic world'iew. t the heart of this world'iew was the

&elief in a ermanent reality that lay &ehind or &eyond the aarent reality

encountered in e'eryday eerience. The rincial way of encountering this ultimate

reality was &y means of *deas: timeless and o&%ecti'e entities that constituted reality

and that could &e grased (in 'arying degrees of success) &y the human intellect.

"lato#s theory of /orms was a generalisation of his &eliefs a&out the relationshi

&etween articular shaes and &odies and their corresonding mathematical

concets. ,a'ing reasoned that articular geometric shaes and &odies were

imerfect instantiations of mathematical ideas$ "lato seems to ha'e ro%ected this

conclusion across the entire range of human knowledge and eerience. ust as a

articular circle (drawn in the sand) is an imerfect realisation of circularity as such$

so a articular courageous act shares in a limited way in courageousness as such


3/31



and a articular ta&le shares to some etent in !ta&leness# as such. 0atial

metahors are &rought into lay to descri&e the relationshi &etween the world of

sense and the world of ideas: the real world lies !&eyond# aearances that resent

themsel'es to the senses henomenal truths !articiate# in ultimate truth. This

aroach$ de'eloed &y "lato with great ingenuity and imagination$ resulted in a total

world'iew that ascri&ed ermanence$ erfection and ultimacy to one realm of reality

and the oosite characteristics to another.

y the second century these "latonic assumtions$ com&ined with ideas deri'ed

from 0toicism (emhasising detachment$ 'irtue and !3ogos# as the transcendent

rincile of rationality animating and sustaining the world) were inetrica&ly wo'en

into the intellectual outlook of many +uroeans. The early Christian /athers who

reflected on faith and who attemted to resent a coherent and comelling account

of it to their contemoraries were$ in the main$ entile reeks and 4omans. Their

thought atterns were ,ellenistic$ though these atterns were not so em&edded in

their awareness as to reclude criticism of certain reek ideas that were considered

to &e inconsistent with Christian re'elation. /or eamle one ro&lem with "lato#s

hilosohical monotheism was that !od#$ of necessity$ &elonged to the realm of

&eing and was thus comletely immuta&le and imassi&le$ characteristics that cannot

&e easily s5uared with the doctrine of the *ncarnation. ,owe'er many of the early

Christian thinkers and theologians maintained a high oinion of reek hilosohy

and sought$ not %ust to reconcile the re'elations of Christianity with many of the core

assumtions of reek thought$ &ut to suggest that "lato and others had &een gi'en

an historic mission to reare the theoretical foundations for imortant asects of

Christianity.

*n the course of the early centuries it &ecame necessary for the Church to define as

accurately as ossi&le its christological and Trinitarian &eliefs. t the confessional

and liturgical le'el$ the Church$ of course$ already !knew# what it &elie'ed a&out

esus. ,ad not "eter in his "entecostal sermon roclaimed that !od has made

6esus &oth 3ord and 8essiah$ this esus whom you crucified#9 (cts 2:;) in the

early hymn in "hiliians we read that !od highly ealted esus and ga'e him thename that is a&o'e e'ery name$ so that at the name of esus e'ery knee should


4/31



&end < and e'ery tongue confess that esus Christ is 3ord


5/31



,owe'er it was the rian contro'ersy of the fourth century$ ossi&ly the greatest

theological crisis of the Church#s (early) history$ that &ecame the trigger for the

adotion of o'ertly "latonic language for the defining of a new Trinitarianism that was

and has remained a rimary standard of orthodoy for the whole Church. ccording

to "elikan Ait was the eegesis of "ro'er&s A:22-1 (!The 3ord created me first of all$

the first of his works$ long ago. * was made in the 'ery &eginning


6/31



humans# since !human# was a term for a nature they had in common$ so$ in the case

of the Trinity$ it was &oth inaccurate and dangerous to seak of three ousiaisince

&elie'ers had clearly (mistakenly) concluded from this that there were three distinct

di'inities within the odhead. *n his words !the di'ine$ simle$ and unchangea&le

nature transcends any sort of di'ersity < in order to &e truly one.# 11The

hierarchically (and$ according to asil$ ontologically12) inferior general uni'ersal$ the

h"postasis$ ro'ides the concetual means &y which to differentiate the "ersons.

oth uni'ersals were re5uired: ousiato safeguard the unity of od and the

h"postasis to ground the necessary di'ersity within unity. asil 'ehemently resisted

any false ealtation of di'ine ousiao'er the h"postases$ re%ecting any such inference

as !irreligion.# 1 While the Caadocians# general osition shows great concetual

refinement and intellectual rigour$ it is not surrising$ gi'en the nature of the su&%ect

matter$ that su&se5uent attemts to oularise doctrine sometimes introduced

inconsistencies and aarent contradictions that undermine their own "latonic

consistency. ,a'ing differentiated ousia and h"postatsis$asil draws an analogy

&etween these and the relationshi &etween uni'ersal and articular which is less

than helful:

0u&stance relates to hyostasis as uni'ersal relates to articular. +ach of us shares in eistence

through the common ousia and yet is a secific indi'idual &ecause of his own characteristics. 0o also

with od$ ousia refers to that which is common$ like goodness$ deity or other attri&utes$ while

h"postasis is seen in the secial characteristics of fatherhood$ sonshi or sanctifying ower.1

+'en regory of ?aBianBus occasionally a&andons his characteristic recision and

uses figurati'e language and rhetorical aeals:

When * seak of od$ you must &e enlightened at the same time &y one flash of light and &y three.

There are three indi'idualities or h"postases or$ if your refer$persons. (Why argue a&out names

when words amount to the same meaning9) There is one ousiaI ie. deity. /or od is di'ided without

di'ision$ if * may ut it like that$ and united in di'ision. The odhead is one in three and the three are

one. The odhead has its ousia in the three or$ to &e more recise$ the odhead is the three < We

must neither heretically fuse od together into one nor cho od u into ine5uality< 1@


7/31



Dccasional lases aside$ the intellectual and concetual rigour of the Caadocians

should not &e seen as an accidental feature of their thought. 4ather their concern to

delineate ideas carefully and unack them with the utmost recision is a direct

corollary of the "latonic eistemological and ontological underinnings of their

theological osition. 8ental ideas were images of sura-sensi&le and eternal

uni'ersals or /orms. 1;The idea ousiais the of a (erfectly !remem&ered#)

eternal and ultimate reality (in this case the &eing of od). ccording to the "latonic

'iew there is a real (that is$ not con'entional or ar&itrary) connectedness &etween the

content of the mind encasulated in the uni'ersal and the eternal /orm. Drthodoy$

e& h"pothesi$ re5uired the right mental contentsHideas$ meticulously delineated and

scruulously unfolded. /rom this ersecti'e heterodoy is essentially a (sinfully

incometent) tra'esty of the real. 0a&ellianism is wrong in the same way that an

imerfect image fashioned &y a mediocre artist is wrong: there is a mismatch

&etween the image-idea and the reality to which it is suosedly intrinsically related.

The central doctrines of "lato that heled to resource the early Christian intellectual

tradition were themsel'es de'eloed &y se'eral thinkers associated with "latonism$

the most imortant of whom &eing "lotinus (2E-27E) whose form of "latonism

(su&se5uently known as ?eolatonism 17) was adoted &y &oth the Caadocians

and 0t ugustine (@-E). *n the /nneads(an edited 'ersion of "lotinus# work &y

his uil and successor$ "orhyry (22-E))$ "lotinus affirms many of the themes

common to the "latonic tradition including the &elief in a higher le'el of reality than

'isi&le and sensi&le things and the non-materiality of the highest form of reality.

ccording to "lotinus# monistic 'ersion of "latonism$ the &eing of all things emanated

from a single unitary source$ the !Dne#$ through the !*ntelligence# that contains the

uni'ersals on which the hysical world in modelled$ and the 0oul$ that includes the

indi'idual souls of creatures including humankind. This !new# "latonism was the route

to Christianity for one of the faith#s most influential sokesmen$ ugustine of ,io$ a

ma%or figure in intellectual history whose influence on Christianity !+astern or

Western$ ancient or mediae'al or modern$ heretical or orthodo# 1Ais unmatched &y

any other thinker.


8/31



ugustine#s de&t to "lato through the thought of "lotinus is a common theme in many

of ugustine#s commentators. The great ugustine scholar$ Dtto 0cheel$ maintained

that many of ugustine#s key doctrines were merely the conse5uence of his

?eolatonism. 1=*n his own early writings ugustine seems to identify the &i&lical

doctrine of od with !what "lato and "lotinus ha'e said a&out od.# 2E4eferring to a

work of ugustine#s concerning Christ the teacher$ "elikan remarks on the similarities

&etween ugustine#s eistemological ideas and "lato#s theory of knowledge:

*t is aroriate < to o&ser'e how consistently "latonic was ugustine#s early doctrine of knowledge

in the soul$ which identified the work of Christ as the di'ine teacher with the idea of recollection

()$ so that$ Fwe do not consult a seaker who utters sounds to the outside$ &ut a truth thatresides within < Christ$ who is said to dwell in the inner man I he it is who teaches.G *t would re5uire

only Fthe change of a few words and sentimentsG from "lato and his followers to F&ecome Christians.G

21

*n ugustine#s theory of knowledge we encounter an original synthesis of "lato#s

doctrine of the /orm of the ood and later ?eolatonist notions of od as the source

of intellectual illumination. *n his analogy of the ca'e in the $epublic ++$ "lato makes

use of the sun to reresent that &y which the things of the world (that reresent the

/orms or uni'ersals) are made intelligi&le. *n his reworking of these ideas$ ugustine

ortrays od as the sun that illuminates the truths of the world. 8oreo'er the

!en'ironment# for these truths is no longer the sura-sensi&le world of the /orms &ut

the !mind of od#. ,uman knowing then &ecomes a sharing in (the contents of) the

mind of od. >nderstanding (which is the actualisation of knowledge) is the

successful seeing &y the intellect of the eternal truths that are made 'isi&le to man &y

the light of od#s resence. The uni'ersality and necessity of ideas or concets

(including those central to the faith including human nature and the nature of the

Trinity) are grounded in di'ine ideas that are seen or !intuited# &y the enlightened

human intellect. "erhas &y way of mitigating the intellectualism of this intuitionism$

Coleston suggests that ugustinian knowledge could &e thought of as &eing deri'ed

from eerience and that !the regulati'e influence of the di'ine ideas (which means

the influence of od) ena&les man to see the relation of created things to eternal

suer-sensi&le realities < and that od#s light ena&les the mind to discern the


9/31



elements of necessity


10/31



will of man#s autonomous human nature were ordered to the Triune od of Christian

re'elation as their uni5ue$ al&eit suernatural$ end.# 2,owe'er while Thomas

&elie'ed$ with ugustine$ that human &eings were orientated to od &y means of an

innate intellectual aetite for eing in its fullness (the eatific Kision)$ he did not

share ugustine#s &elief in a directintuiti'e gras of truth. /ollowing ristotle$ Thomas

de'eloed a theory of knowledge that incororated an indirectintellectual intuition of

an intelligi&le form in the sensi&le content of the image. The content of this intuition is

held in the mind as a uni'ersal concet and eressed outwardly as a term. /inally$

in the unity of the %udgement$ the mind is a&le to synthesise the su&%ect of redication

with the uni'ersal concet. This !moderate# solution to the ro&lem of uni'ersals

retains its links with realism &y ositing the real eistence (!intentionally# in the mind

and hysically in the thing) of the same entity in &oth the mind and in the o&%ect. Thus

Thomas succeeded in creating a new hilosohy of knowledge in which the

synthesis of articular and uni'ersal is achie'ed &y means of the %udgement$ no

longer following uon di'ine illumination as ugustine maintained$ &ut resulting from

the ordinary oeration of the human mind.

While Thomas was hay to em&race much of ristotle#s eistemology$ it would &e

incorrect to suggest that the rincial difference &etween Thomas#s Christian

hilosohy and that of ugustine was Thomas#s o&'ious reference for ristotle (in

his entirety) o'er "lato. Thomism should not &e considered$ according to 8cCool$ a

!Christianised 'ersion of ristotle#s hilosohy of &eing.# 2@8cCool draws uon the

research of Ltienne ilson 2;to suggest there is an !un&ridgea&le di'ersity# in the

definitions gi'en to &eing in the hilosohies of ristotle and Thomas. /or ristotle

&eing meant su&sisting essence$ a generic notion that included &oth the uresu&stantial form associated with the concet and the comosite reality of the thing

consisting of su&stantial form and rimary matter. /or Thomas$ howe'er$ &eing meant

e&istencewhich was conferred on su&stantial form. >nlike ristotelian form$ &eing

could not &e grased intellectually and known like a uni'ersal that is roduced &y

means of a&straction. 4ather$ &eing is known through the,udgement$ that synthesis

of articular and uni'ersal that is !ordered directly to *nfinite +istence as its end.# 27

This emhasis on the (acti'e) %udgement$ away from the (static) concet$ was toha'e huge imlications for Catholic theology in the eriod &etween the two Katican


11/31



Councils and &eyond (see &elow). ,owe'er the more radical imlications of

Thomas#s metahysics were mitigated to some etent &y later readings that$ with

hindsight$ seem closer to ristotle than to the insights and more original

de'eloments offered &y 5uinas.

The reasons that elain the o'erly ristotelian reading of Thomas in the three or four

centuries after his death are di'erse and$ of necessity$ con%ectural. Dne of the

ro&lems with ugustine#s theory of di'ine illumination was its !ina&ility to grant " 1==@$ article on +deas&y ,arold *. rown: !6n *deas is the image of a "latonic /orm that occurs in a erson#s mind


27/31

2;Two sources of information a&out the rele'ant research &y ilson are the &iograhy &y 3aurence P. 0hook$C0.$ /tienne %ilson (Toronto: The "ontifical *nstitute of mediae'al 0tudies$ 1=A) and 8aurer$ The legac" of/tienne %ilson$ in Kictor . reBik 6ed$ ne hundred "ears of Thomism(,ouston: >ni'ersity of 0t Thomas$1=A1)

278cCool$ . 22

2Asee ilson$ The !pirit of 'ediaeval Philosoph"$ . 1-7

2=D. cit. . 2;

E0ee ?eal 8agee$ *illiam of ckham and the death of universalsonwww.e'ans-eerientialism.freewe&sace.comHockamE1

1D. cit.

2Suoted in the entry on eo ;+++ in the 'icrosoft /ncarta /nc"clopedia$ 1==-2EE1 8icrosoft Cororation.

8cCool$ . 1E.

0ee 4onald 8cCamy$ ut of a


28/31

A0ee attista 8ondin#s egitimac" and limits of theological pluralism onwww.ewtn.comHli&raryHTheologyH"3>43*08.,T8for a fuller discussion.

=0ee the aer &y Namien Casey$ uce +rigara" and the advent of the divinefrom The metaph"sical to thes"mbolic to the eschatological$ "acifica$ 12.1 (/e&. 1===) 27-@.

@E0ee ernard 3onergan$A third collection2 Papers b" 9ernard @. . onergan !@$ /rederick +. Crowe (ed.)$ ?ework: "aulist "ress$ 1=A@$ 17=.

@1ernard 3onergan$ 'ethod in Theolog"$ Toronto: >ni'ersity of Toronto "ress$ 1==E.

@2*&id. 11

@0ee Namien Casey$ The postmodern universal2 An incarnational viewonwww.dli&rary.acu.edu.auHstaffhomeHdacaseyHost-modernV2Euni'ersal.htm . AH17

@*&id$ . =H17

@@"rofessor of "hilosohy at >ni'ersity College$ Nu&lin and Kisiting "rofessor of "hilosohy at oston College.

@;0ee Transfiguring %od&y 4ichard Pearney in The 9lackwell companion to postmodern theolog"$ ed. raham

Ward$ lackwell 2EE1$ Chater 21.@7 0ee Casey$ The ostmodern uni'ersal$ . -@H17.

@A*&id. . 72.

@=*&id. . A.

;E0ee The !chillebeeck& $eader$ ed. 4o&ert . 0chreiter$ T U T Clark 1=A;$ Chater 1$ The !tructures of8uman /&perience$ . 2=.

;1These include: relationshi to human cororeality$ nature and the ecological en'ironment &eing with othersthe connection with social and institutional structures the conditioning of eole and culture &y time and sace

mutual relationshi of theory and ractice the religious consciousness of man the irreduci&le synthesis of thesesi dimensions. 0ee Ch. 1. o. cit.

;2+dward 0chille&eeck$ Christ2 The e&perience of @esus as ord$ (?ew ork: Crossroad$ 1=AE)$ 2A.

;*&id. A;.

;Casey$ D. cit. 11H17.

;@*&id. $ 17E (5uoted &y Casey$ . 1H17)

;;Dn the contrary$ the conciliar document$ 0ignitatis 8umanae (1=;@)$ indicated that the Church should endorse!secular# insights into human rights suchy as the >nited ?ations Neclaration of ,uman 4ights. useful referenceis ohn ,. 8iller$ atican ++2 An interfaith appraisal (1=;;)$ The 0eclaration on human freedom&y 4e'. ohnCourtney 8urray 0$ . @;;.

;7loysius "ieris$ 8uman rights language and iberation Theolog"from ire and *ater2 9asic issues in Asian9uddhism and Christianit" (8aryknoll: Dr&is$ 1==)$ 11. Suoted &y Casey$ o. cit. 1H17.

;Awith its emhasis$ not on the indi'idual$ &ut the !whole concatenation of the 4eal.# 0ee 4aimon "anikkar$ +s thenotion of human rights a *estern concept= from +nvisible harmon"2 /ssa"s on contemplation and responsibilit"$arry ames Cargas (ed.)$ 8inneaolis: /ortress "ress 1==@)$ . 11. Suoted &y Casey$ D. cit. .1H17
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/PLURALISM.HTMhttp://www.dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/dacasey/post-modern%20universal.htmhttp://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/PLURALISM.HTMhttp://www.dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/dacasey/post-modern%20universal.htm


29/31

5)5&)-,(P#7

0imon lack&urn$ The &ford dictionar" of philosoph"$ D>" 1==

/rederick Coleston 0$A histor" of philosoph"$ Kolume 2: ugustine to 0cotus$ urns andDats 1=;.

/rederick Coleston 0$A histor" of philosoph"$ Kolume : Dckham to 0uMreB$ urns andDats 1=;.

Na'id /ord (ed.)$ The modern theologians$ lackwell 1==7

0tanley . renB$A primer on postmodernism$ +erdmans 1==;.

8sgr "aul . lenn$An introduction to philosoph"$ ,erder 1=7

onathan ,ill$A histor" of Christian thought$ 3ion 2EE

Ted ,onderich (ed.)$ The &ford companion to philosoph"$ D>" 1==@

Paren Pil&y$ " 1==.

Tony 3ane$ Christian thought$ 3ion 1=A

Thomas 8aunter (ed.)$ The Penguin dictionar" of philosoph"$ "enguin1==;

4ichard ". 8crien$ Catholicism$ ,arer Collins 1==


30/31

lister +. 8crath$ The Christian theolog" reader$ lackwell 1==@

erald . 8cCool$A $ahner reader$ N3T 1=7@

erald . 8cCool$ The Neo-Thomists$ 8ar5uestte >" 2EE

4onald 8cCamy$ ut of a


31/31

0cott Na'id /outB$ 0econstruction and ph"sical philosoph"$ Suodli&et ournal: Kolume 1?um&er 1$ 8arch I ril 1===$ on www.5uodli&et.netHfoutB-deconstruction.html

?eal 8agee$ *illiam of ckham and the death of universals$ on www.e'ans-eerientialism.freewe&sace.comHockamE1.htm

0tan Wallace$ 0iscerning and defining the essentials of postmodernismonwww.leaderu.comHrealHri=AE2Hwallace.htm

Nanile . dams$ Toward a theological understanding of postmodernism$ onwww.crosscurrents.orgHadams.htm
http://www.quodlibet.net/foutz-deconstruction.htmlhttp://www.evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/ockam01.htmhttp://www.evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/ockam01.htmhttp://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9802/wallace.htmhttp://www.crosscurrents.org/adams.htmhttp://www.quodlibet.net/foutz-deconstruction.htmlhttp://www.evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/ockam01.htmhttp://www.evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/ockam01.htmhttp://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9802/wallace.htmhttp://www.crosscurrents.org/adams.htm

ma dissertation 26.08.05

Documents