Autor: Lonergan, Bernard J.F.

Buch: The Trinune God: Systematics

Titel: The Triune God: Systematics

Stichwort: Ziel des Buchs; Ausgangspunkt: intellektuelle Emanation; Scholastik

Kurzinhalt: We do not begin with the relations, for understanding the relations presupposes understanding the processions. And we do not begin with the generation of the Son and the breathing forth of the Holy Spirit, for ..

Textausschnitt: 10 The Purpose of This Work

117a Our goal in this work is that imperfect, analogical, obscure, gradually developing, synthetic, and fruitful theological understanding. As understanding, it is neither true nor false, whether in itself or in its inner word or in its outer word. Of itself it does not lead to a truth that is per se known by us, or to a truth that is demonstrable from its own intrinsic principles, or to a hypothesis whose intrinsic possibility can be either clearly or distinctly grasped. Nevertheless it does relate to the formality of truth, in that it begins from something true that has been explicitly or implicitly revealed, in that it makes use of other truth, whether philosophic or historical, in that all its consequences are coherent with revealed truth, and in that it is an understanding of revealed truth itself. (Fs)

117b It proceeds to this goal, not by the dogmatic way but by the systematic. Therefore, it presupposes not only the revealed truths but also all that is deduced from the revealed truths. Our present intent is not to increase certitude about revealed truths, or to confirm deductions from revealed truths, or to refute more effectively the opponents of Catholic truth. For just as man does not live on bread alone, so knowledge does not live on certitude alone. Thus, presupposing firm certitude with regard to the faith, presupposing conclusions that have been deduced with certainty, presupposing that opponents have already been refuted, we are seeking an understanding of what is certain. (Fs)

119a We begin, then, not from what is most obvious in order to demonstrate something more obscure, but from what is most obscure in order to understand what is already certain and obvious. We do not begin from what is obscure because it is obscure, as if motivated by some strange perversity. Rather we follow the straigh-forward procedure of beginning with what is first in itself even though it is obscure. Anyone seeking understanding in an orderly way begins from what can be understood without presupposing the understanding of anything else. This is why we do not begin with the divine persons, for understanding the divine persons presupposes understanding the relations. We do not begin with the relations, for understanding the relations presupposes understanding the processions. And we do not begin with the generation of the Son and the breathing forth of the Holy Spirit, for these processions, which are specifically distinct from each other, presuppose something prior, something generic in respect to both of them. Our starting point, then, is intellectual emanation, as that which is absolutely basic in the systematic approach. The persons are considered only in chapter 4, the relations only in chapter 3, and the generation of the Son and the spiration of the Spirit only toward the end of chapter 2. But our starting point is intellectual emanation as it can be conceived of in God, before the two processions are distinguished, before the four relations are considered, before the three persons are conceived systematically. (Fs)

119b When we have understood intellectual emanation in God as well as we can, we will go on to distinguish two emanations. Once we have distinguished the two emanations, we will determine whether one is generation and the other not; once the processions have been determined, we will proceed to the relations; and after the relations have been investigated, we end with a treatment of the persons. (Fs)

119c We are seeking nothing else in this process than an ordered and pedagogically guided growth in understanding. We are seeking that special precious quality that Aristotle discerned in the 'epistemonic' or explanatory syllogism, the syllogism that 'makes us know.' While all syllogisms lead equally to conclusions that are certain, the explanatory syllogism brings forth a conclusion that is not only certain but also understood. And so, since theology is analogously a science, it uses syllogisms that are scientific in an analogous way, in order to add some imperfect understanding to a certitude that has been acquired elsewhere.1 (Fs)

121a While the process that is proper and essential to the systematic way can hardly be expressed in human words except through deductions that are also certain, still it aims, not at this certitude, but at the increase of understanding that starts by understanding one item and then gradually extends to understanding others. Thus, given some understanding of intellectual emanation in God, we move to an understanding of the emanation of the Word and the emanation of Love. Having understood what we can of these, we go on to an understanding of generation in God. And so with all other points, one step at a time, we develop our ideas until we come to as much understanding as is available on these matters. Nothing more can be intended directly in this volume, nor should it be. The argument of the volume is already complex enough, the method of dealing with issues of positive research is quite different from what we are doing here, and there is no lack of outstanding works that set forth the positive foundation in a quite complete manner. (Fs)

[...]

121c Today it appears that positive studies are being pursued not only most diligently but also with their own proper and exact methods. Since this is a fact, unless the speculative part of theology is pursued with equal diligence and with a method that is equally proper and specialized, there will arise from this inequality only difficulties, complaints, misunderstandings, crises, even aberrations. The encyclical Humani generis singled out as a regrettable source of errors the opinion that Scholasticism is out of date. If we want to demolish that opinion, I think it will help to have a brief work that illustrates the nature of theological understanding by aiming uniquely at the speculative goal, leaving out everything that might distract from that goal.1 (Fs)