مشخصات کتاب

The Schillebeeckx case: official exchange of letters and documents in the investigation of Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, O.P. by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1976-1980 /

ویرایش: [1 ed.] 
نویسندگان: edited with introduction and notes by Ted Schoof. O.P. ,  originally published under the auspices of the Tijdschrift voor theologie ,  translated by Matthew J. O'Connell.  
سری:  
ISBN (شابک) : 0809126079 
ناشر: Paulist Press, 
سال نشر: 1984 
تعداد صفحات: v, 158 p. ;
[151] 
زبان: English 
فرمت فایل : PDF (درصورت درخواست کاربر به PDF، EPUB یا AZW3 تبدیل می شود) 
حجم فایل: 5 Mb 

در صورت تبدیل فایل کتاب The Schillebeeckx case: official exchange of letters and documents in the investigation of Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, O.P. by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1976-1980 / به فرمت های PDF، EPUB، AZW3، MOBI و یا DJVU می توانید به پشتیبان اطلاع دهید تا فایل مورد نظر را تبدیل نمایند.

توجه داشته باشید کتاب پرونده Schillebeeckx: تبادل رسمی نامه ها و اسناد در تحقیقات Fr. ادوارد شیلبیککس، O.P. توسط جماعت مقدس برای دکترین ایمان، 1976-1980 / نسخه زبان اصلی می باشد و کتاب ترجمه شده به فارسی نمی باشد. وبسایت اینترنشنال لایبرری ارائه دهنده کتاب های زبان اصلی می باشد و هیچ گونه کتاب ترجمه شده یا نوشته شده به فارسی را ارائه نمی دهد.

توضیحاتی درمورد کتاب به خارجی

Like most Forewords this is also an Afterword. In fact, the book in its entirety may be regarded as an Afterword, for its purpose is to make available, after the event, the various documents of what should be called nothing less than "the Schillebeeckx case": an "investigation" (the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith insists that there is no question of a trial, although such an "investigation" may be followed by a condemnation') into the orthodoxy of Jezus: Het verhaal van een levende (ET: Jesus: An Experiment in Christology) by Edward Schille- beeckx, a scholarly study of some 600 pages in Dutch (and 750 in En- glish) that nevertheless became a best seller. - The "Schillebeeckx case" was an emotionally charged episode in relations between "Rome" and a prominent representative of Catho- lic theology, and many persons, especially in the Churches of the Netherlands, felt deeply involved in it. The present book, then, is an Afterword on this affair. In preparing this edition I have had to spend quite some time in an intensive study of the "documents." It has been an intriguing but also, and above all, a depressing experience. This is due chiefly to the fact that, behind the often formal and abstract sen- tences, unexpressed thoughts and feelings of many kinds may be con- jectured. In addition, the texts which I had to use were heavily "annotated" by the pen of the accused as he prepared his defense. As a result, something of the unnerving character of the "trial" left its mark on the paper and could readily be felt. The involvement of the participants—the censors, the accused, and the reader—is at times very intense. The ultimate issue is, after all, what we are to regard as the supreme value and content of the faith—although this is certainly not always the only thing the papers are concerned with; but a psy- chologist could speak better to this point than a theologian can. Furthermore, the chief impression left by a careful reading of the documents is that there is obviously an almost insuperable barrier to mutual understanding on the part of the two sides or, more accurate- ly, on the part of "Rome" in regard to Schillebeeckx. For Schille 4 THESCHILLEBEECKXCASE beeckx is still quite familiar with the traditional theological language of his opponents, since he was educated in it and himself had to use it in the past. The theologians of the Congregation, on the contrary, have, as it were, hardly any antennas capable of receiving the kind of language Schillebeeckx uses. They translate what he says into tradi- tional Scholastic expressions and then force him to play their lan- guage-game. The barrier is, of course, not solely a matter of language; a whole vital attitude also plays a part. Schillebeeckx himself has had some enlightening things to say about this in—among other writ- ings—the controverted book itself.2 This can be pointed out more concretely in the individual documents. Why should the dossier of what has not unjustly been called a "dialogue of the deaf" (Hebblethwaite) be published after the event? First of all, to give a public accounting. When it gradually be- came clear in the fall of 1979 that rumors about a new action against Schillebeeckx (an "investigation" in 1968 had already been dropped due to protests) were proving to be correct, one of the objections most often heard in the swiftly mounting stream of protests was to the se- crecy of the procedure. It turned out that about three years earlier Schillebeeckx had already received an extensive questionnaire and had subsequently returned a detailed answer. As a result, an even lengthier document with further questions had reached him, along with an invitation to a conversation in Rome with three unnamed representatives of the Congregation—Men whom he was asked to as- sume, on their own authority, to be "good theologians." At a still ear- lier time, therefore—in keeping with the current regulations of the Congregation—some theologians must have studied Schillebeeckx' book in search of "erroneous or dangerous opinions," while another had emphasized the good points in the book—but without the author being aware of any such investigation. A report of these activities had subsequently convinced the cardinals of the Congregation that the au- thor must be asked for clarification, and the Pope had then confirmed this decision. At this point, while Rome reached the end of the "in- vestigatory procedure" that might lead to a condemnation, now the accused himself at last was informed of the situation. But he was giv- en no access to the material which served for the indictment nor even to the names of the investigators. This course of events elicited a great deal of protest. Society to- day will no longer suffer anyone in authority to deal with someone's convictions in such a way that cannot be checked. There is an imme- diate suspicion that things are going on which cannot stand the lightf day. Even if people are far from suspecting another Watergate or one of its many smaller-scale imitations, they expect the Churches also to put their cards openly on the table. Therefore by far the great- er number of the many protests against the "Schillebeeckx case" (among others, the 60,000 who supported the national drive for signa- tures) called for a public and regulated procedure; they did so in the name of human rights and the credibility of the Gospel. But since this openness has not yet been achieved, we must at least make public such material as is actually available—material that is probably only the tip of a largely invisible iceberg. This set of documents will also give some insight into the content and orientation of the objections raised by the central authorities and into their motives and arguments. The Roman documents are no longer the apodictic lists of "errors" which so many—and often no less prominent—predecessors of Schillebeeckx had to sign if they did not want to be excommunicated from the Church. In the "question- naire" sent to Schillebeeckx arguments and reasons are given, and in- stead of assertions there are requests for clarification or explanation— even though at times the questions are obviously rhetorical. The third document, which is a reply to Schillebeeckx' answers, frequently re- sembles a regular scholarly discussion: the author, who is unnamed, often writes in the first person, cites fellow theologians in support of his argument, uses footnotes, and at times gives references to litera- ture, such as one finds supplied, in reviews, for "the interested read- er." Nonetheless it remains only too clear that in the final analysis the document is not a contribution to a discussion but a kind of set of demands. The non-specialist reader will probably find the documents diffi- cult going. The questions are put in the technical language of theolo- gy and, by and large, in the technical language of traditional Scholastic theology, which in our part of the world is hdrdly used anymore since the Council. Someone coming into contact with this language and type of argumentation for the first time will perhaps have difficulty in recognizing the Gospel—or the world of contempo- rary experience—in it. Especially since the days when, in the medi- eval universities, specialists had gained the upper hand, theology through the centuries had moved in the direction of an ever greater conceptual refinement. In the process there was an increasingly heavy emphasis on exact and abstract formulation. Only in recent de- cades have people come to realize almost everywhere—except, I am afraid, in Roman theology—that this emphasis on precision and clarity brings with it the serious danger of letting the real values of reli- gious language slip through one's fingers. Religious language draws its power from extrapolated, metaphorical words and from symbols, for it realizes that in the final analysis the mystery cannot be compre- hended or described directly. It is only to be seen "out of the corner of your eye" (Langdon Gilkey), and it slips out of the field of vision when you try to look straight at it. Religious experience cannot do without concepts and words, but the latter, it must always be real- ized, are essentially unsuited for authentic statements of faith: they are "analogical" and signify something only in virtue of their power to suggest images. It is therefore at least as important to gain a re- newed .awareness of this element of imagery in the objects of faith— for example, with the help of a related symbol—as it is to describe them in language that is as precise as possible (though even then al- ways analogical). And in stating that, the historical component should be taken also into consideration. Even terms which at one time be- came official, such as, for example, the dogmatic statements of the first Christian centuries, fit into a pattern of language intelligible at the time but which in the course of the centuries (and in diverse cul- tures) has inevitably shifted and taken religious words along in the process. In fact, in my opinion it is here—in the emphasis either on exact terminology or on images, i.e., either on the once fixed or on the his- torically changing element in the language of faith—that we have the real point of difference between traditional and modern theology and, therefore, between the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Schillebeeckx. This difference is the basis for the barrier to understanding of which I spoke earlier. Therefore even those who may find the questions of the Congregation to be "technical," abstract or cut off from the real world, and therefore unintelligible, nonethe- less have grasped the real issue, which is one that in the final analysis concerns the entire ecclesial community. In all this I have doubtless oversimplified the problem. After all, Schillebeeckx too uses language that is scholarly and therefore more remote language although his is derived more directly from the world of our present day experience. The characteristic difference between his technical language and that of the Congregation consists above all in the fact that by means of his technical language he is trying to "fill in" the symbols and once more make them intelligible and meaning- ful, instead of allowing them to go on being expressed in exact con- ceptual notions that are derived from a cultural pattern which is largely a thing of the past for us and that therefore has practically nomeaning anymore. He wants to have us experience them "as new," and therefore he approaches them from unexpected angles—especial- ly by an historical reconstruction of what their original fullness of meaning must have been. What was the overwhelming experience that led the friends of an executed, unorthodox rabbi to give him the weightiest names from their religious tradition: Messiah, Lord, Son of God? What was Jesus himselfsaying through the symbol "Father," so worn-out to us, when he used the word "Abba" with unparalleled intensity? In his pursuit of this purpose Schillebeeckx certainly does not underestimate the difficulty of remaining faithful, as a theolo- gian, to the Church's tradition, which is our only access to the basic experience of the group around Jesus. Even though this tradition it- self has also at times channeled the weighty symbols into technical, conceptual sentences and words which may make us forget that we are speaking of inconceivable mysteries, yet we cannot jump over this link to the past in our effort to plumb the original faith-experience of revelation. Schillebeeckx of his own accord asks for criticisms and— along with a great deal of approval—he has gotten them.3 But he thought he could expect criticism that accepts his point of depar- ture—which by and large is the point of departure for contemporary theology as a whole. The documents published here will show how far his expectation was fulfilled. Finally, in addition to providing information on the secret proce- dure and a concrete introduction to the difference in point of depar- ture between traditional ecclesiastical theology and a serious contemporary theology, the documents, especially Schillebeeckx' re- sponse, give a glimpse into the crucible of his publications. This is a welcome help to the understanding of his sometimes difficult line of argument. More than once we learn why he chose a certain interpre- tation or followed a certain expert. More importantly, he explains in a short compass not only how Jesus: An Experiment in Christology is constructed but also why. We read of what he was trying to achieve and how his method and purpose influenced the presentation of the content. In this choke, content and way of doing theology are essen- tially connected. This, once again, causes special difficulty for his Ro- man judges. His manner of proceeding is "unconventional," as he had already warned in his book. Various remarks of his censors show that this is in itself already a mark against him. At times paternally, at oth- er times somewhat peevishly, they urge him to return to the familiar paths. At one point they even think they see him on the way back to the traditional terminology 8 THESCHILLEBEECKXCASE Only rarely have I read in a recent theological document so out- spoken a plea for the tried and true, the "old time religion" that at least disturbs no one. The Jesus of the Gospels—who more than any- one knew how to bring out the challenging and disconcerting, and thus Godward, power of traditional religious images—seems far away here. In the background an obvious basic conviction regarding his- torical development is at work, a conviction that is certainly not a dogma but is nonetheless posited without argument as a fixed point of reference, namely, that in the teaching of the Church, and especial- ly in official pronouncements, the content of the faith has found ex- pression once and for all in a specific terminology. In the course of the centuries the implications of this terminology have indeed been constantly explicitated and more accurately formulated, and that ter- minology does not need revision and renewal, even in the light of the authentic original Christian experience/revelation as contained in the New Testament. For in its content this experience/revelation now is, supposedlyr identical with the teaching of the Church. basic conviqion is to be seen as a variant of the much used model of continuous eulturaLprogress (the prestige of this model, though, has dropped sharply in recent years). In fact it supposes, without any real justification being given, that the theology which is implied in the traditional statements of the Church is equally immu- table and inevitable. Apparently Roman theology is still unable to grasp the fact that language has meanwhile undergone a no less in- eluctable change, so that the old terms have fallen out of step with us, as it were, and need hermeneutical interpretation if they are to be un- derstood. As a result, the Congregation naively identifies its own the- ology with the teaching of faith, so that a real dialogue—in which both parties put their views up for discussion—is out of the question. With perfect logic, therefore, after the Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae (which was written against him), Hans Kling was invited to a conver- sation in Rome, unless he immediately accepted the teaching contained in the document14 In any case, the old rule is apparently still in effect: a theologian may come out with something new only on condition that he can then show it is not new.5 It was principally for these three reasons that the board of edi- tors of Tijdschrift voor Theologic decided to publish the documents of the "Schillebeeckx case" in a Dutch translation, while also supplying the original French text in order to facilitate the most accurate judg- ment possible of a paradigmatic conflict between the teaching author-ity and theology in the Catholic Church. The publication is a logical consequence of our conviction—expressed as a reaction to the "Schil- lebeeckx case," among others, in the first issue of 1980—that theology also has a role as "disturber" of the ecclesial community; our concern for the authenticity and credibility of the faith imposes on us the task of propounding troublesome questions and critical answers. In a the- matic issue to be published at the end of 1980 ("The Schillebeeckx Af- fair: Reflections and Reactions") we went more fully into the content of the documents and considered, among other things, their method and hermeneutic (T. J. van Bavel) and their image of the Church (B. Ad. Willems). A (religio-) psychological framework is also suggested within which the documents may be better understood (P. Vander- meersch, "Religion and the Need for Authority"), and there is a theo- logical evaluation of a number of reactions to the "Schillebeeckx case." The accused author himself also took the opportunity to write an Afterword (E. Schillebeeckx). In the present edition of the documents each is accompanied only by a few remarks intended to shed light on its context and signifi- cance. In the text itself obvious inaccuracies (in spelling or references) are corrected as a matter of course, unless the mistake is significant. Square brackets have been reserved for editorial remarks or for re- marks introduced by the Roman censor into citations from Schille- beeckx' book. In perusing these documents the reader must of course bear in mind that none of the authors—least of all the representatives of the Congregation!—were writing with an eye to publication. In addition, Schillebeeckx had to write his contribution in a foreign tongue, with- out the aid of a translator, as he himself notes. Thus even at the level of the language being used he was at a disadvantage, although the people in Rome thought they were making a concession by choosing French (the book Jezus has not been translated into French; in any case, the Dutch text was the basis for the discussion, a fact that at times seems to cause problems for the participants in the dialogue). A notable difficulty in editing the translation of the documents seems to be that in a Christological context Schillebeeckx mostly uses not the strictly technical terms godheid (divinity) and mensheid (hu- manity, human nature), but goddelijkheid (divineness) and menselijkheid (humanness). Each of the latter two terms has a special nuance when used theologically: goddelijkheid seems to imply less than godheid (was this fact perhaps passed on to Rome by Dutch accusers?), while mense- lijkheid adds precisely a nuance of warmth and concreteness to the somewhat more formal term mensheid. Perhaps this last element is the eason why Schillebeeckx prefers menselijkheid (and, therefore, the parallel term, goddelijkheid). He has stated expressly that in using these terms he has no intention of detracting from the divine or hu- man stature of Jesus. Anyone who wants information on the course of events connect- ed with the "investigation" may profitably turn to Peter Hebble- thwaite's book, The New Inquisition: The Case of Edward Schillebeeckx and Hans Kling (New York, 1980), which also explains the procedure followed.and conveys a good grasp of the themes under discussion and of their background. Of course, since Hebblethwaite did not have access to the official record published here, his reconstruction of the conversation in Rome is something of a tour de force. A special issue of Archief van de kerken 35 (1980), No. 14, July 9, 1980, 649-74 contains a number of noteworthy protests. Schillebeeckx' barely tolerated "ad- visor," B. van Iersel, provides a penetrating examination of the inves- tigatory procedure and of the actual conversation in Rome.°

نظرات کاربران

کتاب های تصادفی

دانلود کتاب Das hurritische Epos der Freilassung, I

دانلود کتاب The Power of Stoicism: A Beginner Guide For Use Stoicism in Modern Life, Improve Your Life and Gain Calm, Resilience and Confidence

دانلود کتاب The Demon in Disguise: Murder, Kidnapping, and the Banty Rooster

دانلود کتاب GMAT Prep Course

دانلود کتاب The people's Plato