editorial note on reading Edward Schillebeeckx's "Christ" especially in the context of a Christian-Marxist dialogue ...

[Hugh Williams]

Jesuits (Lonergan, Rahner, Clarke, Smith etc.) have been mentioned and
in certain instances
read intensively here on this list ...

In continuing to read Edward Schillebeeckx, I can see how it is that the
Dominicans,

despite their many faults throughout the Church's history, can be said
to have helped keep the Church (intellectually) honest.

And they did this by virtue of a very careful and often creative reading
of Thomas Aquinas

(someone Schillebeeckx confesses to be poorly understood and seldom read).

Thus Schillebeeckx's monumental work in Christology though likely
somewhat controversial

is received as nothing less than a reconstruction, or the basis for
such, of the Church's doctrine of salvation.

Hugh

[Doug Mounce]

Thanks for the reference Hugh, I found this comment interesting . . .

"In Jesus: An Experiment in Christology (Dutch ed. 1974), Schillebeeckx argued that we should not imagine that the belief of the disciples that Jesus had risen was caused by the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances. He proposed instead that a belief in the resurrection, "that the new orientation of living which this Jesus has brought about in their lives has not been rendered meaningless by his death – quite the opposite," gave rise to these traditions.^[10] The empty tomb was, in his opinion, an unnecessary hypothesis, since “an eschatological, bodily resurrection, theologically speaking, has nothing to do, however, with a corpse.”^[11] That was merely a "crude and naive realism of what 'appearances of Jesus'" meant.^[12]"

~/

https://staff.washington.edu/mounce/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lonergan_L" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lonergan_l+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lonergan_l/61d4a93a-495d-4871-b3b5-a013f3107651%40nbnet.nb.ca.

[Hugh Williams]

Yes, Doug ...

as you perhaps remember

I took up the position of N.T. Wright for a time

but then 'listened' carefully to the debate 

between Dominic Crossan and Wright

and found myself over time and of late with changing planetary material circumstances

moving more towards Crossan's position ...

(and just today I'm reading Phil McShane on the 'mystical body of Christ' ...

which is a whole other question though not unrelated ...)

Hugh

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lonergan_l/CALaFOMt3dYOBOh9%2BTVZh%3D9Rn5ahuK7ewVWJPkeLncPHLOgcXbQ%40mail.gmail.com.