ABSTRACTBavarian intellectual Franz Xaver von Baader counts among the most prominent representatives of German Romanticism, although his name and fame have almost been forgotten. Baader was a key figure among the Romantic scene and an ardent defender of Catholicism in the aftermath of Enlightenment criticism on the Christian faith and tradition. Most interesting is that he did not construe his apologia on the basis of rational considerations only, as a counterattack as it were, but that he took a point of (...) departure in a peculiar understanding of love. According to Baader, love is a concept and a reality which allows one to imagine the relation between creature and Creator and which intriguingly combines the distinctively human with the uniquely divine. In the present paper, I am continuing in the line of Ramón Betanzos’ outstanding study on Baader’s idea of love and argue that his intuitions reveal a solid synthesis of theological and philosophical insights which today is definitely worth reconsidering. In order to do that in an orderly fashion, I primordially focus on his concept of permeability and explore its metaphysical, epistemological and anthropological potential. (shrink)

This paper examines the arguments on the basis of which Franz Baader , the almost forgotten contemporary of Hegel and Schelling, rejected Descartes’ philosophy so decisively, that, at the end of his life, he wrote to a friend that he passionately wanted to put an end to Cartesianism. I defend the thesis that Baader's hostility to Cartesianism was ultimately grounded in a theological idea, and that his holistic and emphatically Christian thought can only be adequately understood in the light of (...) his critique of Descartes and Cartesianism. I also suggest reasons why Baader's work might well be considered as a source of inspiration for contemporary discussions of postmodernism. (shrink)

This paper addresses the difficult question how the idea of a personal God is connected with an increasing impersonal attitude and conduct among human beings. This question is difficult because it is by no means evident that, e.g., Christian believers would be more personal than non-Christians. In any case, the very idea of a ‘personal’ God has been severely criticized by various kinds of atheists and even theologians have cast doubt on the usefulness of the category of personhood when dealing (...) with the divine. This remarkable situation is taken as a challenge for a thorough exploration of the notion of personhood. It is argued that ‘person’ differs from ‘individual’ and ‘identity’, and that, among other things, language, freedom, and the imagination are constitutive elements for being a person. The conceptual analysis eventually results in the idea that, above all, a person is a porous and a relational being. That is the reason why for Christians the model of all personality will always be the triune God, who is said to be three persons and one essence. Finally, on the basis of this finding, the author explains why Christians ought to be defenders of a genuinely personal approach to the other in all areas of private life and society. (shrink)

Is there something wrong with the Mass? Reflections on the Eucharist in light of recent developments and Vatican II The starting point for this paper is the observation that the first decade of the twenty-first century has shown considerable interest in the Eucharist, at least from the side of the Vatican. There was not only the last encyclical of John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, and the postsynodal apostolic exhortation of his successor Benedict XVI, Sacramentum caritatis, but also the promulgation (...) of the third editio typica of the Missale Romanum after Vatican II and the motu proprio which made it possible that the mass is celebrated according to the rubrics in use just before de council, Summorum pontificum. All these initiatives may be surprising given the fact that the cultural and societal influence of the Eucharist is waning. And yet, those Catholics who are attached to it, seem to quarrel over its most appropriate, or most comprehensible, form. This article aims to shed light on these different developments through a fundamental reflection about the Eucharist, rather than through a survey of the different positions. It puts forward the hypothesis that ‘problems’ with the Eucharist may arise when its actual celebration, its shape or form, and its essence are torn apart. In that respect, reference is made to the seminal work on the Eucharist by Johannes Emminghaus, who made a powerful case that these three levels are, and should be, interdependent. If this perspective of mutual dependence and enrichment is taken seriously, one can ask questions about the often ideology-driven accounts and evaluations of the Eucharist of both leftist and rightist voices. For it is unsure whether their theories and opinions will ultimately be beneficial to the Eucharist. (shrink)

In this article a case is made for considering the liturgy as theological norm par excellence. The case is built up by relying on an emphatic current of thought within the field of liturgical studies, namely the ‘liturgical theology’ as it was developed by Alexander Schmemann, Aidan Kavanagh, and David W. Fagerberg. After presenting the concept of ‘liturgical theology’ and the context out of which it emerged, its major characteristics are discussed. Particular attention is devoted to the radicalness of their (...) position. It can be called radical because the reversal of the relation between doctrine and liturgy is by no means evident for the vast majority of modern believers and theologians. However, ‘liturgical theology’ claims that it is not doctrine which determines liturgy but liturgy which determines doctrine. According to liturgical theologians, the liturgy is not simply the ritual expression of the content of faith, but itself theology, even theologia prima . Correspondingly, liturgical theologians point to the original wording of the famous adage lex orandi lex credendi , which is the following: ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi . Whereas the usual formulation suggests equality and mutual dependence, the original context lays bare a clear priority of the rule of prayer over the rule of faith. In the final part of the article I explore some avenues to the evaluation of ‘liturgical theology’. I argue that there is need for a more profound philosophical underpinning and historical adequacy. But nevertheless the idea that the liturgy constitutes a theological norm stands firmly and should be considered far more broadly and seriously among contemporary systematic theologians. (shrink)

In this article I defend the thesis of a strong similarity between the modern critique of Christian revelation and the main arguments of contemporary pluralist theologians. As a relevant spokesperson of modern thought I take Karl Jaspers. After having presented his most important writings on religion and belief, I discuss three general features of modern thought, namely, subjectivism, ethical humanism and universalism. I argue that these characteristics not only figure in Jaspers’ critique of Christianity, but that they are also fundamental (...) to the pluralist theology of religions. Then I focus on characteristics of modern thought regarding religion in particular. First I analyse the specific kind of ‘natural theology’ in Jaspers’ philosophy and in pluralism, and I continue with the question of christology. In both cases I discern a parallel intuition. With a view to Jaspers’ most crucial objection to the Christian revelation, I maintain that he ultimately rejects both the reality and the possibility of God revealing Godself in the history of humankind. And I immediately ask whether the philosophical presuppositions of pluralism do not tend towards the same radical rejection. In my conclusion, I raise questions about the approach represented by Jaspers and so-called pluralist theologians. In addition to being irreducibly ambiguous, it does not seem to constitute the guarantee of tolerance that both Jaspers and pluralists declare it to be. (shrink)

In this article I defend the thesis of a strong similarity between the modern critique of Christian revelation and the main arguments of contemporary pluralist theologians. As a relevant spokesperson of modern thought I take Karl Jaspers. After having presented his most important writings on religion and belief, I discuss three general features of modern thought, namely, subjectivism, ethical humanism and universalism. I argue that these characteristics not only figure in Jaspers’ critique of Christianity, but that they are also fundamental (...) to the pluralist theology of religions. Then I focus on characteristics of modern thought regarding religion in particular. First I analyse the specific kind of ‘natural theology’ in Jaspers’ philosophy and in pluralism, and I continue with the question of christology. In both cases I discern a parallel intuition. With a view to Jaspers’ most crucial objection to the Christian revelation, I maintain that he ultimately rejects both the reality and the possibility of God revealing Godself in the history of humankind. And I immediately ask whether the philosophical presuppositions of pluralism do not tend towards the same radical rejection. In my conclusion, I raise questions about the approach represented by Jaspers and so-called pluralist theologians. In addition to being irreducibly ambiguous, it does not seem to constitute the guarantee of tolerance that both Jaspers and pluralists declare it to be. (shrink)

The author argues taht the most important source of Schelling’s ‘later thought’ is undoubtably the Bible. Schelling not only referred to it more than to any other work, he also systematically endeavored to harmonize his philosophical and theological ideas with the content of the Holy Scriptures. This was by no means evident in the post-Enlightenment context, which was characterized by its vehement critique of the Bible. The author thus investigates whether Schelling’s scripturally based forays into exegesis, dogmatic theology, and philosophy (...) are convincing. Two Bible passages to which Schelling himself attached great weight are discussed: the prologue of St John’s gospel and the Christological hymn in St Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians. The conclusion is that Schelling’s philosophy of revelation is worth studying as an original contribution to contemporary systematic theological reflection, even if not all problems concerning the relation between biblical heritage, its possible interpretations and contemporary theological concerns are resolved. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThis article investigates some salient features of the fascination for the monk in contemporary scholarship. Interestingly, the figure of the monk has attracted the attention of authors engaged in fields as diverse as political philosophy and liturgical theology, clearly without referring to one another. On the one hand, the much talked-about Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben discusses the liturgical heritage of Western civilization to better understand the mechanisms behind modern politics and economy. In that context, he sees the monk as someone (...) in whom rules and life have become indistinct. On the other hand, liturgical theologian David W. Fagerberg extensively deals with the monk in his groundbreaking study on liturgical asceticism. He seems to make a similar point as Agamben: the monk exemplifies not simply obedience to rules but embodies the very life a Christian is supposed to live. This article compares both frameworks of thought to see whether the one can be used to critically evaluate the other and to propose some reflections about formation. (shrink)