With the 1901 publication of his Les Mythes babyloniens et les premiers chapitres de la Genèse, the French Catholic scholar AlfredLoisy examined carefully parallels between Babylonian literature and the Book of Genesis. In German scholarship, this had been a growing fascination since at least the 1895 publication of Hermann Gunkel’s Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit. Loisy’s use of the concept of “Myth” provides an important window into the appropriation of German scholarship on religion and (...) the Bible into the French scholarly world. Through Loisy’s work, what had been primarily a German Protestant academic discussion became one of the matchsticks that ignited what would become known as the Roman Catholic Modernist Crisis. This present article situates Loisy’s appropriation of “Myth” from the German scholarship he mastered within the proximate cultural, historical, and religious context that became Roman Catholic Modernism. (shrink)
Originally published in 1944, this book presents a study of the life and work of Roman Catholic priest and scholar AlfredLoisy, written by fellow Modernist Maude Petre. Petre died shortly after completing this short biography, and the text begins with a note on her life by James A. Walker. This book will be of value to anyone with an interest in this important figure in the controversial Catholic Modernist movement.
AlfredLoisy and Maude Petre, like others who were associated with the Modernist movement in the Roman Catholic Church, shared hopes in a renewed Catholicism that would bring it into a positive relationship with modernity. With the Vatican condemnation of Modernism in 1907, Loisy abandoned all optimism for viable reform in the Church, and instead looked forward to a Religion of Humanity. While Petre found Loisy's ideal attractive, she retained a hope that the Church would undergo (...) renewal at some future point. Each of them had to come to terms with a dark side of modernity that emerged with the Great War. Loisy's Guerre et religion and Petre's Reflections of a Non-Combatant preserve a record of their struggles to preserve their faith in modernity and in humanity. (shrink)
Ratté has provided a sympathetic but mildly critical account of the leading French, English, and American precipitators of the Modernist crisis in the Catholic Church, a crisis which floated to the surface just before the turn of the century with Loisy's L'Evangile et l'Eglise and reached its climax in its condemnation by Pius X in his 1907 Encyclical, Pascendi Dominici Gregis. Ratté treats each of the individuals separately by means of what can be styled an intellectual biography interwoven with (...) the events which constituted the history of Modernism. The result is a good introduction in some depth to the men themselves and to the history of Modernism as a whole. There are obvious parallels between the Catholic Church then and now, and the idea that we are witnessing today the tardy triumph of many Modernist tenets is exploited in passing in the book proper, and to some degree in the final evaluative chapter, "Modernism and Modernization." For the most part though, Ratté is content to play the historian rather than the theologian. The book has an excellent bibliography.--E. A. R. (shrink)
AlfredLoisy (1857-1940), the excommunicated French modernist priest and historian of religions, and Franz Cumont (1868-1947), the Belgian historian of religions and expert in pagan mystery cults, conducted a lively correspondence in which they intensively exchanged ideas. One of their favorite subjects for discussion was the dependence of St Paul on the pagan mysteries. Loisy dealt with this early 20 th century moot point for Protestant, Catholic and non-religious scholars in his publications, while Cumont always remained silent. (...) This study of their unpublished letters sheds new light on the strategies lying behind their publications. It reveals what they chose not to say, and what they meant by what they did say. (shrink)
In July 1907 the Holy Office issued the decree „Lamentabili“, which has been regarded as the first important formulation of the antimodernism prevalent under Pope Pius X. This essay offers the first reconstruction of the internal history of „Lamentabili“ as a document, based on the archival material in the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The history behind Lamentabili goes back to the censuring of Loisy's main works in 1903. The long and difficult process of drafting and (...) discussing the propositions of „Lamentabili“ reveals divergent opinions about Loisy and the entire „modernist“ problem within the Holy Office. Lamentabili bears traces of attenuation and compromise, and it seems probable that the necessity of drafting the papal Encylica „Pascendi“ against the errors of the „Modernists“ sprang from the dissatisfaction of leading antimodernists with the formalized and tedious process of conducting discussions within the Roman Inquisition. (shrink)
Rosemary doesn’t believe in the divinity of Christ. With her 31 years she has long since got beyond that stage of credulity. Nor does she put any faith in the foundation of a church by the man Jesus, but only in his preaching of the kingdom and with AlfredLoisy she is convinced that the irony of Christianity was that the result of Christ’s preaching was not the kingdom but the church! With gigantic strides she gets far beyond (...) Vatican II and rejects flatly the church as an institution hierarchically organized and with that she refuses to have anything to do with the sacramental system. She doesn’t believe that infallibility has anything to do with telling the truth and as a conse quence does not expect a very high degree of credibility from the ‘infallible teaching authority of the Church’. But Rosemary does believe in God. She seems to be convinced that God does in fact exist. The basis for such a belief she never reveals. She keeps it locked up in her bosom. Searching for a reason to all this one can find it, meseems, in the bibliography she appends to her revivalist ruminations. There it becomes as clear as daylight. Rosemary has been caught. Badly caught. She has swallowed it. Line, hook and sinker. The bultmannian line, of course. Absolutely uncritically. In spite of the erudite, the would-be erudite, multilingual bibliography. Since the rise of modernism right up to the bultmannian era serious Catholic scholars—exegetes, historians, theologians—have examined seriously and eruditely the teachings of men like Loisy, Schweitzer, Bultmann and have honestly attempted to make their own the valid insights of these men without however sacrificing the essentials of the Catholic faith. Not one of these Catholic scholars merits Rosemary’s attention. Not even mentioned in the bibliography. Completely ignored. Dishonesty or just plain ignorance? It’s very hard to say. One of the main sources of her musings is the work of Albert Schweitzer. She quotes the first German edition of his famous and brilliant work on the various attempts of 19th century scholars to interpret the Life of Christ but omits all mention of the second edition which carried a different title. A scholarly slip-up? Nor does she mention the fact that Schweitzer himself felt obliged already in 1913 to write a short work warning against the danger of misunderstanding his own thoroughgoing eschatological interpretation of the Life of Jesus, and that a second edition of this work appeared in 1933. Strange omission forsooth. (shrink)
The religionsgeschichtliche Schule , born in Germany towards the end of the XIXth century, rapidly met with considerable success throughout the world of scholarship. It reached its zenith during the first decennia of the present century, when it played a leading part in the study of Christian origins, and began to fall out of favour shortly after World War I. AlfredLoisy's Les Mystères païens et le mystère chrétien , first published in 1919 and re-edited in 1930, represents (...) one of its most significant and also one of its last productions. Very few scholars, if any, would be willing nowadays to enlist under its banner. And yet there can be little doubt that this school, despite its obvious shortcomings and unwarranted systematisations, has, in its time, done the cause of learning signal service. (shrink)
My topic lies on conceptual terrain that is quite familiar to philosophers. For others, a bit of background may be in order. In light of what has filtered down from quantum mechanics, few philosophers today believe that the universe is causally deterministic. That is, to use Peter van Inwagen's succinct definition of “determinism,” few philosophers believe that “there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future.” Even so, partly for obvious historical reasons, philosophers continue to argue about whether free (...) will and moral responsibility are compatible with determinism. Compatibilists argue for compatibility, and incompatibilists argue against it. Some incompatibilists maintain that free will and moral responsibility are illusions. But most are libertarians, libertarianism being the conjunction of incompatibilism and the thesis that at least some human beings are possessed of free will and moral responsibility. (shrink)
This article claims that Averroes wrote his Middle Commentary on the De anima after he composed both his Short and Long commentaries. A close comparison of the two texts proves that he had the Long commentary before him when composing the Middle. This has implications both for the development of Averroes' doctrine of the intellect, and for understanding Averroes' style of composing commentaries. On se propose d'établir dans cet article qu'Averroès a rédigé son Moyen commentaire sur le De Anima après (...) son Épitomé et son Grand commentaire. Une comparaison minutieuse des deux textes montre qu'il avait sous les yeux son Grand commentaire lorsqu'il composait son Moyen commentaire. Ceci est de grande conséquence tant pour notre appréciation du développement de la doctrine de l'intellect chez Averroès que pour notre compréhension du mode de composition de ses commentaires. (shrink)
Values and the scope of scientific inquiry, by M. Farber.--The phenomenology of epistemic claims: and its bearing on the essence of philosophy, by R. M. Zaner.--Problems of the Life-World, by A. Gurwitsch.--The Life-World and the particular sub-worlds, by W. Marx.--On the boundaries of the social world, by T. Luckmann.--Alfred Schutz on social reality and social science, by M. Natanson.--Homo oeconomicus and his class mates, by F. Machlup.--Toward a science of political economics, by A. Lowe.--Some notes on reality-orientation in contemporary (...) societies, by A. Brodersen.--The eclipse of reality, by E. Voegelin.--Alienation in Marx's Political economy and philosophy, by P. Merlan.--The problem of multiple realities: Alfred Schutz and Robert Musil, by P. L. Berger.--Phenomenology, history, myth, by F. Kersten.--The role of music in Leonardo's Paragone, by E. Winternitz.--Alfred Schutz bibliography (p. -306). (shrink)
Autonomous Agents addresses the related topics of self-control and individual autonomy. "Self-control" is defined as the opposite of akrasia-weakness of will. The study of self-control seeks to understand the concept of its own terms, followed by an examination of its bearing on one's actions, beliefs, emotions, and personal values. It goes on to consider how a proper understanding of self-control and its manifestations can shed light on personal autonomy and autonomous behaviour. Perspicuous, objective, and incisive throughout, Alfred Mele makes (...) a convincing case for the value of individual autonomy. (shrink)
Herbert Davidson's critique of my thesis regarding the relation between Averroes' Middle and Long commentaries on De anima contrasts my reading and translation of Middle Commentary passages with his own. I leave it to the informed reader to judge whether one translation is more “neutral” than the other, excluding the specific denotation which I give to sharh, which is the point at issue.