No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
Although it is premature to comment on what Lonergan has to say about theology because his work on theological method has not been completed, still enough material is available to suggest a basic scheme in terms of which his view of theology can be traced. As this writer sees it, there are two central ideas upon which Lonergan's thinking develops. First, the subject, and here we must consider the subject as subject and the notion of horizon; second time around we should discuss the subject as theologian and the theologian's horizon. Secondly, we should treat Lonergan's conception of science, how theology arises among the sciences, and the relation of the sciences to one another and to theology. We should also turn to the relation Lonergan sees between theology and modern culture. But Lonergan attaches great importance to the methodology used to arrive at an understanding of the subject and wants to disclose what should be going on when theologians are engaged in theology; and so we must begin by examining what the so-called ‘transcendental method’ is and conclude by suggesting what theological method is.
page 1 note 1 Herder and Herder, New York, 1968, pp. 255–84.
page 1 note 2 Paulist Press, New York, 1968, pp. 224–91.
page 2 note 1 De Deo Trino II (Pars Systematica) (Rome, 1964), Chapter 1. Bent's summary of Lonergan's treatment of theological understanding is worthwhile. It is, to my knowledge, the only available summary of the Latin text (besides Lonergan'sown much shorter account in ‘Theology and Understanding’, Collection [Herder and Herder, New York, 1967], pp. 121–41, which has been privately translated but not officially published). Lonergan has gone beyond what he wrote in 1957 and revised somewhat in 1964, however.
page 2 note 2 For example, Lapierre, Michael J., ‘God and Desire for Understanding’, The Thomist, 33 (1969), 667–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lash, Nicholas, ‘Insight into Lonergan’, New Black-friars, 49 (1968), 303–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fox, Richard W., ‘Insight into Insight’, Modern Schoolman, 46 (1969), 268–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 2 note 3 Herder and Herder, New York, 1970.
page 2 note 4 ‘Cognitional Structure’, Collection, pp. 221–39.
page 3 note 1 cf. MacKinnon, , ‘Understanding according to Bernard J. F. Lonergan, S.J.’, The Thomist, 28 (1964), pp. 490ff.Google Scholar
page 4 note 1 For example, ‘Dimensions of Meaning’, Collection, pp. 259ff; ‘Theology in its New Context’, Theology of Renewal, ed. Shook, L. K. (Palm Publishers, Montreal, 1968), Vol. 1, pp. 34–41.Google Scholar
page 4 note 2 Tracy, op. cit., pp. 84–91.
page 5 note 1 cf. Insight, pp. 549ff; pp. 280ff.
page 6 note 1 cf. Insight, pp. 536–44; pp. 181–9.
page 6 note 2 Insight, p. 268.
page 7 note 1 cf. Insight, pp. 320–4, 375–84.
page 7 note 2 cf. Insight, Chapter 11; also, pp. 499–500.
page 9 note 1 cf. Insight, Chapter 20.
page 10 note 1 The general drift of these remarks can be seen in Insight, pp. 745–7 and in ‘Theology and Man's Future’, Cross Currents, 19 (1969), pp. 452–61.
page 10 note 2 The following materials are pertinent: De Deo Trino, II, pp. 7–61; Bent's summary of this, cited above; ‘Theology and Understanding’, Collection, Chapter 8; ‘The Dehellenization of Dogma’, Theological Studies, 28 (1967), pp. 336–51; ‘Functional Specialties in Theology’, Gregorianum, 50 (1969), pp. 485–505; ‘Theology and Man's Future’, cited above; De Methodo Theologiae, notes from Lonergan's lectures taken by his students in Rome (1962).
page 11 note 1 De Deo Trino, II (1957 edition), p. 18.
page 12 note 1 ibid., pp. 23–24.
page 12 note 2 ibid., pp. 32–33.
page 12 note 3 De Deo Trino, I (1964 edition), pp. 17–28.
page 15 note 1 ‘The Dehellenization of Dogma’, referred to above.
page 15 note 2 cf. Lonergan, , The Subject (Marquette, 1968), esp. pp. 8–12.Google Scholar
page 15 note 3 cf. Tracy, op. cit., pp. 1–21; also, Tracy, ‘Horizon Analysis and Eschatology’, Continuum, 6 (168), pp. 166–179Google Scholar; and Eschatology: A Christian Approach to Time and History (Theological College of Catholic University, 1968), pp. 1–47.
page 17 note 1 cf. in this connexion Tracy, The Achievement of Bernard Lonergan, Chapter 10.
page 17 note 2 cf. Insight, Chapters 6 and 7.
page 18 note 1 cf. Gregorianum, 50 (1969), pp. 485–505.