¹ Early essays on this topic include Rahner, Karl, “The Theology of the Symbol” in Theological Investigations, vol. 4, trans. Smyth, Kevin (New York: Seabury, 1959), 221–52;Google ScholarTillich, Paul, “The Meaning and Justification of Religious Symbols” in Hook, Sidney, ed., Religious Experience and Truth: A Symposium (New York: New York University Press, 1961), 301–21;Google Scholar and Schillebeeckx, Edward, Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God, trans. Barrett, Paul (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963).Google Scholar

Notable among later undertakings in this area are Power, David, Unsearchable Riches: The Symbolic Nature of the Liturgy (New York: Pueblo, 1984)Google Scholar, and Tracy, David, The Analogical Imagination (New York: Crossroad, 1989).Google Scholar Schillebeeckx has continued to develop his sacramental theology. A later effort of his can be found in his treatment of sacraments as anticipatory signs at the conclusion of Christ: The Experience of Jesus as Lord, trans. Bowden, John (New York: Crossroad, 1989), 835–40.Google Scholar Schillebeeckx's reflections on this theme continue in a book he is currently writing on sacramental theology. He offered a précis of this undertaking in “Verzet, engagement en viering” (“Resistance, Engagement, and Celebration”), Nieuwsbrief Stichting Edward Schillebeeckx 5 (1992): 1–3.Google Scholar

² See, in particular, Hünermann, Peter, “Sakrament—Figur des Lebens” in Ankunft Gottes und Handeln des Menschen: Thesen über Kult und Sakrament, Questiones Disputatae 77 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1977), 51–87;Google Scholar and “Lebensvollzüge der Kirche. Reflexionen zu einer Theologie des Wortes und der Sakramente” in Theorie der Sprachhandlungen und heutige Ekklesiologie, Questiones Disputatae 109 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1987), 27–53.Google ScholarMeuffels, Hans Otmar, Kommunikative Sakramententheologie (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1995)Google Scholar, contains an extensive bibliography.

³ See Beauchamp, Paul, Le Récit, la lettre et la corps (Paris: Cerf, 1982);Google ScholarBreton, Stanislas, Le verbe et la croix (Paris: Desclée, 1981);Google ScholarDubarle, Dominique, “Pratique du symbole et connaissance de Dieu” in Le Mythe et le Symbole (Paris: Editions Beau-chesne, 1977), 201–48;Google Scholar and Marion, Jean-Luc, God without Eeing, trans. Carlson, Thomas A. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991).Google Scholar

⁴ As Heidegger's thought was being questioned in post-war Germany, it enjoyed a paradoxical revival in France. His “Letter on Humanism” was written in response to questions from the French translator of Sein und Zeit. He exercised a great influence on the thought of many of the thinkers just cited. Derrida's celebrated term “deconstruction” is, in fact, derived from Heidegger's notion of destruction. See Brague, R., “Heideggers Einfluß auf das französische Geistesleben,” Theologie und Philosophie 57 (1982): 21–42.Google Scholar For a critical appraisal in light of Heidegger's association with National Socialism, see Wolin, Richard, “French Heidegger Wars” and “Anti-Humanism in French Postwar Theory” in Labyrinths: Explorations in the Critical History of Ideas (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1995), 142–61, 175–209.Google Scholar

⁵ Chauvet, Louis-Marie, Symbol and Sacrament: A Sacramental Reinterpretation of Christian Existence, trans. Beaumont, Madeleine M. and Madigan, Patrick, O.S.B. (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1994).Google Scholar Unless noted otherwise, all further references will be to the English translation and will appear in parentheses in the text. Chauvet has recently edited with Lumbala, François Kabasele, Liturgy and the Body, Concilium, 1995/3 (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1995).Google Scholar

⁶ Chauvet is careful to note that the greatest metaphysicians have always taken “a step backwards in humble lucidity before the truth.” He cites Plato and Aquinas approvingly. Nevertheless, he criticizes them for simply noting the problems inherent in metaphysics without taking them seriously enough to make them a point of departure for reflection. Thus, Chauvet feels justified in criticizing scholastic, metaphysical, or onto-theological thought in general (see Symbol and Sacrament, 7-9).

⁷ The French word used here (branchement) is the same term used to describe a telephone line or connection (153, 172, 188).

⁸ There are similarities here with Schillebeeckx's early work on the sacraments, where Schillebeeckx too was concerned with subsuming the sacraments into the general workings of cause and effect (see Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God, 3-6, 179-83).

⁹ Certainly there is much to be said for the sophisticated ways in which many scholastic thinkers dealt with the problems Chauvet raises. Here we will accept Chauvet's criticism of scholasticism and metaphysics as a presupposition of his creative proposal without evaluating it in terms of its fairness to the best of scholastic thought.

¹⁰ Chauvet, , Symbol and Sacrament, 84.Google Scholar See Heidegger's, 1950 essay “Language” in Poetry, Language, Thought, trans. Hofstadter, Albert (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 189–210.Google Scholar

¹¹ Chauvet has a very broad conception of language. It includes gestures as well as instinctual reflexes and psychological responses (see Symbol and Sacrament, 87, n. 8).

¹² See Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, Phenomenology of Perception (New York: Humanities Press, 1962), 183.Google Scholar

¹³ Heidegger, , “Letter on Humanism” in Krell, David F., ed., Basic Writings (New York: Harper & Row, 1977), 193.Google Scholar

¹⁴ For Lacan, this first occurs in the Oedipal crisis when the child encounters Saus-surean signification by difference in the person of the father who is not the mother. See Lacan, Jacques, The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, trans. Sheridan, Alan (New York: Norton, 1978).Google Scholar For a succinct treatment of Lacan, see Kurzweil, Edith, The Age of Structuralism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980), 135–64.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Chauvet, Louis-Marie, Symbole et sacrement (Paris: Cerf, 1987), 104.Google Scholar

¹⁶ ”[E]very symbolic element brings with itself the entire socio-cultural system to which it belongs” (115).

¹⁷ Chauvet's contemporary, Jean-Luc Marion, makes similar use of the Emmaus account (see his God Without Being, 144-58).

¹⁸ Chauvet outlines several ways in which Christians are perennially tempted to ignore the absence of Christ and capture him in their ideological “nets” (173-78).

¹⁹ ”On but donc sur le sacrement, comme on bute sur le corps, comme on bute sur l'institution, comme on bute sur la lettre des Écritures…” (Chauvet, , Symbole et sacrement, 161).Google Scholar

²⁰ Chauvet asserts that in its ethical practice the Christian community gives body to the absent Christ (263ff.). For an analysis of the relationship between ethics and the sacraments in Chauvet, see van Eijk, A. H. C., “Ethics and the Eucharist,” Bijdragen voor Filosofie en Theologie 55 (1994): 350–75.Google Scholar

²¹ This notion can be found throughout Heidegger's writings. For a concise introduction, see the two essays in his Discourse on Thinking, trans. Anderson, John M. and Freund, E. Hans (New York: Harper & Row, 1966).Google Scholar For a discussion of Heidegger's use of this term see Caputo, John, The Mystical Element in Heidegger's Thought (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1978), 118-27, 173–83.Google Scholar

²² Chauvet's position must not, however, be understood as a mere corrective to the kataphatic elements of Christian theology. His position challenges the foundation of the analogy of being. See n. 6 above.

²³ This observation is common in criticisms of post-structuralism from the left. In addition to the work of Richard Wolin already cited, see Habermas, Jürgen, “Modernity versus Postmodernism,” New German Critique 22 (Winter 1981): 3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Eagleton, Terry, Literary Theory (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983), 141–50.Google Scholar

²⁴ Caputo, , The Mystical Element in Heidegger's Thought, 96–99.Google Scholar

²⁵ See McGinn, Bernard, ed. and trans., Meister Eckhart: The Essential Sermons, Treatises, Commentaries and Defense, Classics of Western Spirituality (New York: Paulist, 1981), Sermon 52, 199–203.Google Scholar

²⁶ It must be added that for Heidegger, Gelassenheit was an attempt to embrace the withdrawal of Being without succumbing to skepticism, and provide a more adequate posture for philosophy than analysis, which failed in the face of Being's night-side withdrawal. Nevertheless, this approach is inadequate for critically evaluating the elements of the humanly mediated symbol world.

²⁷ Habermas, Jürgen, On the Logic of the Social Sciences, trans. Nicholsen, Shierry Weber and Stark, Jerry A. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1988).Google Scholar For an introduction to Habermas' thought see McCarthy, Thomas A., The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1984).Google Scholar Habermas' later work also provides resources for addressing the problems raised here with Chauvet's theology. See n. 23.

²⁸ Habermas, , On the Logic of the Social Sciences, 146.Google Scholar

²⁹ ”Reason, which is always bound up in languages, is also always beyond its languages. Only by destroying the particularities of languages, which are the only way it is embodied, does reason live in language. It can purge itself of the residue of one particularity, of course, only through the transition into another” (ibid., 144).

³⁰ Gadamer's, comments are found in his discussion of “Prejudices as Conditions of Understanding” in Truth and Method, 2nd rev. ed., trans. Weinsheimer, Joel and Marshall, Donald G. (New York: Crossroad, 1992), 277–99.Google Scholar The phrase cited is found on page 290. Compare this statement of Gadamer's with Chauvet's assertion that the symbolic/institutional mediation of the Christian tradition is a “gift of grace” (186).

³¹ Habermas, , On the Logic of the Social Sciences, 173.Google Scholar See also Habermas, Jürgen, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans. McCarthy, Thomas A. (Boston: Beacon, 1979), 131ff.Google Scholar

³² Habermas further refines his theory of the relationship of language to social processes using Bühler's, Karl functional scheme of language in Post-Metaphysical Thinking, trans. Hohengarten, William (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992).Google Scholar

³³ For a summary of Ricoeur's position see Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth: Texas Christian University, 1976).Google Scholar These themes are developed with greater detail in Ricoeur, Paul, The Rule of Metaphor: Multidisciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language, trans. Czerny, Robert with McLaughlin, Kathleen and Costello, John (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977).Google Scholar

³⁴ This use of Adorno and Levinas is indebted to Edward Schillebeeckx's theological hermeneutics. His use of these thinkers has evolved since the late 1960s. See Schillebeeckx, Edward, God the Future of Man, trans. Smith, N. D. (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968), 167–207;Google ScholarSchillebeeckx, Edward, The Understanding of Faith, trans. Smith, N. D. (New York: Seabury, 1974), 124–55;Google ScholarSchillebeeckx, Edward, Christ: The Experience of Jesus as Lord, 30–36;Google Scholar and Schillebeeckx, Edward, Church: The Human Story of God, trans. Bowden, John (New York: Crossroad, 1990), 28–30.Google Scholar

³⁵ Adorno, Theodor, Negative Dialectics, trans. Ashton, E. B. (New York: Seabury, 1973).Google Scholar Adorno's notion of alterity can also be found in his discussions of “subject” and “object” throughout his Aesthetic Theory, trans. Lenhardt, C. (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986).Google Scholar

³⁶ Adorno, , Negative Dialectics, 46.Google Scholar

³⁷ Levinas, Emmanuel, Totality and Infinity, trans. Lingus, Alphonso (Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press, 1969), 197.Google Scholar See also “Ethics as First Philosophy” in Hand, Seàn, ed., The Levinas Reader (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989), 75–87.Google Scholar