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
One of the most interesting features of the progress of theology in our day is the fact that some of the best critics of significant Protestant theology are Roman Catholics. This, as is well known, is the case with the work of Karl Barth; and I shall try to show that it is also the case with the work of Paul Tillich. Indeed it needs no effort to show this. Not surprisingly Barth only spares him a reference in a footnote or an occasional sentence. However, for the rest of the Protestant world there has been too much glib quotation and praise of Tillich and too little analysis of his work. Even the volume devoted to him in the Library of Living Theology seems to be woefully inadequate when compared with the meticulous and valuable volumes that make up the series on which it is based, namely the Library of Living Philosophers. Then the Festschrift volume, Religion and Culture, only serves to illustrate my contention, since it is a book occasioned by Tillich rather than one on him. As against the occasional article in Protestant journals there are in Catholic journals nearly a dozen articles on Tillich, all of which are in some way or other critical studies, and more recently we have a monograph on Tillich's Christology by Father Tavard.
page 32 note 1 Vide Scottish Journal of Theology, Volume 14, No. 2, June 1961: Foley, G. E., ‘The Catholic Critics of Karl Barth in Outline and Analysis’.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 32 note 2 The Theology of Paul Tillich (ed. Kegley, and Bretall, ), Macmillan, New York, 1952.Google Scholar
page 32 note 3 Vide, for example, the supremely useful Philosophy of G. E. Moore and the recent excellent Philosophy of C. D. Broad.
page 32 note 4 Leibrecht, (ed.), Religion and Culture, Harper, New York, 1959.Google Scholar
page 32 note 5 Weigel, G., S.J., , Contemporaneous Protestantism and Paul Tillich’, Theological Studies, Baltimore, 1950, pp. 177–202Google Scholar, ‘Recent Protestant Theology’, ibid., 1953, PP. 573–85, ‘Theological Significance of Paul Tillich’, Gregorianum, Rome, 1956, pp. 34–54, ‘Myth, Symbol and Analogy’, Religion and Culture, pp. 120–30; Tavard, G. H., ‘The Unconditional Concern: The Theology of Paul Tillich’, Thought, 1953, pp. 234–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ‘Christianity and the Philosophies of Existence’, Theological Studies, 1957, pp. 1–16, ‘Le thème de la Cité de Dieu dans le protestantisme américain’, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 1959, pp. 207–21; O'Connor, E., ‘Paul Tillich: An Impression’, Thought, 1955, pp. 507–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dulles, Avery R., S.J., , ‘Paul Tillich and the Bible’, Theological Studies, 1956, pp. 345–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Przywara, E., S.J., , ‘Christian Root-terms: Kerygma, Mysterium, Kairos, Oikonomia’, Religion and Culture, pp. 113–119Google Scholar; Foster, Kenelm, ‘Paul Tillich and St. Thomas’, Blackfriars, 1960, pp. 306–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 33 note 1 Tavard, G. H., Paul Tillich and the Christian Message, London, Burns and Oates, 1962.Google Scholar
page 33 note 2 Also I have been unable to obtain copies of the articles in Thought, Blackfriars and Revue des Études Angustiniennes.
page 33 note 3 op. cit., p. 345.
page 33 note 4 ibid., p. 363.
page 33 note 5 ibid., p. 364.
page 33 note 6 ibidem. Cf. pp. 36–1.
page 33 note 7 ibid., p. 365. Cf. p. 361.
page 34 note 1 ibid., p. 367.
page 34 note 2 cf. FrBévenot, M., ‘Tradition, Church and Dogma’, The Heythrop Journal, January 1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 35 note 1 Religion and Culture, p. 113.
page 35 note 2 ibid., p. 118.
page 36 note 1 op. cit., p. 123.
page 36 note 2 ibid., p. 124.
page 36 note 3 ibid., p. 125.
page 36 note 4 ibid., pp. 125–6.
page 36 note 5 Gregorianum, 1956, p. 37.
page 37 note 1 ibid., p. 43.
page 37 note 2 ibid., p. 50.
page 37 note 3 Theological Studies, 1953, p. 582.
page 37 note 4 ibid., p. 583.
page 37 note 5 Gregorianum, 1956, p. 43.
page 37 note 6 ibid., p. 48.
page 37 note 7 ibidem.
page 37 note 8 ibid., pp. 47–48. Cf. Theological Studies, 1950, p. 200.
page 38 note 1 Theological Studies, 1953, p. 582.
page 38 note 2 ibid., p. 576.
page 38 note 3 ibid., pp. 581–2.
page 38 note 4 ibid., p. 582.
page 39 note 1 The authoritative pronouncement of Pope Pius XII in 1947 (in the encyclical Mediator Dei) concerning the symbolic way of offering which is found in the Mass is relevant here because it would suggest that the real presence of the Redeemer is just that of the symbols. He says: ‘The divine wisdom has devised a way in which our Redeemer's sacrifice is marvellously shown forth by external signs symbolic of death. By the “transubstantiation” … both His body and blood are rendered really present; but the eucharistic species under which He is present symbolise the violent separation of His body and blood and so a commemorative showing forth of the death which took place in reality on Calvary is repeated in each Mass, because by distinct representations Christ Jesus is signified and shown forth in His state of victim’ (op. cit., para. 74).
page 39 note 2 ‘Christianity and the Philosophies of Existence’, Theological Studies, 1957, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
page 40 note 1 ibid., p. 12.
page 40 note 2 ibid., p. 10.
page 40 note 3 ibid., p. 11.
page 40 note 4 Vide, ‘The Correlation of Philosophy and Theology in Tillich's System’, The London Quarterly and Holborn Review, January 1959.Google Scholar
page 40 note 5 Tavard, op. cit., p. 11.
page 41 note 1 ibidem.
page 41 note 2 Tavard, , Paul Tillich and the Christian Message, p. vii.Google Scholar
page 41 note 3 One such is E. la B. Cherbonnier who has, over a period of years, pointed out the dangerous positions to which we are committed if we accept Tillich's system. Vide, Theology Today, October 1952, pp. 360–375Google Scholar; The Journal of Religion, January 1953, pp. 16–30; The Anglican Theological Review, October, 1954, pp. 251–71; The Christian Scholar, March 1956.
page 41 note 4 Tavard, op. cit., p. 14.
page 41 note 5 ibid., p. 15.
page 41 note 6 ibid., p. 22, quoting Systematic Theology, Vol. I, p. 150.
page 42 note 1 Tavard, op. cit., p. 25.
page 42 note 2 ibid., p. 27.
page 43 note 1 ibid., p. 31.
page 43 note 2 ibid., p. 33.
page 43 note 3 ibid., p. 37.
page 43 note 4 ibid., p. 38.
page 43 note 5 ibid., p. 39.
page 43 note 6 ibid., pp. 39–40.
page 43 note 7 ibid., p. 41.
page 44 note 1 ibid., pp. 42–43.
page 44 note 2 ibid., p. 49.
page 44 note 3 ibid., p. 50.
page 44 note 4 ibid., pp. 54–55.
page 45 note 1 ibid., p. 72.
page 45 note 2 ibidem.
page 45 note 3 ibid., p. 76.
page 45 note 4 The Protestant Era, p. 230.
page 46 note 1 Tavard, op. cit., p. 78.
page 46 note 2 ibid., p. 79.
page 46 note 3 ibid., p. 93.
page 46 note 4 ibid., p. 100.
page 47 note 1 ibid., p. 101.
page 47 note 2 ibid., p. 103.
page 47 note 3 ibid., p. 105.
page 47 note 4 Vide ibid., p. 106.
page 47 note 5 ibid., pp. 11–12.
page 48 note 1 ibid., p. 132.
page 48 note 2 ibid., pp. 135–7.
page 48 note 3 ibid., p. 138.
page 48 note 4 ibid., p. 155.
page 48 note 5 ibid., p. 157.
page 48 note 6 ibid., p. 159.
page 49 note 1 ibid., pp. 164–7.
page 49 note 2 ibid., p. 173.