Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T14:48:32.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Catholic Critics of Karl Barth In Outline and Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2009

Grover Foley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1932 R. Grosche, editor of the newly founded magazine Catholica, attributed to Karl Barth the chief honour of ‘having made the Catholic-Protestant controversy again possible in the form of theological discussion’. For the Catholic critics of Barth the full possibilities of this discussion were first realised in 1951 in a brilliant work by Urs von Balthasar, whose central thesis was rated by Barth himself as ‘incomparably more powerful than that of most of the books which have clustered around me’ (C.D. IV. 1, 768). Now, in his latest part-volume, Barth expresses his gratitude to three other Catholic authors of excellent books on his theology, one each in German, French, and Italian, all showing a ‘thorough familiarity with the text’, and even more important, ‘an earnest wish to comprehend and a real comprehension’ (K.D. IV.3.1, viii). Hans Küng's Rechtfertigung reconciling the Catholic doctrine of justification with Barth's own, and raising a storm of interconfessional debate, has since become virtually a part of the continental theological vocabulary. Henri Bouillard's three-volume 900-page analysis, surpassing even von Balthasar's research in objectivity and breadth, and stimulating sheer envy for its French-reading public, appears to be the introduction to Barth's theology for the foreseeable future. And Emmanuele Riverso worthily represents even Italy's traditionally conservative Catholicism with a lengthy critique ranking with most Protestant attempts to date. Among the multitude of questions which this whole remarkable phenomenon raises for the Protestant spectator, several are basic: how does catholicism see Barth's dogmatics, what does it say to what it sees, and why should it to a greater extent than Protestantism be so obviously interested in seeing anything at all there?

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , June 1961 , pp. 136 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 136 note 1 Catholica, I, 1932, p. 96.Google Scholar

page 136 note 2 von Balthasar, H. U., Karl Barth, Köln, 1951.Google Scholar

page 136 note 3 C.D. stands in the following for the Church Dogmatics, Edinburgh, 1936ff; K.D. for Die Kirchliche Dogtnatik, being those volumes not yet published in English.

page 136 note 4 Rechtfertigung, Einsiedeln, 1957, 304 pp.Google Scholar

page 136 note 5 Karl Barth, Paris, 1957, in two parts: I, ‘Genèse et èvolution de la théologie dialectique’; II, ‘Parole de Dieu et existence humaine’ (in two sections, here referred to as II. 1 and II.2), 284, 288, and 308 pp.

page 136 note 6 La Teologia esistenzialistica di Karl Barth, Napoli, 1955, 425 pp.Google Scholar

page 137 note 1 Groot, J. C., Karl Barth en het theologische kenprobleem, Heiloo, 1946, p. 329.Google Scholar

page 137 note 2 Hamer, Jérôme, Karl Barth, l' Occasionalisme théologique de K. Barth, Paris, 1949, p. 171.Google Scholar

page 137 note 3 Söhngen, Gottlieb, ‘Analogia fidei’, Catholica, III, 1934, pp. 113–136Google Scholar, 176–208; cf.CD. II.I.pp. 81ff.

page 138 note 1 Wingren, Gustaf, Die Methodenfrage der Theologie, Gōttingen, 1957Google Scholar; Engl., trans. Theology in Conflict, Edinburgh, 1958.Google Scholar

page 139 note 1 op. cit., p. 313.

page 139 note 2 For a fuller report cf. in S.J.T., 7, 1954, the essay by G. Miegge, pp. 59–72, and the review by E. Wildbolz, pp. 108–11.

page 141 note 1 ‘Caroli Barth in doctrinam catholicam de gratia recentissimae difficultates refutantur’, Angelicum, XXXI, 1954, pp. 31–45.Google Scholar

page 141 note 2 Because of the importance of Catholic and Protestant reactions, sources for the various essays and reviews should be mentioned. Mutually supplementary lists of twenty-seven works are given in the articles of Witte, J. L., ‘Ist Barths Rechtfertigungslehre grundsätzlich katholisch?’, Münchener theologische Zeitschrift, 10. 1, 1959, pp. 38–48Google Scholar, and of Alfaro, J., ‘Justificación Barthiana y justificación Católica’, Gregorianum, XXXIX, 1958, pp. 757–769Google Scholar. Interest has been stirred also in Spain, with Alfaro's sympathetic review being balanced by Alonso's, J. M. ‘Karl Barth, un “criptocatólico”?’ answered in the negative, Revista Española de Teologia, XVII, 1957, pp. 357–383Google Scholar. Additions to the above lists are: van Oyen, H., Theologische Zeitschnft, 14. 5, pp. 380–383Google Scholar; Allen, E. L., ‘Rome Meets Geneva’, Anglican Theological Review, XL, 1958, pp. 314–317Google Scholar; and a review in Irinikon, XXX, 1957. PP. 337–340.Google Scholar

page 143 note 1 Cited also by Barth in an important essay, ‘Der römische Katholizismus als Frage an die protestantische Kirche’, Die Theobgic und die Kirche, Zürich, 1928, p. 342.Google Scholar

page 143 note 2 For a criticism of this point, cf. van Oyen, op. cit., p. 381.

page 144 note 1 ‘Caroli Barth … difficultates refutantur’, p. 42.

page 144 note 2 Schmaus, M., Katholische Dogmatik, III. 2, München, p. 101f.Google Scholar

page 144 note 3 Weber, O., ‘Gnade und Rechtfertigung bei Karl Barth’, Theologische Literaturzeitung, 83. 6, 1958, p. 404.Google Scholar

page 145 note 1 Fransen, P., Bijdragen, 19. 3, 1958, p. 331.Google Scholar

page 146 note 1 For a worthy Catholic alternative to Bouillard not only on this point but also concerning the total interpretation, cf. Fries's, H.Bultmann, Barth und die kalholische Theologie, Stuttgart, 1955Google Scholar, which wholeheartedly adopts Barth as the true Catholic answer to Bultmann.

page 148 note 1 Christliche Ethik, München, 1957 2, p. 491.Google Scholar

page 148 note 2 Grundlagen der Dogmatik I, Moers, 1955, p. 633f.Google Scholar

page 148 note 3 Von Balthasar's major thesis has apparently received no extensive reply, though some excellent criticisms on other points have appeared. In an article on ‘Analogia fidei oder analogia entis?’ W. Kreck replies to von Balthasar's treatment of ontic and noetic ratio and defends Barth's continuing faithfulness to the analogia fidei, but he also attests the multitude of von Balthasar's questions remaining to be answered (in Antwort, Zürich, 1956). W. Pannenberg proposes that Barth drop the concept of analogy altogether and settle for a dialectic of ‘encounter’ to avoid von Balthasar's consequences (Theologische Literaturzeitung, 78.1, 1953, pp. 17–24). Berkouwer devotes his major interest to a defence of Barth's treatment of Quenstedt (The Triumph of Grace, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1956, pp. 187ff). For another judgment on Barth and Quenstedt, cf. J. Mclntyre's article ‘Analogy’, S.J.T., 12.1, 1959.

page 150 note 1 Berkouwer's objection to Barth's openness to philosophy in theology impinges upon the role of ‘nature’ in general in the Dogmatics and possibly hinders the adequacy of his reply to von Balthasar (op. cit., pp. 19ff).

page 153 note 1 Barth, , Dogmatics in Outline, New York, 1959, p. 75.Google Scholar

page 154 note 1 Perhaps this helps explain the apparent contradiction between CD. III.4 and IV.2 which puzzles Weber, O. (in Karl Barths Kirchliche Dogmatik, Moers, 1957 3, p. 27gf).Google Scholar

page 154 note 2 cf. Küng's use of this image (16) and Barth's comment (14).

page 154 note 3 The Word of God and the Word of Man, New York, 1957, p. 196.Google Scholar

page 154 note 4 cf. the recent essay on ‘The Humanity of God’ (Die Menschlkhkeit Gottes, Zürich, 1956)Google Scholar, significantly not entitled ‘The Divinity of Man’.