The question that arises in this article is whether we can find elements of phenomenology in Bernard Lonergan’s Trinitarian theology.With help of other Lonergan scholars, I have discovered that modern thinking plays an important role in the theology and philosophy ofthis Jesuit author. Moreover, the terminology of modern philosophy coexists with the terminology of classical and especially Tomisticthought. This article is interested in the elements that Lonergan takes from the modern philosophy and emphasizes the centrality ofHusserlian phenomenology among the other (...) modern authors used by Lonergan. Following the research of the Jesuit thinker, I speakabout two parallel realities coexisting in his Trinitarian theology. Lonergan tries to realize their synthesis, but at the same time healso recognizes their distinctiveness. The most relevant result of this coexistence is obtained through the replacement of the metaphysical differentiation between the level of substance and the level of the three Persons, so that, instead of having the elements of classical theology, Lonergan predicates at the same time that God subsists as well as the Trinitarian Persons subsist. Through this assertion he emphasizes the identity between God’s existence and the existence of the three divine Persons, and eliminates the classical differentiation that might be closer to the danger of subordinating the three Persons to the one God. (shrink)

Secara alami dan biologis, jenis kelamin manusia jelas, yaitu laki-laki dan perempaun. Secara tradisoonal diterima oleh masyarakat bahwa ketertarikan seksual bersifat heteroseks, yaitu laki-laki tertarik berelasi seksual dengan perempaun dan perempuan tertarik berelasi seksual dengan pria. Sekarang sebagian masyarakat menerima bahwa ketertarikan seksual bukan hanya bersifat heteroseks, tetapi bisa juga bersifat homoseks, yaitu laki-laki tertarik secara seksual dengan pria, dan perempuan tertarik secara seksual dengan perempuan. Orientasi seksual yang bukan hanya heteroseks makin mendapat perhatiaan saat ini. Perhatian makin serius karena (...) sebagian masyarakat menerima dan mengesahkan perkawinan homoseksual. Gereja Katolik tidak menerima “perkawinan” homoseksual karena tidak sesuai dengan ajaran dan aturan yang melindungi nilai kemanusiaan dan martabat keluarga. Perkawinan sakramental dalam Gereja Katolik terjadi antara laki-laki dan perempuan yang berhubungan dengan ketahanan lembaga keluarga, prokreasi dan keturunan. (shrink)

Bernard is generally considered the representative of the medieval anti-philosophical tendencies par excellence. A more detailed study of his writings, however, shows his attitude to be much more complicated. This article examines how Bernard's approach to philosophy changed over the years. It concentrates on two periods, the first confrontation with Abelard around 1127 and the years after the confrontation with Gilbert of Poitiers (1148). For both periods, Bernard's writings are examined to study his attitude towards philosophy. Special attention is paid (...) to his last treatise On consideration, which is demonstrated to be perceived in the first place as a treatise on philosophy. Apparently, towards the end of his life, Bernard accepted the importance of philosophy as a tool in a Christian's research for the truth, but, by his treatise, he aspired to oppose a more practical and rhetorical, Ciceronian philosophy to the theories of the schools. /// Bernardo é geralmente considerado o representante por excelência das tendências anti-filosóficas na Idade Média. Um estudo pormenorizado dos seus escritos, contudo, revela que a sua atitude é muito mais complexa do que isso. O presente artigo examina de que modo a abordagem de Bernardo à Filosofia mudou com o passar dos anos, concentrando-se em dois períodos, a saber, o da primeira confrontação com Abelardo por volta do ano 1127 e o dos anos que se seguiram à confrontação com Gilberto de Poitiers (1148). Em rela ção a cada um destes períodos, o autor do artigo examina os textos de Bernardo em ordem a estudar a sua atitude perante a Filosofia. Especial atenção é dada ao seu último tratado De consideratione, demonstrando-se ser este antes de mais percebido como um tratado sobre a Filosofia. De facto, parece dar-se o caso de que com o aproximar-se do fim da sua vida, Bernardo foi aceitando cada vez mais a importância da Filosofia como um instrumento para a busca da verdade por parte do cristão, muito embora com este tratado ele aspirasse a opor uma filosofia de pendor ciceroniano, mais prdtica e retorica, as teorias das Escolas. (shrink)

In this article the Reformer Martin Luther is to be situated against the backdrop of his medieval theological context – considering especially Bernard of Clairvaux. It is well-known that he held in great esteem Bernard and the theology he represented. First of all, Luther's relationship to Bernard is to be investigated by way of a historiographic review of the research that was done in the past 150 years. How did one consider Luther’s attitude toward Bernard, and how did Luther research (...) specifically value this attitude? In this research, denominational positions appear to have played a important role. Secondly, the attempt is made here to sketch Bernard’s place in Luther’s own tradition. Next to the medieval scholastic theology, there were diverse other influences that became important for the young Luther. Bernard’s specific place within the complexity of medieval traditions is to be determined. This is being explained by presenting seven significant texts mainly from Luther’s works, which are added to this article. Finally, the attempt is made to determine more closely Bernard’s place in Luther’s theology between Scholasticism and Mysticism. If one wants to do justice to Bernard in Luther's works, one must take into consideration the way in which Luther has perceived him, namely as a theologian of the Scriptures, a theologian of experience and a preacher of Christ par excellence along the lines of monastic theology. (shrink)

In deze bijdrage worden twee alternatieve visies op de verhouding van geloof en weten geschetst aan de hand van twee middeleeuwse denkers: Bernardus van Clairvaux en Thomas van Aquino. De auteur betoogt dat zowel de ‘rationalistische’ positie van Thomas van Aquino als de ‘anti-rationalistische’ positie van Bernardus van Clairvaux beide, geloof en rede, als op waarheid betrokken zien, waarmee zicht wordt geboden op het wijsgerige belang van dit vermeende anti-rationalisme.

Early in the 1240s the University of Paris hired a recent graduate from Oxford, Roger Bacon by name, to teach the arts and introduce Aristotle to its curriculum. Along with eight sets of questions on Aristotle's natural works and the Metaphysics he claims to have authored another eight books before he returned to Oxford around 1247. Within the prodigious output of this period we find a treatise on logic titled Summulae dialectices, and it is this that is here annotated and (...) presented in translation. The book is unique in several respects. First, there is the breadth of its sources. Not only do we find explicit reference to the usual authors such as Aristotle, Plato, Boethius, Porphyry, Cicero, and Priscian, we also find unexpected reference to Augustine, Bernardus Silvestris, Donatus, Terence, and Themistius, along with mention of the Muslim philosophers Algazel and Ibn Rushd. Second, it is clear that Bacon is drawing on or reacting to an extraordinarily wide variety of medieval sources: Garland the Computist, Hugh of St. Victor, Master Hugo, Hugutius of Pisa, Isidore of Seville, Nicholas of Damas, Nicholas of Paris, Richard of Cornwall, Robert Kilwardby, Robert of Lincoln, and Robert the Englishman. Third, it unexpectedly presents a full-blown treatment of Aristotle's theory of demonstration. And finally, Bacon reveals a highly unorthodox view of the signification of common terms. Bacon, here, takes his students and us deeper into medieval sources and controversy than any of his rivals do. (shrink)

Few works of philosophy have enjoyed the prestige of the Timaeus, the dialogue in which Plato set out to provide a rational account, cast in the form of a cosmological "myth," of the universe and humankind. Calcidius translated and commented on Plato's Timaeus. Chronology does little to explain Calcidius' work, which so falls outside the scope of any developmental account of "Middle-" and "Neoplatonism." Calcidius' identification of the Platonic Receptacle with Aristotelian Matter and his various Stoicising impulses reflect traditions that (...) had altered ancient perspectives on the Timaeus, but it is difficult to ascertain the degree to which his philosophical points of reference are Numenius, Alcinous, and Apuleius in the second century CE as opposed to Plotinus, Porphyry, and Iamblichus in the third to fourth. This may have contributed to the later fascination with Calcidius, especially during the "renaissance" of the twelfth century, when his translation and commentary presented themselves as a coalescence of ideas frozen outside of time and space. From Calcidius twelfth-century readers may have learned how ancient opinions on the World Soul, Fate, and Matter lined up conceptually, but they got from him no reliable means of disentangling the historical descent or intersections of those opinions. Yet Calcidius proved to be a fundamental source of inspiration for thinkers such as Bernardus Silvestris, William of Conches, and Alan of Lille, who set out to make new sense of the world, its architecture, the forces that animate it, and our place within it."--Provided by publisher. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Natural Philosophy: On Retrieving a Lost Disciplinary Imaginary by Alister E. McGRATHJack ZupkoMcGRATH, Alister E. Natural Philosophy: On Retrieving a Lost Disciplinary Imaginary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023. viii + 248 pp. Cloth, $39.95This book attempts to retrieve and reimagine the tradition of natural philosophy as an antidote for what the author sees as the fragmented, instrumentalized, and ethically disengaged understanding of the natural world most of us (...) have today. The idea is not to reinstate the older vision of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, with its final causes and animated spheres, or even the early modern culmination of natural philosophy in Newton’s universe of mathematically fixed natural laws; rather, the author hopes to engender a newer and deeper understanding of nature that is at once scientific, ethical, and poetic, which he explains in terms of the conceptual framework of Popper’s “Three Worlds”: objective, subjective, and theoretical. What is recovered thereby is said to be a “lost conceptual space” wherein human beings learn both about and from nature, modes of knowing rendered obsolete by disciplinary specialization in the sciences as well as our commitment to objective methods that leave no room for ethical or spiritual approaches to understanding the natural world and our place in it.The author covers quite a bit of ground on the historical side, from the ancient Greeks through the Middle Ages, moving on to the idea of natural philosophy as it was gradually transformed during the early modern period by Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, Boyle, and Newton—a picture finally eclipsed by the objective, empirical concept of natural science familiar to us today. Curiously, the book says very little about the Platonic tradition of natural philosophy that grew up around the Timaeus. Because it was available in Latin (or the first half of it, anyway, in a Latin translation by the Roman Neoplatonist Calcidius, who also wrote an influential commentary on the work), the Timaeus was, for almost a millennium, the authoritative text in natural philosophy in the West, at least until Aristotle’s nonlogical and scientific writings were recovered in the twelfth century. The Timaeus was the subject of many commentaries and philosophical discussions, from Calcidius in the fourth century to Bernardus Silvestris, William of Conches, and Alan of Lille in the twelfth. It fell out of favor among philosophers with the rise of Aristotle’s Physics and Aristotelian natural philosophy, though it continued to shape the popular imagination of nature in other genres, such as art and literature—recall, for example, the well-known image of “God the Geometer” (c. 1230), measuring the cosmos with a compass. If the author’s project is about “retrieving” natural philosophy “as a lost disciplinary imaginary” (the book’s subtitle), then surely the Platonic vision of the universe deserves equal billing with the Aristotelian. [End Page 158]That said, there is much to like in the project sketched here. The author’s diagnosis of the epistemic malaise of modern-day science sounds right to anyone familiar with the history of philosophy and natural science. So, even though we can now correctly describe the velocity constant of earth’s gravity as 9.8 m/s2, among other scientific achievements, we take ourselves to be wearing a different hat when we wax poetic at the beauty of the sky and the stars. Early-and pre-modern authors were more adept at bringing together science and poetry, but that might be because their epistemic position was radically different from our own. Calcidius, for example, finds it easy to draw moral and aesthetic conclusions from the motions of the cosmos because he really believed heavenly bodies are, like us, animated by souls. Even a materialist like Lucretius accepts that the gods exist; his (still) very radical thesis is that they don’t care about us. (And why should they? The Pythagorean theorem is much more beautiful and edifying to consider than the troubles of ignorant and weak-willed mortals.) Enlightened moderns that we are, we no longer believe the heavens are populated by super-intelligent beings; yet we continue to marvel at Van Gogh’s Starry Night and feel it is wrong to cause gratuitous... (shrink)

By way of conclusion we may add the following three items to A. Maier's and G. Federici-Vescovini's investigations: 1. The Questiones super libris Physicorum in the ms. Cesena, B. Malatestiana S.VIII.5 have been incorrectly attributed to John Buridan. Their real author is Albert of Saxony. 2. The ms. Cesena, B. Malatestiana S.VIII.5 ff. 4ra-4vb contains the Prologue and the tabula questionum of the Questions on De gen. et corr., whereas the ms. Vat. lat. 3097 ff. 103ra-146rb has the complete text. (...) This Prologue and the questions 1 and 3 can also be found in Vat. lat. 2185 ff. 50ra-50vb. This text certainly cannot be considered as another copy of Buridan's well known Questions on De gen. et corr. Neither is it certain that Nicole Oresme is their author, as A. Maier seems to believe. There are indications pointing in the direction of a redaction other than the one known, of Buridan's Questions. In any case this possibility cannot be ruled out by the material that has been presented here. 3. The ms. Cesena, B. Malatestiana S.VIII.5 has at one time had the same owner as the codices Vat. lat. 2159, 2160, 2185 and 3066, and the codices Cesena, B. Malatestiana S.VII.5 and S.VIII.2. This owner was in all probability Bernardus a Campanea of Verona, a physician. (shrink)

It is a well-known fact that the reformer Martin Luther highly esteemed Bernhard of Clairvaux. But what exactly was the significance of Bernhard for him? During the last years some Luther scholars became highly interested in the theological and historical relations between these two remarkable theologians. Recently Franz Posset published an article on this subject in Luther Jahrbuch. He discusses Bernhard of Clairvaux's Sermons of Christmas-time, Lent- and Easter-time as a source for Martin Luther. Theo Bell contributes to this discussion (...) firstly by examining some of the references, which are given by Posset. Did Luther refer to the Bernards second Easter sermon indeed? Was he not familiar at all with his Lenten sermons on Ps. 90? Secondly he argues, that Posset's statement, that Luther is a Bernardus redivivus, is a questionable one. Finally: the main question to the relation Luther-Bernard no longer is: did Luther read Bernard's writings and which ones did he explicitely know, but how did he read and understand them from his sixteenth century point of view? This reception problem should get the proper attention it deserves. (shrink)

Hermeneutics, the Bible and Literary Criticism. Edited by Ann Loades and Michael McLain.The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System. By Avery Dulles.The Shape of Soreriology. By John McIntyre.Not the Cross But the Crucfied. By H.‐E. Mertens.Verbum Curo: An Encyclopedia on Jesus, the Christ. By Michael O'Carroll.The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: Sources and Methods for the Study of the Early Liturgy. By Paul Bradshaw.Worship: Initiation and the Churches. By Leonel L. Mitchell.The Eucharistic Mystery: Revitalizing the Tradition. By (...) David Power.Church of Churches: The Ecclesiology of Communion. By J.‐M. Tillard.God and History, Aspects of British Theology 1875‐1914. By Peter Hinchliff.Clear Heads and Holy Hearts: The Religious and Theological Ideal of John Henry Newman. By Terrence Merrigan.The Desert Fathers on Monastic Community. By Graham Gould.John Moschos, ‘The Spiritual Meadow’. Introduction, translation and notes by John Wortley.A Gentle Touch. By David Pailin.The Eye of the Storm: Spiritual Resources for rhe Pursuit of Justice. By Kenneth Leech.The Church and the Arts. Edited by Diana Wood.Anti‐Christian Polemic in Early Islam: Abu Isa al‐Warraq's ‘Against the Trinity’. Edited by David Thomas.Bernardus Magister: Papers Presented at the Nonacentenary Celebration of the Birth of St Bernard of Clairvaux. Edited by John R. Sommerfeldt.Church and City 1000‐1500: Essays in Honour of Christopher Brooke. Edited by David Abulafia, Michael Franklin and Miri Rubin.‘Piers Plowman’ and the Problem of Belief. By Britton J. Harwood.Ignutius of Luyola: The Psychology of a Saint. By W. W. Meissner.Jerome Naahl, S. J., 1507‐1580: Tracking the First Generation of Jesuits. By William V. Bangert, edited and completed by Thomas M. McCoog.From Bishop to Witch: The System of the Sacred in Early Modern Terra d'Otranto. By David Gentilcore.Civic Politics in the Rome of Urban VIII. By Laurie Nussdorfer.Michel de Montaigne: The Complete Essays. Translated by M. A. Screech.Montaigne and Melancholy: The Wisdom of the ‘Essays’. By M. A. Screech.Religion and Philosophy. Edited by Martin Warner.What is Faith? Essays in the Philosophy of Religion. By Anthony Kenny.Truth and Hisroriciry. By Richard Campbell. (shrink)

While histories of literature and philosophy have till now presented Calcidius as if he were no more than a secondhand mediator of Platonic thought, Peter Dronke, in The Spell of Calcidius, shows that this judgement must be radically revised. Calcidius' commentary (probably of the early fourth century) on Plato's Timaeus is a deeply individual work, which was able to inspire a fresh way of looking for truth, of searching for a world-picture that was not ready-made, among exceptional thinkers across eight (...) centuries. The spell Calcidius cast was intellectual freedom, a Christian's refusal to make Christian propaganda, a spirit of open enquiry. After the discussion of some key cosmological motifs in Calcidius himself and in Boethius, there follow chapters on the brilliant transformations of Calcidian thought in the ninth century by Eriugena and others; on the odi et amo towards Calcidius of Manegold of Lautenbach in the eleventh century; and on the ardent assimilation of his thought in the early twelfth by “us who love Plato”, as William of Conches proclaimed. The final chapter shows how in Bernardus Silvestris' epic, the Cosmographia (1147/8), the daring uses of language and speculation begun by Calcidius find their culminating creative renewal. (shrink)

As the editors fully perceived, the new critical edition of the so-called commentary of Bernardus Silvestris on the Aeneid of Vergil was but a stage in the development of a basic knowledge of this important work. We could not, with the data available to us, solve certain major problems relating to author and text. We could not, for example, confidently name the author, nor could we adequately describe the genesis of the work. Recently, two studies have appeared — the (...) first by E. R. Smits, the second by Christopher Baswell — which seek to address these questions. The present article will in the main be a critique of these studies. In my view the two scholars perform a valuable service in bringing forward new material to which others may react, but the principal suggestion of Smits must be rejected and the conclusions of Baswell require modification. (shrink)