This paper examines the consequences of Jean-Luc Marion’s phenomenology of givenness for theology. Today, it seems, the human cannot encounter a real Otherness in immanence, let alone in history. This is theology’s main problem in today’s western culture marked by the experience of the absence of God. The consequence is that each and everything becomes subjectified, included God’s presence. God seems no longer to be present himself. The author finds in Marion’s phenomenology of givenness, the possibility to think again the (...) encounter with real otherness, and this according to God’s threefold manifestation: God’s invisible mystery as the otherness of history, God’s advent in history in Jesus Christ, and finally, the Eucharistic Christ – indeed these are three manifestations for which Cardinal Ratzinger uses the term of God’s praesentia realis. In the first instance this applies at the level of God’s possible appearing as the Transcendent in immanence. Givenness retrieves a real otherness in our gazing gaze, in the self-giving of phenomenality, and thus makes the phenomenon of the other belong to phenomenality as invisible. The philosophical and theological consequences of this otherness belonging to phenomenality appear to be multiple. Second, Marion succeeds in thinking a phenomenon of revelation-as-possibility, of which Jesus Christ appears to be the historical paradigm. And third, the miraculous event of Eucharistic presence can be understood phenomenologically as a phenomenon of revelation. Looked at from a theological perspective, it appears thus that Marion’s phenomenology of givenness offers to theology a new first philosophy as ancilla theologiae: it provides theology again with a presence, as a present or a gift. (shrink)

This volume consists of several contributions to a refined understanding of religious experience in view of contemporary theological epistemology.

In this volume we present the proceedings from the fourth international Leuven Encounters in Systematic Theology (LEST IV, November 5-8, 2003), which focussed ...

In his recent study on ‘The Excessiveness of Christianity’ the K.U. Leuven professor of phi- losophical anthropology Paul Moyaert describes how Christianity is marked with excessiveness in its ethical, religious-metaphysical and mystical self-understanding. Here we deal only with the middle part of the study, on “the incarnation of meaning.” In the first part of our contribution we explore Moyaerts theory of symbol. Moyaert rightly resists both an instrumental reduction of the symbol and an intellectual reduction. But in his search for (...) the own rationality of the symbol, he inclines towards absolutising its meaning, installing an intrinsic relation between the signifier and the signified. Moyaert recognises the role of human intentionality installing a signification in the symbol, but argues that the symbol exceeds that subjective signification with an objective meaning which it brings about itself. He sees an “intimate entanglement of ‘significatio’ and ‘esse’ ” which is at the heart of what he calls a “realism of meaning.” Our argument against this reasoning is that if the symbol bridges the distance between signifier and signified in an objective relationship between both, apart from every signifying human intentionality, then this symbol escapes historicity, and brings about an absolute presence, or the divine, thus becoming what we call the locus onto-theologicus susceptible to unmasking as an idol. Moyaert partly seems to recognize this, but nonetheless defends it as the “surrealistic perspective” from which we must think the symbol. In the second part of our contribution we follow Moyaert in his application of his theory of symbol to sacramental presence, especially the praesentia realis. He replaces the terms “signifier – signified” with their religious equivalents “incarnans – incarnatum,” seeming to assume that they have the same meaning. But this is not an innocent procedure. Whereas in the symbolic the distance between both poles should be held apart in order to avoid idolatry, in the movement of sacramental incarnation God bridges this distance in His becoming present through the historical. The praesentia realisis in the tradition of the Church not the highest possible symbolic presence of God, hence a kind of “praesentia surrealis”, but God’s sacramental presence, pushed to the limit of its historicity, in a manner analogous with Jesus’ being completely one of us and yet also “without sin.” Hence does faith not occur in a perspective of surrealism, but of realism. In our evaluation, we make a plea for a theological nuance of Moyaerts theory of symbol, recognising that a symbol as signifier needs to maintain distance from its signified in order to avoid becoming an idol, and so must also be recognized the historicity of the indeed irreducible otherness of the symbol for the individual. What is distinctive about the sacrament, as opposed to the symbol, is its accomplishment of God’s Mysterious movement bridging the distance between creation and Creator. Without this nuance, Moyaerts position appears to us to fall back into to the ultimate functionalisation of faith which consists in mastering contingency through the symbolic. Indeed, Moyaert is not alone among contemporary philosophers who turn from recognizing the irreducible groundlessness of life to a rediscovery of Christianity as an inspiration for philosophical anthropology which, however, threatens to reduce faith to a kind of post-religious wisdom tradition. In those cases, one suspects that this new sympathy for Christian faith may turn out to be a Trojan horse in the mother of all religious wars, still ongoing between Greek-modern autonomy and Jewish-biblical heteronomy. (shrink)