Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T23:48:57.014Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Walter Kasper and his theological programme

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Aidan Nichols OP
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Walter Kasper’s name is by now well-known among English-speaking readers of theology: the 1984 translation of Der Gott Jesu Christi following on the translating in 1976 of Jesus der Christus established his reputation as a writer at once conceptually rigorous and historically well-informed. What is less understood, however, is the total context to which these works belong. From Kasper’s background in the Tubingen School his writings so far can be shown to represent a total theological programme of a quite distinctive kind. This programme is not only of considerable intrinsic interest. It also has a wider church-political significance in the light of Kasper’s selection as the official theologian of the Roman Synod Secretariat, encharged with the collation and theological analysis of the ‘submissions’ made to the Holy See by national conferences of bishops in readiness for the 1985 Synod on ‘The Church after Vatican II’. His appointment offers a useful key to the debate about the intentions of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (and more generally, of the Roman Curia in its higher echelons) in the middle 1980’s. In particular, it helps to determine whether these intentions are best described as ‘Neo-Ultramontane’, as argued (in effect) by a group of writers in New Blackfriars in June 1985, or rather, as the present author has maintained, as offering a via media or re-accentramento (‘re-centring’) for Church and theology, amid the competing voices of left and right-wing radicalism in post-conciliar Catholicism. This is a debate which has not ended with the ending of the Synod.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
New Blackfriars , Volume 67 , Issue 787 , January 1986 , pp. 16 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Jesus der Christus (Mainz 1974)Google Scholar, E.T., Jesus the Christ (London 1976)Google Scholar; Der Gott Jesu Christi (Mainz 1982)Google Scholar. E.T., The God of Jesus Christ (London 1984Google Scholar).

2 Ratzinger on the Faith: 4 Response ‐ New Blackfriars LXVI. 780 (June, 1985), passim. For an alternative view, see A. Nichols OP, ‘The Pope and his Critics’, The Tablet, 9.3.1985, p. 244, and ‘In support of Cardinal Ratzinger’, ib. 20.7.1985, p. 749.

3 See Stolz, E. et al., ‘Beitäge zur Geschichte der Universität, besonders der katholisch‐theologischen Fakultät in Tübingen’, Theologische Quartalschrift 108 (1927), pp. 1–220Google Scholar.

4 In 1817, see ib. pp. 77–133.

5 Geiselmann, J.R.. Die katholische Tubingen Schule: ihre theologische Eigenurt (Freiburg 1964)Google Scholar; c.f. Jesus Christ op. cit. p. 9:

In contradistinction to many contemporary works on Jesus, they (the Tübingen theologians) had no doubt that that origin (the origin of Christianity in Jesus Christ) which is still normative for us, was accessible only through biblical and ecclesiastical tradition. They knew that we could dispense with that tradition only at the cost of a severe impoverishment of our resources. They differed from the neo‐scholastic theology of their time in their parallel conviction that tradition had to be handed on as something living; that is, in conjunction and confrontation with the comments and questions of a particular time.

6 Hünermann, P., ‘Der Reflex des deutschen Idealismus in der Theologie der katholischen Tübingen Schule’, Philosophisches Jahrbuch der GOrres‐Gesellschaft 72 (1964–5), pp. 161–179Google Scholar.

7 Lohmann, L., Die Philosophie der Offenbarung bei J.S. von Drey (Freiburg 1953)Google Scholar; Weindel, P., Das VerhUαtnis von Glauben und When in der Theologie F.A. Staudenmaiers (Dusseldorf 1940)Google Scholar.

8 Klinger, E., ‘Tübingen School’, Sacramentum Mundi VI, pp. 318–320Google Scholar.

9 For Kasper's own critique of Neo‐Scholasticism, see The Methods of Dogmatic Theology (Shaman 1969)Google Scholar chapter 2.

10 Geiselmann, J.R., Lebendiger Glaube aus geheiligter Überlieferung. J.A. Möhler und die katholische Tübinger Schule (Mainz 1972)Google Scholar; H. Tristram, ‘J.A. Moehler et J.H. Newman’, Revue des Sciences philosophiques et theologiques XXVII (1938). pp. 184–204.

11 The Tübingen School did not suffer from uncritical openness: thus Staudenmaier attacked Hegel, MOhler disputed with L. Bautain and F.C. Baur, while J.E. Kuhn criticised D.F. Strauss.

12 Die Lehre von der Tradition in der Romischen Schule (Frieburg 1962)Google Scholar.

13 See e.g. L. Scheffczyk, Kursänderung des Glaubens? Theologische Gründe zur Entscheidung im fall Küng (Stein am Rhein 1980); Küng's critics seem borne out on this point by C.M. LaCugna's exhaustive investigation in her The Theological Methodology of Hans Küng (Chico 1982)Google Scholar.

14 Die Lehre von der Tradition in der Römischen Schule op. cit. pp.420–422; cf. J.R. Geiselmann‘s foreword: 'In Franzelin ist aber zugleich Möhler auf diesem Konzil (i.e. Vatican 1) anwesend’, ib. p. viii.

15 Perrone, G., Il Protestantesimo e la regola difede (Rome 1853)Google Scholar. II. c. 1, a.2, p. 41.

16 Das Absolute in der Geschichte. Philosophie und Theologie der Geschichte in der Spdtphilosophie Schellings (Mainz 1965)Google Scholar.

17 But see Gray‐Smith, R., God in the Philosophy of Schelling (London 1933)Google Scholar. The most painless way for an English reader to approach Schelling is, perhaps, by way of Coleridge: see e.g. Dunstan, A.C., ‘The German influence on Coleridge’, Modern Language Review 18 (1923), pp. 183–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 X. de Tilliette, , Schelling. Une Philosophie en devenir (Paris 1970), I. pp. 24–27Google Scholar.

19 Rathburn, J.W. and Burwick, F., ‘Paul Tillich and the philosophy of Schelling’, International Philosophical Quarterly 4 (1964). pp. 373–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Habermas, J., Das Absolute und die Geschichte: von der Zweisprältigkeit in Schelhgs Denken (Bonn 1954)Google Scholar.

21 This interpretation of Schelling was first clearly stated by H. Fuhrmans in Schellings letzte Philosophie. Die negative und positive Philosophie im Einsarz des Spätidealismus (Bonn 1940)Google Scholar.

22 C.f. Schutz, W., Die Vollendung des Deutschen Idealismus in der Spätphilosophie Schellings (Stuttgart 1955), pp. 86–87; 300–307Google Scholar.

23 X. de Tilliette, Schelling, op. cit. I. p. 50.

24 Das Absolute in der Geschichte op. cit.

25 Die Methoden der Dogmatik. Einheit und Veilheit (Munich 1967)Google Scholar (ET The Methods of Dogmatic Theology).

26 Ib. pp. 43; 2.

27 The God of Jesus Christ op. cit. p. ix.

28 The Methods of Dogmatic Theology op. cit. pp. 3–4.

29 The God of Jesus Christ op. cit. p. 15.

30 Ib.

31 Ib. p. 316.

32 Berlin, I., The Concepts of Liberty (Oxford 1958)Google Scholar.

33 The God of Jesus Christ op. cit. p. 15.

34 J. Ratzinger, ‘Loi de 1'Eglise et liberte du chretien’, Service culturel de l'Ambassode de France près la Saint‐Siège, 24.11.1983. Ratzinger' account is indebted for its exegetical and theological foundations to Nestle, D., Eleutheria. Studien zum Wesen der Freiheit bei den Griechen und im Neuen Testament (Ttibingen 1967)Google Scholar, and to Coreth, E., ‘Zur Problemgeschichte menschlicher Freiheit’, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 94 (1972). pp. 258–289Google Scholar.