At around 9 minutes he says something like ‘radical orthodoxy sees a demise in what’s known as the metaphysics of participation’. Is that just a slip of the tongue because I thought radical orthodoxy was very much in favour of the metaphysics of participation? Any clarification would be much appreciated, thanks!
This is the theology that the world is crying out for in so many ways today. We need this "ressourcement" for the 21st century--an inclusive, Christ-Logos centered, sacred ontology that addresses identity, purpose, and interrelationships. People are looking for the mystery and beauty and deep personal love of God--and many do not think that the Christian religion offers this path.
That's because Boerma's book is based on the Nouvelle Theologie. Boersma has a much more in depth on these theologians called Nouvelle Theologie and Sacramental Ontology.
Sacramentality /symbol goes , I think, a bit beyond what is indicated here. The symbol IS what it signifies and participates in that reality. The created order might signify the creator but is not the creator or a sort of pantheism.
Fantastic explanation. Thank God for the emergence of a theology which is actually nothing more than a return to the proper perspective. Neo-scholastic theology, even if harmless, did an a great job of sucking the wonder and majesty out of revelation and the mystery of the incarnation and God's eternal union with man.
No, this isn't pantheism. This theology still proposes a transcendent God separate in some way from creation. What it does propose, what countless early christians believed, is that the created world, as being the creation of God, inherits in some way God's character, image, or dna, and as such, has a relational and natural connection to God by virtue of our birthright and creation. This is not pantheism at all, which does not distinguish between God and the natural world.
The Neoplatonist tradition I think is far more sound than any kind of Thomism, I love St. Thomas as a SAINT but his philosophy was rather based on I hate to say it, the empirical logic of Aristotle that is rather well...rationalistic and not Mystical or based on any good arguments for Catholicism. Mind you I'm no Eastern Orthodox because there certainly are as many Christian Platonists in the West as there are in the East. Suffice to say in my view the Thomist tradition led to subjectivist Errors in the Catholic Faith, and maybe even Protestantism.
Actually the problem was with the Neoplatonist tradition which has a hard time defining things properly. Aquinas is the best theologian the Church has ever had, and that comes from several hundred years of papal documents.
Don’t all heresies, even communism, pride themselves on going back to the sources? As if St. Thomas had no such interest! Pure balderdash this “new” theolo
At around 9 minutes he says something like ‘radical orthodoxy sees a demise in what’s known as the metaphysics of participation’. Is that just a slip of the tongue because I thought radical orthodoxy was very much in favour of the metaphysics of participation? Any clarification would be much appreciated, thanks!
Small wonder why the VATICAN and RC clergy are in such confusion.
The book, Heavenly Participation: The Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry, by Hans Boersma comes to mind when I listen to this.
This is the theology that the world is crying out for in so many ways today. We need this "ressourcement" for the 21st century--an inclusive, Christ-Logos centered, sacred ontology that addresses identity, purpose, and interrelationships. People are looking for the mystery and beauty and deep personal love of God--and many do not think that the Christian religion offers this path.
That's because Boerma's book is based on the Nouvelle Theologie. Boersma has a much more in depth on these theologians called Nouvelle Theologie and Sacramental Ontology.
I had no idea about this before reading you are gods by DBH, watching this beforehand would have helped
Sacramentality /symbol goes , I think, a bit beyond what is indicated here. The symbol IS what it signifies and participates in that reality. The created order might signify the creator but is not the creator or a sort of pantheism.
Fantastic explanation. Thank God for the emergence of a theology which is actually nothing more than a return to the proper perspective. Neo-scholastic theology, even if harmless, did an a great job of sucking the wonder and majesty out of revelation and the mystery of the incarnation and God's eternal union with man.
This is just a cheap propaganda-video with many lies about the neo-scholasticism, a mantra of the neo-modernist (nouvelle théologie) manualism...
In sum, pantheism.
No, this isn't pantheism. This theology still proposes a transcendent God separate in some way from creation. What it does propose, what countless early christians believed, is that the created world, as being the creation of God, inherits in some way God's character, image, or dna, and as such, has a relational and natural connection to God by virtue of our birthright and creation. This is not pantheism at all, which does not distinguish between God and the natural world.
Amazonian Synod much?
3:03
The Neoplatonist tradition I think is far more sound than any kind of Thomism, I love
St. Thomas as a SAINT but his philosophy was rather based on I hate to say it, the empirical logic of Aristotle that is rather well...rationalistic and not Mystical or based on any good arguments for Catholicism. Mind you I'm no Eastern Orthodox because there certainly are as many Christian Platonists in the West as there are in the East. Suffice to say in my view the Thomist tradition led to subjectivist Errors in the Catholic Faith, and maybe even Protestantism.
Actually the problem was with the Neoplatonist tradition which has a hard time defining things properly. Aquinas is the best theologian the Church has ever had, and that comes from several hundred years of papal documents.
Nate Nobile "Thou hast written well of Me, Thomas," said the voice. "What reward wilt thou have?" "None other than Thyself, Lord!”
Hahahaha... The so-called "resourcement" was just a facade for heresy. They used apriorism, real manualism to justify their heresies...
No they recoverd the actual doctrine of the fathers, the New Testament and Thomas Aquinas not the novelties introduced by Suarez and Cajetan.
Don’t all heresies, even communism, pride themselves on going back to the sources? As if St. Thomas had no such interest! Pure balderdash this “new” theolo