The first part of the book is called, “Revelation and Faith: God Speaks to Man and Our Response”. The first chapter of three in this part is titled, “Revelation and Salvation History”. Feingold writes, “The existence of sacred theology as a discipline distinct from philosophy is based on the fact that God speaks to man in history and man is capable of hearing, receiving, and discerning God’s revealed Word.” One point of departure for Catholics and Reformed is the nature of this capability, and man’s access to natural knowledge of God. This difference has been discussed at length elsewhere. I should note that it is unclear to me whether Reformed theology affirms a natural desire to see God that is frustrated by man’s inability to reach it, or whether man is flatly unable to desire seeing God, on account of his fall from original righteousness. In any case, Feingold says, “That the eternal God speaks to man, a little part of His creation, is logically unexpected, but is secretly longed for as a sign that we are loved by the source of our being.” What can be said by the Reformed with respect to this longing, this natural desire, will help decide how much agreement may be supposed between the Reformed and Catholics.
He says that the purpose of revelation is intimate communion with God. DV, 2 gives a summary of Sacred Scripture on this purpose, and in the Catholic parlance, the common theme of every motif or analogy is friendship. The concept of friendship includes the intimate communion of nuptial union, and that of adoption into a family, but we live in an impoverished culture, where friendship is the substandard version of some reckless eros. Feingold makes the thought-provoking choice to be theocentric when talking about man’s end; that is, rather than view the matter as primarily man’s ascent to God, he frames the “principal subject” of revelation in terms of God’s condescension and man’s elevation by God into intimate communion. Thus, he speaks of two movements or directions of revelation: God’s descent, and man’s ascent. As Dr. Feingold reminds us that the friendship takes place between drastically unequal partners, I am reminded of numerous instructions on the pitfalls of analogies in theology. We should expect, considered from our experience and vantage point, our analogies fail to express God’s love and perfection. On the other hand, the contemplation of God does indeed purify our understandings of those things upon which our analogies are based, whether fatherhood, adoption, or any number of things.
Noting that the first paragraph of the Catechism gives a summary of salvation history and of God’s purpose in salvation, Dr. Feingold notes that the Summa theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas is structured around this double movement. He says that St. Thomas reaffirms the classic (patristic) notion of exitus/reditus; that is, everything comes from God, and is returning to God in Christ. I note with appreciation the numerous Catholic theologians who remind us that the profoundest expression of this idea is the Sacrifice of the Mass. It is the outworking of the teaching of Romans 11:36.
In the words of a subheading, Feingold says, “The principal content of the gospel is the Incarnation and our nuptial union with the Incarnate Word.” He continues, “All of Revelation either treats of the Incarnation and our union with God in Christ and the Church, or else prepares for it in a marvelous way by promise, prophecy, worship, the commandments, and formation of the People of God in whom He will become incarnate.” I don’t think the Christ-centered thrust of the Scripture is in serious dispute, though we will see that what we mean by that Christocentricity may vary, in application.
We do unhesitatingly rejoice that we in Christ are not invited as guests to the nuptial union, but as the Bride! Along with St. Paul, we confess that “this is a great mystery.” (Ephesians 5:32)
Indeed, the condescension of God in making use of sensible realities is not in dispute between the Reformed and Catholics, nor the progressive nature of revelation, or the existence of typology. Mediation in the abstract is also not controversial, but its application will be, owing to differences regarding epistemology and our acquisition of information from natural revelation, the sense of Scripture, and the nature of the Church. Especially in this last sphere concerning the Church, the differences undermine what is, in the Catholic understanding, the anchor for the proper interpretation of Sacred Scripture. There is an inseparable relationship between what we call “the literal sense” and the other senses. Its myriad valid applications rely on the liturgy as the prayerful response and offering to God, which assumes the facts of revelation and the divine condescension. If we do not understand the nature of the Church and our place in it, we cannot know what the proper faithful response is, in the present.
Dr. Feingold highlights the principal danger of Modernism, that is, a belief that dogma and its formulas are merely artifacts of human knowledge about God. If that were so, Christianity would not be a supernaturally revealed religion at all. There would be no knowledge theoretically inaccessible to human reason alone, because everything known would be a product of human reason.
For the sake of dialogue, it is surely appreciated that public revelation is agreed to have ceased with the death of the last apostle. However, if revelation is “inexhaustible” as Feingold says, and the understanding of the faith once-delivered deepens and develops, the Reformed may ask if this alleged cessation of public revelation has in fact occurred.
As we go along, we will find these answers, God willing.
He says that the purpose of revelation is intimate communion with God. DV, 2 gives a summary of Sacred Scripture on this purpose, and in the Catholic parlance, the common theme of every motif or analogy is friendship. The concept of friendship includes the intimate communion of nuptial union, and that of adoption into a family, but we live in an impoverished culture, where friendship is the substandard version of some reckless eros. Feingold makes the thought-provoking choice to be theocentric when talking about man’s end; that is, rather than view the matter as primarily man’s ascent to God, he frames the “principal subject” of revelation in terms of God’s condescension and man’s elevation by God into intimate communion. Thus, he speaks of two movements or directions of revelation: God’s descent, and man’s ascent. As Dr. Feingold reminds us that the friendship takes place between drastically unequal partners, I am reminded of numerous instructions on the pitfalls of analogies in theology. We should expect, considered from our experience and vantage point, our analogies fail to express God’s love and perfection. On the other hand, the contemplation of God does indeed purify our understandings of those things upon which our analogies are based, whether fatherhood, adoption, or any number of things.
Noting that the first paragraph of the Catechism gives a summary of salvation history and of God’s purpose in salvation, Dr. Feingold notes that the Summa theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas is structured around this double movement. He says that St. Thomas reaffirms the classic (patristic) notion of exitus/reditus; that is, everything comes from God, and is returning to God in Christ. I note with appreciation the numerous Catholic theologians who remind us that the profoundest expression of this idea is the Sacrifice of the Mass. It is the outworking of the teaching of Romans 11:36.
In the words of a subheading, Feingold says, “The principal content of the gospel is the Incarnation and our nuptial union with the Incarnate Word.” He continues, “All of Revelation either treats of the Incarnation and our union with God in Christ and the Church, or else prepares for it in a marvelous way by promise, prophecy, worship, the commandments, and formation of the People of God in whom He will become incarnate.” I don’t think the Christ-centered thrust of the Scripture is in serious dispute, though we will see that what we mean by that Christocentricity may vary, in application.
We do unhesitatingly rejoice that we in Christ are not invited as guests to the nuptial union, but as the Bride! Along with St. Paul, we confess that “this is a great mystery.” (Ephesians 5:32)
Indeed, the condescension of God in making use of sensible realities is not in dispute between the Reformed and Catholics, nor the progressive nature of revelation, or the existence of typology. Mediation in the abstract is also not controversial, but its application will be, owing to differences regarding epistemology and our acquisition of information from natural revelation, the sense of Scripture, and the nature of the Church. Especially in this last sphere concerning the Church, the differences undermine what is, in the Catholic understanding, the anchor for the proper interpretation of Sacred Scripture. There is an inseparable relationship between what we call “the literal sense” and the other senses. Its myriad valid applications rely on the liturgy as the prayerful response and offering to God, which assumes the facts of revelation and the divine condescension. If we do not understand the nature of the Church and our place in it, we cannot know what the proper faithful response is, in the present.
Dr. Feingold highlights the principal danger of Modernism, that is, a belief that dogma and its formulas are merely artifacts of human knowledge about God. If that were so, Christianity would not be a supernaturally revealed religion at all. There would be no knowledge theoretically inaccessible to human reason alone, because everything known would be a product of human reason.
For the sake of dialogue, it is surely appreciated that public revelation is agreed to have ceased with the death of the last apostle. However, if revelation is “inexhaustible” as Feingold says, and the understanding of the faith once-delivered deepens and develops, the Reformed may ask if this alleged cessation of public revelation has in fact occurred.
As we go along, we will find these answers, God willing.
Comments