Comments on: Neo-scholasticism and Reno, redux http://www.thelandofunlikeness.com/2007/07/31/neo-scholasticism-and-reno-redux/ Catholic Anglican Reflections on Theology and Culture Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:26:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: DWM http://www.thelandofunlikeness.com/2007/07/31/neo-scholasticism-and-reno-redux/#comment-172 DWM Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:32:21 +0000 http://www.thelandofunlikeness.com/2007/07/31/neo-scholasticism-and-reno-redux/#comment-172 <p>Janet, right, sorry for the oversight on two counts. I have updated the post to include links to the original two posts on the HG - Heroic Generation, a moniker invoked by Fergus Kerr to describe the generation of theologians in and around Vatican II, such as Rahner, de Lubac, Balthasar, Congar, and maybe even Ratzinger (B16) with one degree of separation. In Kerr's reading via Reno's review, these theologians broke with the neo-scholastic model of theological education, but failed to articulate a coherent enough replacement. Reno is worried that without a strong enough foundation, the work of the HG leads us only into a mire of creative meandering or, worse, fruitless finger-pointing. Yet, I can't help but feel that his review does much the same that he accuses those like Balthasar of doing. Furthermore, having read a little HUVB myself, I find his stereotype of Balthasar's work to really deficient and misleading. </p> <p>So that couches Balthasar in that typology. Marion would be a little more difficult for me, as I've only read his philosophical work, which won't help us with this typology as it relates almost exclusively to dogmatic theology and theological education, and catechesis, as Tony rightly points out).</p> Janet, right, sorry for the oversight on two counts. I have updated the post to include links to the original two posts on the HG - Heroic Generation, a moniker invoked by Fergus Kerr to describe the generation of theologians in and around Vatican II, such as Rahner, de Lubac, Balthasar, Congar, and maybe even Ratzinger (B16) with one degree of separation. In Kerr’s reading via Reno’s review, these theologians broke with the neo-scholastic model of theological education, but failed to articulate a coherent enough replacement. Reno is worried that without a strong enough foundation, the work of the HG leads us only into a mire of creative meandering or, worse, fruitless finger-pointing. Yet, I can’t help but feel that his review does much the same that he accuses those like Balthasar of doing. Furthermore, having read a little HUVB myself, I find his stereotype of Balthasar’s work to really deficient and misleading.

So that couches Balthasar in that typology. Marion would be a little more difficult for me, as I’ve only read his philosophical work, which won’t help us with this typology as it relates almost exclusively to dogmatic theology and theological education, and catechesis, as Tony rightly points out).

]]> By: Janet Leslie Blumberg http://www.thelandofunlikeness.com/2007/07/31/neo-scholasticism-and-reno-redux/#comment-170 Janet Leslie Blumberg Wed, 01 Aug 2007 05:59:55 +0000 http://www.thelandofunlikeness.com/2007/07/31/neo-scholasticism-and-reno-redux/#comment-170 Ahem. HG? Also, could someone situate Marion and Balthasar a little bit for me, vis-a-vis this now collapsed neoscholasticism? Ahem. HG?
Also, could someone situate Marion and Balthasar a little bit for me, vis-a-vis this now collapsed neoscholasticism?

]]> By: coComment - http://www.thelandofunlikeness.com/2007/07/31/neo-scholasticism-and-reno-redux/#comment-508 coComment - Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.thelandofunlikeness.com/2007/07/31/neo-scholasticism-and-reno-redux/#comment-508 <!--%kramer-pre%-->view blog<!--%kramer-post%--> links from Technoratiview blog

]]>