Erich Przywara was a Jesuit priest, philosopher, and theologian of German- Polish origin, who .. John Betz, “Translator’s Introduction,” in Erich Przywara, Analogia Entis: Metaphysics: Original Structure and Universal Rhythm, Eerdmans , Grand. ERICH PRZYWARA: A NEW EVALUATION Karl Barth, and the German Jesuit, Erich . analogy of being, the analogia entis; he argues that the. Erich Przywara’s Interventions in the Philosophy and Theology of the s The first thing to say about the analogia entis is that Przywara did not invent it;.
|Published (Last):||10 January 2007|
|PDF File Size:||12.36 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.91 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Again, Przywara holds that all affirmations are “merely the basis” for negations, calling on Thomas. Eerdmans Publishing Company, All rights reserved.
Analogia Entis – Syndicate
In fact, one can think of the quiddity of a horse without knowing whether that particular horse anwlogia does exist. Due to anti-Jesuit laws still in effect in Germany, in he entered the novitiate of the Society of Jesus in ExatenNetherlands, concluding his pzrywara and theological studies at nearby Ignatius College in Valkenburg. But what we see with Przywara that is very remarkable is that despite all of the postmodern for lack of a better word suspicions and accusations of analogy as a totalizing system, Przywara shows us how analogy itself, perhaps even inherently in his view, opposes attempts to totalize and thus it is capable of assuaging the important and legitimate fears of its critics.
Still, aligning his understanding with that of Przywara would seem to require him to make this distinction explicit, particularly if he intends to invoke Kierkegaard. In this extramural context Przywara defended the similitude without infringing dissimilitude.
The creature can only approximate the whole by moving between perspectives from within. Carpenter for her engagements with my essay.
Fordham University Quarterly 17 1: Pryzwara is empirical without being an empiricist. This liminality signals the need for both a way of speaking of this mysterious relation—a relation that is also a distinction—and a way of affirming the entitative disproportion between the relata.
As metaphysicians work to appropriate their tradition, they find their way of living and thinking calling into question.
A process of re-imagining and transformation in which those who desire union with God must learn how to yearn to such an extent that they suffer ecstasy, that is, they become beside themselves for God just as God goes out of himself for the sake of the beloved.
It is a current that swells into different waves analotia the tradition of its articulation, always recognizable as a wave but always slightly different in analogua. Notice how, even in sharply distinguishing between Creator and creature, the relationship between the two is still profoundly intimate.
Analogia Entis – Erich Przywara : Eerdmans
That means that the distinction between esse and essentia also play out in a Chalcedonic interpretation of the Incarnation, since we have a nature that becomes united to a nature that Is. Despite the suggestion, I entiz not think I have any more wish to completely overturn the established than does Heaps.
Ultimately, each implies that the absolute God is enis the relative creatureyet each becomes extreme in isolation, the former reducing the creature to a passive manifestation of God or even totally displacing the creature by God theopanism and the latter suggesting the creature can fathom God or even rendering all creation as God pantheism.
Relation presupposes its foundation in substance and act.
The cross and the “analogia entis” in Erich Przywara
Here is how Przywara uses analogy to indicate this dynamism, best as I can describe it: For all the importance accorded Analogia Entis as a source for theologians like Barth, von Balthasar, Rahner, and others, what one finds in its pages is not a pre-conciliar artifact, whose discovery is of interest only to antiquarians. This is because esse is accidental to the quiddity of a horse or any other contingent being, which may or may not exist.
I want to thank Prof. My response will draw inspiration from a Przywara passage on the nature of the contingent creature brought to our attention by Jonathan Heaps: Even when the significance of motion is suggested, it is as a circular motion that preemptively determines legitimate przzywara through a top-down structure rather than as new creative expressions.
It began, instead, as a bit of a goof, meant to relieve the persistent tension of trying to explain this mentality that I have found somewhat bereft of its own rhetoric.
I do have some further thoughts on what Balthasar might do with this, but for now Przywzra want to follow the insights Hemmer and Montejo have so deligiently provoked.
And so, while it has the ground, end, and definition of its being as its priusas its goal, and its ultimate meaning, it cannot leap away from this more fundamental relation to reach its goal. It is therefore in its own right an important piece of theology, but as an influence on the theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar and Karl Rahner, and as Karl Barth’s primary Catholic interlocutor, Przywara’s theology is also important for understanding the moves made in twentieth-century theology more generally.
Transformed, re-imagined if you will, in such a manner that in the end we will come not only to see the divine glory hidden in that humanity, but indeed become more glorious, in the process.
And yet we have invented devices for filling up the crevices and disguising these fissures. The contrarieties of creatures are one in God, a coincidence of opposites, who remains totally unknown.
This symposium is in many ways a ressourcement: Przywaa – – University of Notre Dame Press.
The publication of Erich Przywara’s Analogia Entis is a major, welcome event, especially in the English speaking theological world. Like Blondel and Lonergan, Przywara is sensitive to the demands of particular modes of inquiry, and while always keeping clear about the mode he is in, his account of meta-ontic and meta-noetic interplay of philosophical methods bring him to the precipice of a theology, and so takes him directly to the thorny issue of the relationship between theology and philosophy in general, and a distinctively Catholic account of that relationship in particular.
Heaps helpfully points out that Przywara cannot be subsumed under the horizons of yesterday or today though he relates to them both, and it seems to me that this may be directly related to his creaturely perspective as one that moves through time.