Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T13:35:46.393Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Foundational Theology: Jesus and the Church. Author's Response

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2014

Francis Schüssler Fiorenza
Francis Schüssler Fiorenza*
Affiliation:
Catholic University of America
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Symposium
Information
Horizons , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , Fall 1984 , pp. 415 - 423
Copyright
Copyright © The College Theology Society 1984

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.)

References

1 The Classic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983), pp. 118–19.Google Scholar

2 “Foundational Theology and Theological Education,” Theological Education 20/2 (Spring 1984): 107–24.Google Scholar

3 Culler, Jonathan, The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981), pp. 54–59Google Scholar, considers this double-sidedness not a strength but a weakness of reception hermeneutics.

4 The reference to reception as dangerous stems from Yves Congar's classic essay on reception: see Congar, Yves, “La ‘Réception’ comme réalité ecclesiologique,” Revue des sciences philosophies et théologiques 56 (1972): 369–403.Google Scholar

5 Interestingly Schleiercnacher was regarded by some contemporaries as a foundationalist and by others as an anti-foundationalist—to use present day categories. Protestant Neo-orthodoxy has generally regarded him as a foundationalist, whereas Roman Catholic theology has had the opposite interpretation. For his own explanation, see Schleiermacher, Friedrich D. E., On the Glaubenslehre: Two Letters to Dr. Lücke, Intro., ed., and trans. Duke, James and Fiorenza, Francis; AAR Texts and Translations 3 (Chicago, CA: Scholars Press, 1981).Google Scholar

6 Bernstein, Richard J., Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983), esp. pp. 222–31.Google Scholar