Od apologetyki do teologii fundamentalnej w twórczości naukowej René Latourelle’a

Abstract

The article presents R. Latourelle’s views on classical apologetics and contemporary fundamental theology. Apologetics, in his opinion, is a theological discipline critically investigating the fact and credibility of the Christian revelation. The fact that this discipline is a theological one has its source in the identity of its subject with dogmatics. Credibility of revelation is shown by a scholarly - i.e. methodical, speculative and universally valent presentation of the signs of that revelation. In its argumentation apologetics also takes into account the human subject as the recipient of revelation which makes this conception of apologetics, which is called integral, lie midway between objective and subjective apologetics. The method of apologetics is rational, philosophical-historical. Since classical apologetics was formed as result of historical need and not of systematic reflection, along with the changes occurring in theology, philosophy, man’s mentality and with the rising ecumenic climate it was subjected to sharp criticism. This has led to changes in its subject and method and to it being transformed into fundamental theology. The author of the article stresses that in his presentation and criticism of apologetics Latourelle failed to avoid some inconsistencies, and above all he did not show almost at all the methodological plane as the one on which the greatest changes occurred. As far as fundamental theology is concerned, initially Latourelle understood this notion as the first year of theological studies; a field for co-operation between apologetics and dogmatics in an attempt at a comprehensive formulation of the problems connected with revelation understood as a historical fact and a mystery of the faith at the same time. In a later period of his scholarly work, finally leaving apologetics, Latourelle presents his vision of fundamental theology as a discipline that has its own specific features, its own subject, method and structure. Its subject is God’s self-revelation and self-donation in Jesus Christ and His „self-authentication” by the Sign of Jesus’ Person. Credibility of revelation is in the last analysis Jesus’ credibility. The nature and structure of revelation are the central problems of that discipline, and at the same time they are the criterion that gives order to the remaining questions in which fundamental theology is interested. Latourelle gives the following order of these questions: 1. Theology as a science. 2. Historicity ol revelation and of the Person of Jesus; the beginning of Christianity; the Gospel as testimony to Jesus; Jesus’ works, message and ecclesial project. 3. Intellectual trends questionning the fact of Incarnation - the philosophy of the Enlightenment and Bultmann’s existential theology- 4. Ecumenism. 5. Christianity’s attitude towards other religions. 6. Hermeneutics and inculturation of revelation. Latourelle leaves out the ecclesiological thesis; of all the problems connected with the Church he is only interested in what confirms that the Church originated from Christ. He derives arguments mainly from history of the Church (paradoxes and tensions). In the above schema the treatise about faith as a correlate of salvation is also missing. Latourelle does not define the notion of credibility as a formal subject of fundamental theology. As to the way of justifing it he thinks that it should be done on three planes: historical-hermeneutic, philosophical and theological-semeiological. He defines the method of fundamental theology as the „method of dynamic integration” It consists in passing constantly from the historical to the mystery dimension of revelation and hence in ever deeper understanding of both these dimensions. In its essence this method consists in integrating the apologetic and theological-dogmatic procedures. Analyzing Latourelle’s statements the author of the present article concludes that as far as the notion of credibility is concerned the Roman theologian is standing on the borderland between the semeiological, personalistic and historical-salutary notions, whereas with regard to the methods that are used in fundamental theology at present, Latourelle seems to use several of them: the psychological-existential, phenomenological, ecclesiological and historical-salutary ones. In the conclusion the author says that despite the great services rendered by Latourelle to the development of modern fundamental theology he has not created a methodologically uniform and coherent system. The most serious reservations about his work are concerned with the methodological plane. Latourelle’s theological-fundamental system also requires unification of the aspects of all the elements making up the theory, i.e. the subject, the aim and the method which would result in a uniform conception of the discipline.