Most if not all of André Scrima’s texts are responses to di!erent requests: academic or spiritual, public or private. Many of them issued from his speeches that di!erent interlocutors or auditors recorded and transcribed. He even confessed that he never produced a text as an “author” who autonomously deals with a subject. His creativity turned into discourse only in relationship with the other, solicited by the other, in front of the other. What function or meaning did André Scrima attribute to his orality, which incidentally he never failed to mention in the published version of his texts? “Event of speech” arising from profound meditation on spiritual matters? Detachment of a spiritual traveller from the position of “author” and its production? Model of sharing the spiritual knowledge? Perhaps a model of tradition? My paper tries to analyse these possibilities.
Little is known about the meeting which took place between Martin Heidegger and André Scrima. Aside from unfolding within the master-disciple framework, it is a witness above all of a fruitful dialogue between western philosophy and eastern theology about a common concern: the desert as the unfolding of our being in the world. It is this concern, the guiding light in fact for this article, which will develop here in several stages: First, by unravelling the hostile meanings of the word “desert.” Second, by using it as a reading key to explore the foundations of contemporary civilization and especially by analysing it as a concept for a new topography of Being. The final stage will tackle the foundational link which unites the desert and monastic life. It is this connection which will finally allow us to understand how the love of God, which pushes the monk into the desert, can be so decisive for a new understanding of Being.
Catholic theologians after Trent saw the Protestant teaching about the remnants of original sin in the justified as one of the ‘chief ’ errors of Protestant soteriology. Martin Luther, John Calvin, Martin Chemnitz, and many Protestant theologians believed that a view of concupiscence as sinful, strictly speaking, did away with any reliance on good works. This conviction also clarified the Christian’s dependence on the imputed righteousness of Christ. Catholic theologians condemned this position as detracting from the work of Christ who takes away the sins of the world. The rejection of this teaching—and the affirmation of Trent’s statement that original sin is taken away and that the justified at baptism is without stain or ‘immaculate’ before God—is essential for understanding Catholic opposition to Protestant soteriology. Two Spanish Dominican Thomists, Domingo de Soto and Bartolomé de Medina, rejected the Protestant teaching on imputation in part because of its connection with the view on the remnants of original sin in the justified. Adrian and Peter van Walenburch, brothers who served as auxiliary bishops of Cologne in the second half of the seventeenth century, argued that the Protestants of their time now agreed with the Catholic Church on a number of soteriological points. They also drew upon some of their post–Tridentine predecessors to offer a Catholic account of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Nonetheless, the issue of sin in the justified remained a point of serious controversy.
This article begins by examining what is meant by the Catholic Reformation and how it relates to the other frequently used term, Counter–Reformation. It then discusses the different ways Catholics and Protestants in the early 16th century understood ecclesial reform. Next there is a consideration of the call for a general or ecumenical council to resolve the differences between the Catholics and Protestant reformers; the reasons for the delay of the council; and the reasons why the Protestants did not participate. The article then provides a summary of the three main periods of the Council of Trent: 1545–1547; 1551–1552; and 1562–1563 along with the 1547–1549 Bologna period. This is followed by a detailed overview of the reforms of the council, which were both doctrinal and disciplinary. The article shows that, while abuses related to various Catholic practices and the sacraments were addressed, the main concerns in the various disciplinary decrees related to clerical corruption and immorality. The article addresses the need for bishops to reside in their dioceses; stop clerical corruption, greed, and nepotism; and establish seminaries for the proper formation of priests. After the review of the disciplinary reform decrees, attention is given to the Catechism of the Council of Trent that served as a resource for parish priests in their instruction of the faithful. The final section considers viewpoints of different historians regarding the effect of the Council of Trent on reform within the Catholic Church.