Abstract

With the present collection of essays reflecting upon the complex convergences and divergences between Eschatology and genuine transcendence, there is perhaps no greater modern Catholic figure to recall than that of the great, German Catholic convert Erik Peterson (1890–1960). As an immediate forerunner to twentieth century Catholic ressourcement, eschatology, for Peterson, not only factors as the central arc within his diverse corpus of writings, yet he himself is equally credited for having coined the phrase, ‘the eschatological proviso’ in describing the coming of the Kingdom as both ‘already’ and ‘not yet’. Fundamentally, Peterson’s proviso presents a historical view of the suffering Church as necessarily beyond political confinement and ideological capture. As a pilgrim community in-between the “earthly Jerusalem, which is at once polis and temple” and its “ever drawing closer to the eschatological, heavenly temple and its own…polis”, Peterson bears witness to this ontic difference in his writings by framing the Church’s distinctly public act, the liturgy, as the site of a transversal commericum. That is, an angelic participation within the earthly cult as well as her “participation in the worship that the angels offer to God.” In this following contribution, I will examine this eschatological provision as the primary governing optic by first contextualizing Peterson’s critical reception of historicism and its methodological atheism (Troeltsch, Harnack) within German liberal Protestantism and the Religionsgeschictliche schule as the necessary precursor to his conversion. Secondly, I will build upon these critiques in view of Peterson’s concise and influential 1950 essay, “Kierkegaard und der Protestanismus” that theologically focuses specifically upon his attack against Barthian dialectic and its inability in approaching the very concretissimum of revelation and its ecclesial extension of dogma as none other than the “concrete continuation of Christ’s assumption of a body”. Lastly, in view of genuine transcendence, the ambivalent influence of Kierkegaard will be more positively assessed in terms of Peterson’s long held attack upon the bourgeois character of much of modern Christianity. As an immediate parallel to the critique of secular, historical immanentism, focus will center upon the martyrological witness of the poor as aptly encapsulating Peterson’s theopolitical vision. Herein, the invisible poor function as an “eschatological symbol” that lays at the porous threshold of genuine transcendence (Lk. 16, 19–31) wherein Christ recognizes the depths of his very divine person and in whom the poor are integrally inseparable through their witness.

Highlights

  • Saint Meinrad Seminary & School of Theology, 200 Hill Drive, St Meinrad, IN 47577, USA; Academic Editor: Justin Sands

  • As we have seen in the preceding sections, the radical character of Peterson’s apocalyptic eschatology invariably explores the necessary between of the Church in its refusal of bourgeois capture and principle vocation of holiness as a porous in-breaking of the transcendent beyond from within

  • Such a between and the central role of the martyr in witnessing the foundations of the Church ([3], p. 151). In her multitude presents a historical view of the suffering Church as necessarily beyond political confinement and ideological capture

Read more

Summary

Peterson’s Apocalyptic

With the present collection of essays reflecting upon the complex convergences and divergences between eschatology and transcendence, there is perhaps no greater modern Catholic figure to recall. Commenting upon the important, yet nuanced differences between eschatology and apocalyptic, Bernard McGinn—one of the pre-eminent scholars of the history of Christian mysticism—was and remains to this day an notable historian of (late) medieval apocalyptic thought (which must be said, bares significant overlap with the mystical theological tradition in many respects). In his early anthology, Visions of the End: Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages, McGinn helps clarify this nuanced, yet integral distinction between eschatology and apocalyptic and the issues surrounding immanence and transcendence, present and future apocalyptic that are at the heart of these literary and theological discourses:. In the position taken in this following essay, under Peterson’s lead, what matters most is how we conceive of this co-implication between present and future apocalyptic and the radical character of its ultimate, eschatological significance

Eschatological Decisiveness
Against Bourgeois Capture
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call