Abstract
AbstractHenri de Lubac advocates the recovery of ‘symbolism’ in Corpus Mysticum. In the patristic era, real unity between symbol and symbolized was a ubiquitous assumption, sustaining a thoroughly sacramental vision. In the Middle Ages ‘dialectical’ theology replaced patristic symbolism, gaining precision, but losing vitality. De Lubac wants to return to symbolism without negating the dialectical era. Yet de Lubac’s account lacks systematic clarity and hardly moves beyond the patristic era. Karl Rahner’s ‘Theology of the Symbol’ contributes to the reclamation of this kind of ontological symbolism, but with greater systematic specificity and in reliance on the dialectical age. Yet Rahner applies his ontological symbolism inconsistently. Read together, de Lubac and Rahner’s theologies of the symbol are mutually illuminating and corrective.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
