And in Our Hearts Take Up Thy Rest: The Trinitarian Pneumatology of Frederick Crowe, S.J by Michael Eades
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: And in Our Hearts Take Up Thy Rest: The Trinitarian Pneumatology of Frederick Crowe, S.J by Michael Eades Sebastian Madathummuriyil And in Our Hearts Take Up Thy Rest: The Trinitarian Pneumatology of Frederick Crowe, S.J MICHAEL EADES Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2019. 272 pages. Hardback: $81, E-book: $81. ISBN: 9781487505592. It is more important to live in the Spirit as adopted sons than to explain the Spirit.1 What Congar, who was deeply rooted in pneumatology, echoed remains a time-tested fact. Michael Eades’s And in Our Hearts Take Up Thy Rest: The Trinitarian Pneumatology of Frederick Crowe explores the contribution of Frederick Crowe to Catholic pneumatology. Through a radical and extensive exploration of Crowe’s works, Eades presents a complex, unresolved, and fascinating problem about the person and mission of the Holy Spirit. Eades eloquently introduces the readers to the potential of Crowe’s notion of “Trinification,” in which the two divine missions, respectively of the Son and the Holy Spirit, are explained without falling into subordinationism or binitarianism. Eades’s understanding of Crowe comes from his study of Bernard Lonergan coupled with a thorough knowledge of John Henry Newman and Aquinas. This multifaceted work reaches further than only pneumatology. The deeper interlacing of theological threads running throughout Eades’s work makes it insightful and appealing to those interested in pneumatology, Lonergan, and Newman. Eades elaborates on Crowe’s distinct contribution of the rediscovery of “complacent love” within the psychological image of the Augustinian-western pneumatology with its multifaceted nuances. He presents Crowe as a theologian of complacentia2 for interpreting Thomas Aquinas’s doctrine of complacentia and applying it to the theology of the Holy Spirit by interpreting the Augustinian notion of love between the Father and the Son as also complacentia. According to Crowe, the eternal personal character (proprium) of the Holy Spirit is proceeding complacent love. Eades explores Crowe’s use of Lonergan’s analytic and synthetic methods to develop his Trinitarian theology, and it is within this Trinitarian theology that his pneumatology of complacency is situated. This Trinitarian theology integrates the two aspects of the Trinity, i.e., God in Godself and God for us (God’s presence and activity in the world). Thus, Crowe’s Trinitarian theology integrates the presence of the three divine persons in the world in a proper and personal way. [End Page 93] Crowe engages at length the question of which person of the Trinity was sent first, the Son or the Spirit. Eades explains how Crowe’s answer changed from “the Son was sent first” to “the Spirit was sent first. This change in missions corresponds with Lonergan’s change in the order of the mission. For Crowe, the unbalanced understanding of the relationship between the institutional and charismatic dimensions of the church is inseparable from the missions of the Son and the Spirit. Crowe argued that the charismatic aspect of the church should provide the context for the institutional, which helps to resolve some of the ecclesiological issues Crowe grappled with and provide a remedy for the neglect of the Holy Spirit in Catholic theology. Crowe’s methodological and theological dependence on Lonergan and the reordering of the missions of the two divine persons in his Trinitarian pneumatology is explained at length. Eades does a commendable job in this regard and presents Crowe as a pneumatologist in his own right, despite his heavy dependence on Lonergan. This may seem a bit ambiguous because Eades claims that Crowe’s originality of thought primarily consists of how he makes sense of Lonergan’s thoughts (162–63). While I am optimistic that a reader of Crowe would find originality in his theology, I can agree with Eades on what both Eades and Crowe have accomplished: “As Crowe’s own theology points us to Lonergan, so I hope this book on Crowe [also] points us back to Lonergan” (164). This well-researched and lucidly written work on Trinitarian pneumatology is undoubtedly valuable to Lonergan experts and other systematic theologians, especially Newman scholars. Sebastian Madathummuriyil Duquesne University Footnotes 1. Yves Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, trans. David Smith, Milestones in Catholic Theology (New York...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».