Celebration Beyond (Un-)Belief: The Potential of Negative Hermeneutics for a Liturgical Apophaticism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay demonstrates how the engagement with specific liturgical traditions and the ambiguity of their celebration allows for an understanding of liturgy beyond the dichotomy of belief and unbelief. It analyses the potential of a “negative hermeneutics” of liturgical studies in the context of what is perceived as “cultural unbelief.” Taking Lieven Boeve's concept of a “cultural apophaticism” as a basis, it explores the reach of a negative hermeneutical approach, highlighting the paradoxical and apophatic character of the liturgical celebration and its necessary failure and developing the idea of a “liturgical apophaticism.” It shows how the liturgical celebration does not simply counteract the dynamic of unbelief but exceeds it. In a final step, this essay explores the potential that liturgy has to recreate and transform “unbelief” and the implications of negative aspects of faith and belief for the broader theological discourse.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.093 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".