And in Our Hearts Take Up Thy Rest: The Trinitarian Pneumatology of Frederick Crowe, S.J by Michael Eades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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...
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".