I think I grasp, and fully agree, with your (per usual) spelling out the issues at stake. I’ve always felt JDW and John Zizoulas radical, Trinitarian personalism gets closer to the absolute truth of Christ AS the Truth than the emphasis on the divine nature in both DBH and his Christological hero, S Bulgakov. But as you say, the analogical interval is both real and helpful, and we must not divide what God, in Christ, has United. Hope I’m on the right track…you surely are!
I might add that it's almost as if Bracken's deference to classical theism, leading with his Catholicism rather than Whitehead, was a direct response to what your friend, David Burrell, was pleading with all of us to do! I believe that's why Bracken's approach is so theo-resilient. The reason I found Scotus helpful is that his approach was proto-process, attentive to substantialist concerns & anticipatory of Peirce, who inspired Bracken & my inspiration, your company man, Gelpi.
Thanks, Fr Phil. I appropriated Zizioulas using Scotus & Bracken, which afforded me a more charitable interpretation of his relational & personalist emphases, while deferring to classical theist insights. Interestingly, Brandon Gallaher profitably employed Bracken coming from the opposite side of the critique using his approach as a panentheist corrective to any latent (I think only really "apparent") pantheist tendencies in Bulgakov.
I think I grasp, and fully agree, with your (per usual) spelling out the issues at stake. I’ve always felt JDW and John Zizoulas radical, Trinitarian personalism gets closer to the absolute truth of Christ AS the Truth than the emphasis on the divine nature in both DBH and his Christological hero, S Bulgakov. But as you say, the analogical interval is both real and helpful, and we must not divide what God, in Christ, has United. Hope I’m on the right track…you surely are!
I might add that it's almost as if Bracken's deference to classical theism, leading with his Catholicism rather than Whitehead, was a direct response to what your friend, David Burrell, was pleading with all of us to do! I believe that's why Bracken's approach is so theo-resilient. The reason I found Scotus helpful is that his approach was proto-process, attentive to substantialist concerns & anticipatory of Peirce, who inspired Bracken & my inspiration, your company man, Gelpi.
Thanks, Fr Phil. I appropriated Zizioulas using Scotus & Bracken, which afforded me a more charitable interpretation of his relational & personalist emphases, while deferring to classical theist insights. Interestingly, Brandon Gallaher profitably employed Bracken coming from the opposite side of the critique using his approach as a panentheist corrective to any latent (I think only really "apparent") pantheist tendencies in Bulgakov.