What doctrinal development within a dogmatically constituted revealed religion can look like – this is described by the two Freiburg theologians Helmut Hoping and Magnus Striet in a debate on the basis of Catholic doctrine. Moderated by Stefan Orth, editor-in-chief of the "Herder Korrespondenz", it has been published in book form by Herder under the title "God, Friend of Freedom" (144 pages, born, 18,– €).

Christian Geyer-Hindemith

Editor in the feuilleton.

  • Follow I follow

An example, Hoping explains, is the classical doctrine of the Eucharist, the core of which is the assumption of a real presence of Christ under the signs of bread and wine, as Martin Luther also confessed. With regard to the topic of doctrinal development, Hoping distinguishes the theological content from the conceptual version in which this content is expressed. Seen in this way, even in their determinations, concepts remain fictions that offer leeway in terms of their respective meanings. In other words, dogmatic statements remain dependent on hermeneutics. In the reception of the history of dogmas, it is often not seen that it is not models of thought or forms of language that are defined as such, but what is to be said with them. It is then a matter of statements which, in turn, cannot be made without understanding. By the way: Is there any sign of a problem shift here with hoping? Either way, Hoping continues, there is a need for agreement on what exactly has been defined and what has not. Striet: "That's exactly how it is."

Dogmatized assumption of a real presence of Christ

With regard to the doctrine of the Eucharist, Hoping now applies this distinction between the model of thought and the form of language on the one hand and what is said with it on the other hand as follows: "If one says that the doctrine of transubstantiation is an appropriate conceptual version of the somatic real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it does not follow that it can only be understood in terms of substance metaphysics as in Thomas Aquinas." Today, the philosophical-theological concept of substance is no longer available. If, instead, one falls back on the common chemical concept of substance, it is not possible to say what is intended religiously; it changes chemically through the transformation (consecration) of bread and wine – nothing.

As a follow-up to this consideration, Striet says: "The doctrine of transubstantiation has not been dogmatized. That's important to note." Hoping: "It has already been dogmatized, but not simply the substance ontology associated with it." Striet: "Yes, but to say it again: The assumption of a real presence of Christ under the signs of bread and wine was dogmatized, but not the form of thought. That was a wise decision." Hoping: "That's right."

For Striet, the development of doctrine does not only begin in the conceptual, in its fictional dimension that allows for manoeuvre, but with Jesus himself. He had to be subjected to correction insofar as the biblically transmitted Jesus was clearly not up to date with our time. Striet uses "modernity" as a corrective to Jesus, not the other way around. Striet confidently says: "If God wants a relationship with man and his free recognition, he must not move outside the moral universe in which we move."

Jesus as a child of his time

Of course, Sören Kierkegaard had seen it the other way around: our morality had to take a back seat to God's sovereign will, it did not regulate it. However, Striet maintains that it must be taken into account "that Jesus of Nazareth was a child of his time, and thus he was also a child of his socio-cultural environment". And as a child of his time, who was not yet at the height of our knowledge, Jesus – if one understands Striet's historicism correctly – placed his communications under the reservation, as it were, to a future doctrinal development. Accordingly, it is not merely a matter of practicing dogma hermeneutics, i.e. taking into account not only the historical context of dogmas but also today's thinking. Rather, Jesus, this child of his time, must be presented in his most modern edition. Thus, during his earthly walk, Jesus did not yet know "the concept of an autonomous moral consciousness", "and certainly he did not know any rights of self-determination in the modern sense. He was not familiar with the philosophical debates that are going on today. How could they?" Yes, how could they? Whereas, in this view, Jesus appears less as the Eternal One than as the Eternal One.

Hoping turns the figure around and turns Jesus' eternity against the tendency to use him as a projection screen for today's things. Here he is completely with Striet, since he attaches so much importance to the statement that Jesus had no idea about today's philosophical debates. How could they?