Forthcoming in Studia Theologica, Vol 70 (2015)

THE CURIOUS CASE OF ANALOGIA ENTIS:

HOW METAPHYSICS AFFECTS ECUMENICS?

by Olli-Pekka Vainio

Abstract: In recent Anglophone theology, there has been a renewed interest in the concept
of analogia entis. Several theologians from varied confessional backgrounds have discussed
the meaning of this concept and revisited the earlier debate between Karl Barth, Erich
Przywara and Hans Urs von Balthasar that took place almost one hundred years ago. Barth
famously took the concept as the doctrine that prevented him from ever becoming a
Catholic. Recent debate has charted the possibility of reinterpreting the older debate and
overcoming misunderstandings across confessional borders. The first reason for the
discussion is thus ecumenical, while the second reason is providing the Christian Churches
with a tool that helps them to stand against the tides of secularism. I argue that analogia entis
is not likely going to provide us new opportunities in ecumenism, yet it may help us to
unearth and understand both some confessional differences and common concerns.

The movie Curious Case of Benjamin Button tells a story about man who lives his life from the
end to the beginning. He begins his life as an old man but grows younger until he dies as a
baby. The title of my article suggests that something similar might be happening in
ecumenical theology. Of course, I am not the first to suggest something like this. In his
short but substantial book, Unbaptized God: The Basic Flaw of Ecumenical Theology, Robert W.
Jenson boldly suggested that the great Christian traditions have a concept of God that is not
sufficiently Christian, and from here flows the observed difficulties in ecumenical dialogue.1
When the grounding principles are so different, it is no wonder that it is hard to find
harmony in more practical matters.

This leads me to a recent parallel discussion concerning the analogy of being (analogia entis).
Particularly in the USA, leading theologians across confessional borders have revived this
notion and the famous discussion surrounding it that took place almost one hundred years
ago.2 I am, of course, referring to the prolonged interaction between Karl Barth, Erich
Przywara, and Hans Urs von Balthasar.3

Before we start rummaging through this debate, however, first a note about the title. In
ecumenical dialogues it is customary to focus on particular doctrines, like baptism, ministry
and the doctrine of justification. The analogia entis debate, in contrast, attempts to bypass
these more singular issues and reach for the crux of the matter: metaphysics. Why? Several
voices in the discussion claim metaphysics ultimately affects the interpretation of particular
doctrines, and this point has some leverage. 4 But have we seen ecumenical dialogues that
centre on metaphysics? No. If these issues are discussed, they are not published (except,
perhaps, in the memoirs of theologians who participated in those talks). There is nothing
surprising about this. In philosophy, metaphysics is not a place where one is likely to find
consensus. Philosophers are notoriously well known for their aptitude in disagreement
about everything.5 Thus, general experience does not encourage in this direction. So why the
sudden interest in analogia entis?

The Eye of the Ecumenical Storm

The general mindset in the first half of the 20th century can be difficult to grasp. The fin de
sicle mentality, two World Wars, the triumph of modernism, and the slowly changing role of
Christianity from the default cultural option to a marginalized view all forced theologians to
re-locate Christianity in this new cultural context. The resulting search for foundations
created, according to the estimation of Thomas White, the most important ecumenical
controversy of the twentieth century. This controversy began as an exchange between
Barth and Przywara, two early Christian post-secular thinkers whose attempt was to identify
the conditions of possibility for Christian belief and discipleship in a deeply secularized
age.6 If this was what both parties set out to do, it soon became evident that finding
common ground proved to be very hard, indeed. While Przywara presented the doctrine of
analogy as the heart of Catholic faith, Barths famous answer was: I regard the analogia entis
as the invention of Antichrist, and I believe that because of it, it is impossible ever to
become a Catholic, all other reasons for not doing so being to my mind short-sighted and
trivial.7 So if we flip this around, solving the case of analogy would not only make Barth a
Catholic but would also remove the greatest obstacle for Christian unity between two major
Christian groups that are perhaps most distanced from each other.8 We have good reason to
believe that Barth was not engaging in rhetorical overkill since the basic difference between
certain Protestant factions and Catholicism seem to gravitate around the doctrine of analogy,
or at least something that is very closely related to it, namely the doctrine of pure nature
(natura pura).9 So let us see what the debate was about and how it unfolded.

First, what does analogy mean? Originally, the concept was used to designate proportions of
numbers and soon it was applied to ontological similarity between different entities. St.
Thomas Aquinas uses the concept in his treatise on divine names (ST I q13a5) to chart a
middle road between univocal and equivocal predication. Answering the question, Thomas
lays out the problems of these two false ways speaking, or abstaining from speaking, about
God: univocal predication leads to speaking about God inadequately since the terms are not
applied in similar ways to God and created beings; equivocal predication leads to an inability
to say anything about God, and it is performatively self-contradictory. However, analogy is
only mentioned in passing and it is not defined in detail, which has lead to different
interpretations on what Thomas meant by it.10 Evidently, he was trying to echo the Fourth
Lateran Councils definition: for between the Creator and the creature there can be noted
no similarity so great that a greater dissimilarity cannot be seen between them.11 In most
general terms, the theological understanding of analogy of being is something that fits this
vague formulation and it attempts to capture the idea according to which the world as we
perceive it (as constantly changing) is real, but still it points towards something that is
changeless and therefore more real.12

Fast forward 600 years; the same questions are still present, but more amplified. When
Przywara formulated his position, he sought to stonewall anthropomorphic and historizing
tendencies especially in, on the one hand, Kantian theology, and, on the other hand,
Hegelian theology, both of which in his mind offered an unsatisfactory definition of the
relation between God, history, and revelation. Second, Przywara faced sceptical agnosticism
that chose to abandon God altogether. Resorting to the idea of analogy was his solution to
sail between these extremes and present Christian thought in a form that would survive
contemporary debate. Why would analogia entis be an answer to both sceptical agnosticism
and Kantian or Hegelian theology, then? To put it succinctly, it enables some form of
properly Christian natural theology (contra agnosticism and Kantianism), while retaining
critical distance towards positions that conflate history and revelation (Hegel) or reduce
revelation to ethical consciousness (Kant).13 Moreover, analogia entis is a metaphysical theory,
which offers a reading of the world that seeks to prove naturalism as ultimately reductive,
and therefore an irrational position.14

Karl Barth had similar concerns as Przywara. Different forms of philosophical theology had
wreaked havoc in German theology and the result was painfully manifested when even
conservative theologians raised their hands in a now infamous salute. Moreover, he was
concerned about the growing scepticism and unbelief amongst his own peers and younger
generations. The enemies were the same, but the plan of attack and the rules of engagement
were different. The differences were manifested in two separate but tightly interrelated
issues. First, is there a natural point of contact in human nature for divine reality; and,
second, can the project of natural theology or philosophical metaphysics help us in our
theological project? Summarily, Przywaras answer to these questions was yes and Barths was
a resounding Nein!

Barth vs. Przywara: A Rough Outline of the Original Debate

The origin of the controversy is typically located in Przywaras visits to Barths seminar in
Mnster in 1929 and 1931. The initial reaction from Barths side was excitement; he clearly
felt that something remarkable was in the air; something that could perhaps even repair the
Churchs disunity.15 Barths excitement soon subsided, however, and it quickly turned into
criticism and fortification of a Protestant position against Catholicism.
Przywaras and Barths thought on the issue of analogy was, indeed, developing during this
period, though it appears that there were no radical changes and the development has to be
understood in the sense of clarification of earlier positions. 16 The crucial question is how
they perceived each others position at that moment when they expressed concerns or
excitement: did they really understand each other? And what remained as the Grunddifferenz,
if there ever was one? Let us start with Przywara.

Przywara saw two dangerous opposites that should be avoided.17 First, he argued that a new
concept of God had emerged post-Reformation, which he called theopanism, whose
greatest proponents were Martin Luther and Barths early thought, alongside other dialectical
theologians. In theopanism, God is so radically real that the creation loses its value and
humans lose their agency. God is everything; we are nothing. From here flows the
problematic notion of Christian life that Catholics even today are afraid of in the Lutheran
teaching, namely, that such a position leads to loosened moral standards and cynicisms when
human freedom and agency have been taken away.18 God ceases to be all in all, but rather
becomes everything alone.19

The second danger was the total rejection of metaphysics and conflation of transcendence
into immanence, apparent in philosophies of Nietzsche and, to some extent, Kant. The
problem in these monistic models was that they were too reductionistic and therefore unable
to portray all the necessary aspects of human condition. Specifically, the history of Western
philosophy can be depicted in the form of a perpetual pendulum swing between extreme
philosophical positions, where everything that exists is either depicted as constant movement
or unchanging being, radically free or determined, and so on. Przywara thinks that there is
something in each of these extremes that need to be cherished but in a way that is able to
bring them together. Disregarding either of these options will lead to absurd and practically
unliveable conclusions.20

In contrast, Przywara saw in the writings of Augustine and John Henry Newman (whom he
regarded as Augustinus redivivus) a different theological style. Augustines understanding of the
God who is totally within us (intimio interior meo), yet still distinct from the world (superior
summo meo), offered Przywara an alternative that could not only capture the inner logic of
Christian faith but which could also give theological answers to the problems created by
secular philosophy.21

This thought process was crystallized in Przywaras book Analogia Entis (although the basic
idea was already expressed in earlier volume Religionsphilosophie Katholischer Theologie, which was
the main source for Barth as he tried to make sense of Przywaras construal). Analogia Entis
is dense and tedious to read. The obvious problem is that it is located within an ongoing
debate in idiosyncratic continental philosophy of the early 20th century, which makes it
almost impenetrable to modern readers. The central argument is, however, relatively simple
and I try to do justice to it in the next few lines.

Analogia entis demarcates a middle ground between problematic extremes of pure identity
and pure dialectics, and it is in the light of this demarcation, in the denial of closure offered
by these ultimately monistic philosophies, that a space is opened which does not so much
define God or any metaphysical entity as it defines what God is not, keeping with the
principles of IV Lateran council and the tradition of apophatic theology. By this denial,
Przywara makes room for a peculiar kind of natural theology: the structure of human
existence and the way we posit ourselves intellectually in this world inevitably points towards
a dilemma that can in principle be acknowledged by all, but which can be resolved only from
a theological perspective. In theology, it is possible to allow paradoxes that tie together and
unite two extreme positions because theology cannot take any total and complete form
(whereas the extremes can, according to Przywara) since it always takes revelation to be
pointing towards something greater. To be precise, this natural knowledge, which Przywara
talks about, is not supposed to be a bond that unites the human world with the God but
something that reveals the infinite distance, the ever greater dissimilarity, between them.
Therefore, analogia entis is an exercise in negative theology.22

In trying to underscore the minimal nature of Przywaras natural theology, John Betz points
out that Przywara makes a distinction between formal and material knowledge of the divine.
The formal knowledge is shared by Christians and non-Christians, as it points merely toward
abstract, nameless divine ground, whereas material knowledge alone enables one to
recognize God as God.23 This formal knowledge is based on tension between essence and
existence, which are immediately available to our consciousness. As created beings, we
understand that even if do we have existence, our essence escapes us and we perceive how
we are in the grip of perpetual change. This tension allows a deduction of a possibility
where essence and existence are instantiated in the same being. But this simultaneously
implies that when we use the concept of being in the aforementioned way, we cannot use it
in univocal or equivocal sense. Instead, being must be understood analogically, so that that
there is always ever greater dissimilarity between our use of being and how it applies to
God.24
Przywara acknowledges the decree of I Vatican Council, according to which the existence of
God is attainable through the means of secular reason, yet he clarifies that this should be
understood as a positive limit-concept (als positives Grenzbegriff), which does not include
particular details, not even creatio ex nihilo. 25 However, analogy is supposed to resonate with
the basic Thomistic principle according to which grace does not destroy nature, and
consequently theology as divine wisdom should not obliterate the worldly wisdom offered by
philosophy. But even in this case, the role of worldly wisdom appears to minimal. Betz
summarizes Przywaras stance: For as of yet, from a purely philosophical perspective,
nothing whatsoever can be made out about who God is or what he has revealed, or even that
there is such thing as revelation. All that can be made out metaphysically with any degree of
certainty apart from revelation is that creaturely being is not its own ground, that it is not
being itself, that it is only in the form of becoming, and that theology, that is, the science of
a God of revelation, is a reasonable possibility or to put it in still more minimalist terms, a
non-impossibility (vorausgehenden Mglichkeit; Nicht-Unmclichkeit).26 This implies that the
creatures are always, no matter how deformed by sin, open upwards; human beings, in the
state of sin, are still directed towards the highest good, and this is impossible to erase from
our nature because this upward disposition penetrates the whole created nature.27

Kenneth Oakes makes an observation on how Przywara broadens his view of analogia entis in
his later works so that it is set more explicitly in Trinitarian and Christological context. In
one of his later works, Przywara states: This is the message of John the theologian: how
God and cosmos are correlated in the Logos-Lamb who was slain. 28 Thus, analogy should
not be seen as a purely philosophical principle but something that finds its true expression in
a properly Christological framework: the rhythm of affirmation and negation that can be
found from philosophical traditions correlates and finds its highest instantiation in the
descent and ascent of Christ. Analogy is something that captures both the essence of
Christian theology and the dilemmas of secular philosophy so that the same rhythm can be
found everywhere, but most acutely in the Trinitarian reality of the living God.29

Where, then, should Gods revelation be sought? Przywaras general ontology allows him to
include creation as a part of Gods revelation. There is no form of existence that does not
represent an instantiation of Gods action. Therefore, Przywara is able to claim both that in
his system theology always comes before secular philosophy, and that creation is able to
function as a pointer, however abstract, toward God. For him, there is no space where God
does not exist, even if the form of Gods presence is always analogical. This allows him to
draw a line against Hegelians, who, in his mind, do not properly understand Gods distance
from the human world.

What was it that caused Barth to denounce Przywaras position? Simply put, Barths concern
regarding analogia entis was that it establishes a non-theological space that enables created
beings to get a hold of God; it is an attempt in metaphysical bridge-building. Despite
Przywaras attempts to counter Barths fears, it all boils down to very simply issues for Barth.
The Student Protocol that was kept during Przywaras visit to Barths seminar could not
make Barths and his students opinion any clearer: Thus indeed, with these different
understandings of grace, the central point [of disagreement] has been reached. And from
here out, no further discussion is possible.30 But given the overall sensibility of Przywaras
position, how is Barth able to offer so stern a judgment that denounces analogia entis as an
invention of the Antichrist?
Immediately after their first meeting at Mnster, Barth gave two talks where he directly
engaged with Przywaras thought. These were later published as Fate and Idea in Theology
and The Holy Spirit and Christian Life.31 After an apparently close reading of and prolonged
exchange with Przywara, Barth remained unconvinced that Przywaras view of analogia entis is
actually able to safeguard against an above to below Christian theology disposition.32
Certain features of Przywaras work caught Barths attention. First, in his earlier writings on
the subject, Przywara does not mention sin. For Protestants, this is always a reason to
suspect foul play. The result in Barths view is that Przywara is not talking about actual, post-
lapsarian human beings, but about an ideal human being, untarnished by sin. Additionally,
Barth offers typical criticisms of natural theology. How do we know that the god of
philosophers is the God of the Bible? Does not analogy mean that God becomes entangled
with the creation so that he becomes a cause (or reason) for things that are contrary to his
nature? And isnt using this kind of phenomenological approach a way of trying to find God
by human means? Isnt this an example of relying on human words instead of the Eternal
Word?33

In his criticism, Barth manages to tie everything from metaphysics and theological
anthropology to soteriology together, offering an all-out rejection of the Catholic position:
If there is something in our human nature, despite human sin, that forms the point of
contact between us and God, does this not make it possible to think that there is a
continuum between our work and Gods saving action? This was something that Barth could
never approve.34 Keith Johnsons account regarding our discussion partners internal
motivations appears correct: Przywara thought that Roman Catholicism had answers that
the world needed, if only it could meet the world where it was. Barth thought that neither
the world nor the church knew what its problems were until they were told about them by
God, and he wanted to lead the church to the point where it would finally listen.35

Later, Hans Urs von Balthasar tried to convince Barth that he had misunderstood the
Roman Catholic position and Przywaras apologetic intentions: analogia entis does not mean
attributing a pure nature outside theology, which should be the starting point for theology
but merely acknowledging that revelation requires certain natural conditions within which it
makes sense.36 At the same time, many Catholic theologians were growing suspicious of
Balthasar, who was now hanging out with this Protestant, and who was frowned upon even
by his own Protestant colleagues. The legacy of original debates is thus ambiguous.37

Barth vs. Przywara: The Contemporary Debate

Whose analogy?

Now we can finally attempt to evaluate the contemporary significance of analogia entis. In the
recent debate there are more factions than just two, which naturally complicates things. Even
within the same theological tradition, we observe significant differences, on the one hand,
among Catholic theologians concerning what analogia entis is and, on the other hand, among
Protestant theologians, who is able to offer the best exegesis of Barth.38

Despite the possible meta-level disagreements between (and among) the Catholic and
Protestant positions, the greatest theological minds of our age have deemed it worthwhile to
examine this issue thoroughly. In the current discussion, there are three major factions. First,
scholars like John Betz and David Bentley Hart suggest that Barths criticism of Przywara
was ill advised and based on gross misunderstanding of his basic position.39 Second,
Reformed theologians, like Keith Johnson and Bruce McCormarck insist that Barth knew
exactly what he was criticising and he did this on good grounds. To quote Johnson: [Barths
criticism] was not based on mistaken interpretation, but rather, it was based upon the
foundation of a clear understanding of the theological differences between Roman Catholic
and Protestant understandings of creation, revelation, justification, sanctification, and the
doctrine of God. 40 Third, ressourcement Thomists, like Steven A. Long pursue the same
route as the original Catholic critics of Balthasar. The wisest thing Catholic theology can do
is to distinguish itself from Barthian actualism and fideism, which ultimately destroys
everything that Catholic theology holds dear.41

Observing these three rival traditions, one perceives how their selected route is a survival
strategy. Those attempting the rehabilitation of Przywara seek to ensure the survival of a
broadly non-scientistic and non-naturalist, preferably Christian theistic worldview. This
metaphysical view is presented as something shared by Christian vision(s) of the real, and in
the case of Hart, also several non-theistic religions. On the other hand, they oppose too
optimistic accounts of natural theology and natural law theory.42 The Reformed group is
interested in the survival of Protestant Christian identity, which is, of course, not seen as a
value as such but because Barth is seen as making the best case for what Christian theology
is, and has always been, about. The Reformed group sees itself living in the tension between
both secularism and Thomism.43 The ressourcement Thomists are fighting on two fronts as
well: secularism and Liberal Protestantism, which is perceived to be an ally of secularism.
Moreover, those who deny natura pura are seen as (often unintentional) contributors to the
Liberal Protestant project.44 The only way to fight this culture war is not to retreat to a
ghetto but to make ones case in public arena, by the means of public reason. The second
opponent is Barthian Fideism, which is, in their view, in constant danger of becoming simply
a version of secularism.45

Even if the enemies are more or less the same, the means for reaching the same goal are
markedly different. In the first case, it is a kind of phenomenological analysis of being,
second, robust Trinitarian Christology, and third, reason. The methods and means for
reaching the goal give these groups their distinct identities. In a way, the analogia entis debate
demonstrates how the discussion serves the identity of a distinct group in its relation to
other groups and ideologies. This shows that analogia entis as a doctrine cannot be a common
denominator between Christian communities, at least in its traditional form. At this point,
the doctrine of analogy in its current forms (be it Przywaras phenomenological reading of
Western philosophy or McCormacks interpretation of Barths doctrine of election) appears
with too many confessional shibboleths, which effectively always disqualifies one or two
parties.

F(r)iendly discussions?

But people are still talking. The aforementioned groups interested in analogia entis have
launched a series of unofficial ecumenical dialogues that bypass the normal church
hierarchies.46 This resembles the situation where Barth and Balthasar found each other. It
was the personal friendship between two of the greatest theological minds of the 20th
century that enabled them to listen and learn from each other. Neither Barth nor Balthasar
were mandated by their own churches to make any official statements but the influence of
each of these men is as strong as any of the officially signed ecumenical documents. Has
perhaps this form of exchange something to teach us today?
In my opinion the contemporary discussion reiterates to some extent the sensibilities of the
original debate, for better and for worse: the debate becomes extremely detailed and the
tipping point is pushed even farther.47 While criticising Przywara and his proponents, the
adversaries typically point to elaborate and the extrinsic philosophical nature of Przywaras
construal. Should we affirm this highly advanced philosophical theory as the cornerstone of
our faith? But is the rival theorysay, McCormacks highly abstract exposition of Barths
theology of election and Christological analogyany less elaborate or more fruitful for
ecumenical dialogue than Przywaras?

McCormack suggests that Barths version of analogy of being, based on the Trinitarian
election of the Eternal Son, is an ecumenical achievement of the highest order, which
certainly implies a peculiar opening that could redirect theological deliberation to a more
Christocentric direction. 48 Yet Betz remains suspicious. Namely, if McCormack is right and
Barths doctrine of election is ultimately a doctrine of Gods eternal self-determination, as
though in Christ (and therefore through human history) God were somehow determining
his own being and nature, then Przywaras original intuition (regarding theopanism) stands
and Barths theology, having rejected any analogia entis, is, in fact, ultimately a form of
Trinitarian Gnosticism, since history is then a function of Gods own history and inner
life.49 This should be enough to demonstrate the oddities of this discussion, which leads to
a second point.

The following type of reasoning appears to have been, and continues to be, taking place
when the dogmatic difference are discussed: You say that X, and deny that Y. However, I
think youre saying X implies Y. So I will continue as if you had just said that Y. I perceive
something like this not only in the contemporary debate, but also and already in Barths early
responses to Przywara. Barths attitude shows general suspicion and speculation about
possibly negative outcomes. In other words, the question should not be whether Barth
understood Przywara, or whether von Balthasar understood Barth. Apparently, they both
did. Yet the problem was not what the people were teaching but what might be the
consequences of this teaching.

Barth was known for his stern attitude toward the growing ecumenical fervour of mid-20th
century theology. According to him, one should have a mindset of dogmatic intolerance,
by which he meant prima facie suspicion toward changing ones mind.50 This sounds
reasonable. No sane person would want to enter into a dialogue naively But, of course, even
if dogmatic intolerance is a powerful antidote against navet, it is not an unproblematic
principle.

It would be wise to avoid these two extremes: perpetually growing theological finesse,
developed to demonstrate the fundamental difference and general suspicion toward the
dialogue partners.51 That said, what must be recovered (and this is where analogia entis debates
may help us) is slow and tedious process in which the partners seek what really unites and
divides.

I wish to cite The Princeton Proposal for Christian Unity, which points out an interesting shift in
ecumenical thinking that already influenced the generation of Barth and Przywara.
 In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it became common for confessional
theology to appeal to the phenomenology of a communitys form of life and
teaching, to the ethos discerned in the communitys distinctive history. There was a
profound shift in the way that norms of life and teaching were perceived: the
question Is it true?, that is, faithful to the divine revelation, was implicitly equated
with Is it authentically Catholic?, Is it evangelical?, Does it express the mind of
Orthodoxy?, Is it congruent with the dynamics of Reformation?52

According to the signers of the Princeton proposal, this leads easily to tribalization of
Christian identity.53 Sticking with Denkform as an ecumenical arbiter is potentially dangerous
since this evacuates the discussion from the public arena to a subjective sphere where it
becomes increasingly hard to say what is actually wrong with a given formulation.

A way to circumvent this quagmire is illustrated by D. Stephen Long, who seeks to re-orient
the analogia entis debate by using Balthasars interpretation of Barth. According to Balthasar,
Barth mislocated the essential point of divergence: analogia entis was never the actual
problem; the doctrine of natura pura was.54 Both Barth and Balthasar (eventually) approved
that some kind of analogy exists in creation and both of them (and Przywara as well)
thought that the doctrine of pure nature is problematic in the light Gods creative action. If
natura pura were more than just a possibility, then it would be effectively a kind of
metaphysical bridge that allows reason to advance very close to divine nature by its own
powers. This was Barths basic concern and von Balthasar did everything he could to
convince him that this is not what analogia entis actually concerns. John Betz helpfully points
out three real problems that remain after this misunderstanding has been cleared, and which
are directly linked to analogia entis as the metaphysical core doctrine of Catholic thought.55
First, nature is a form of (general) revelation for Catholics, whereas for Barth only Christ is
revelation. Second, humans are always open upwards, no matter how much they are
malformed by sin. Third, grace does not destroy the nature but perfects it, and the realm of
nature is preparation for grace. Betz argues that these views inevitably force a choice
between certain Protestant and Catholic views. However, when the views are expressed in
this way, it becomes easier discuss their actual details and consequences and continue the
debate. Betz points out that Protestants and Catholic approach these questions with different
concerns. Protestants, like Barth and Luther, are concerned about the novelty of special
revelation, whereas Catholics (and perhaps Orthodox as well) are more concerned about the
return of creation back to God after the deleterious effects of sin. Yet Betz claims these
perspectives need not be mutually exclusive.

Conclusion

Returning to the title of this essay, we should ask: does metaphysics affect ecumenics? It
seems that metaphysical views tend to demarcate our options so that some views are easier
and some harder to reconcile with each other, but there does not seem to be a
predetermined route from the first order metaphysical positions to the second order
practices. Instead, what we perceive is that people are so concerned about particular (and
sometimes historically contingent) goods that they seek to secure and guard their life. Would
there have been such a fierce opposition of natural theology by Barth without the
unfortunate events of pre-WWII Germany? We can only guess. Thus, it seems that practices,
or practical concerns, may affect the metaphysical choices of individual theologians.
The fact that people from, for example, the three aforementioned groups are eagerly
engaging with each other implies that they share much in common. Let us grant that they in
fact do not share the same metaphysical view about the grounding of theology. Despite this
difference, they still hold on to the same practices and mutually recognize their use of
language in worship, prayer, and ritual as Christian. This implies that they at least implicitly
grant that one can arrive to the same second order practices even if they differ in their first
order metaphysical commitments.56

What does this curious debate teach us? The first lesson is that paying attention to meta-level
philosophical differences is not going to make large-scale ecumenical convergence any easier.
Namely, this easily leads to a further set of problems, pointed out by, e.g., William Abraham,
when extra-theological issues, such as the method of epistemic justification, are turned into
confessional issues. 57 Abraham rightly warns against this kind methodological rigorism,
which only tends to make things worse. Not only we disagree about theological doctrines,
now we need to disagree about philosophy as well.

The second lesson is that meta-level philosophical differences bring to the light the
differences and similarities that have been hiding beneath the surface. In short,
contemporary analogia entis debates might be more an attempt to diagnose the illness than to
provide the cure, and it is here where it perhaps can have a positive and constructive effect
on contemporary theology, as a form of self-reflection and criticism.
Naturally, there are many things that can block ecumenical convergence, not all of them have
anything to do with actual doctrinal or philosophical issues. Political opportunism,
intellectual vices, and even a lack of time can make agreement harder than it should be. But
when metaphysics does affect ecumenics, we do not really know beforehand how it will
affect unity and how much we can rightly attribute to metaphysics. Nevertheless, we forget
its possible influence at our own peril.

Bibliography

Abraham, William, Crossing the Threshold of Divine Revelation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2008.

Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics I/1. Trans G. W. Bromley & T.F. Torrance. London: T&T
Clark, 2004.

Barth, Karl, Fate and Idea in Theology., in The Way of Theology in Karl Barth: Essays
and Comments, edited by Ed. H. M. Rumscheidt. Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications,
1986.

Barth, Karl, The Holy Spirit and the Christian Life: The Theological Basis of Ethics. Trans.
R. B. Hoyle. Lousville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993.

Betz, John, Translators Preface. in Erich Przywara, Analogia Entis, translated by John Betz
& David B. Hart. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014.

Betz, John, After Barth: A New Introduction to Erich Przywaras Analogia Entis. In The
Analogy of Being, edited by Thomas Joseph White, O.P. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011.
Braaten, Carl & Jenson, Robert W., In One Body Through the Cross. Princeton Proposal for
Christian Unity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

Cary, Phillip, Barth Wars. First Things. April (2015).

Denzinger, Heinrich, Enchridion Symbolorum. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012.

Gregory, Eric, Politics and the Order of Love. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press 2008.

Jenson, Robert W., Unbaptized God: The Basic Flaw in Ecumenical Theology. Minneapolis:
Augsburg Fortress, 1992.

Hart, David Bentley, The Destiny of Christian Metaphysics. In The Analogy of Being,
edited by Thomas Joseph White, O.P. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011.

Hart, David Bentley, Experience of God. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013.

Hector, Kevin, Theology without Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2011.

Htter, Reinhard, Christian life. In Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology, edited by John
Webster et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Htter, Reinhard & Levering, Matthew, Ressourcement Thomism. Sacred Doctrine,

Sacraments, and the Moral Life. Washington D.C.: CUA Press, 2010.

Htter, Reinhard & Griffiths, Paul, Reason and the Reasons of Faith. London: T&T Clark,
2005.

Johnson, Keith, Karl Barth and Analogia Entis. London: T&T Clark, 2010.

Long, D. Stephen, Saving Karl Barth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014.

D. Stephen Long, Opposing or Ignoring Metaphysics. Reflections on Kevin Hectors

Theology without Metaphysics. Journal of Analytic Theology 1 (2013): 95106.

Long, Steven A., Analogia Entis: On The Analogy of Being, Metaphysics, and the Act of
Faith. South Bend, IN, Notre Dame University Press, 2011.

Long, Steven A., Natura Pura. New York: Fordham University Press, 2010.

Ralph MacInerny, Aquinas and analogy. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America
Press, 1996.

McCormarck, Bruce L., Karl Barths Version of an Analogy of Being. In The Analogy of
Being, edited by Thomas Joseph White, O.P. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011.

McCormack, Bruce L. & White, Thomas Joseph O.P., Thomas Aquinas and Karl Barth. An
Unofficial Catholic-Protestant Dialogue. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013.
OMeara, Thomas F., Erich Przywara, S.J.: His Theology and His World. Notre Dame: Notre
Dame University Press, 2002.

Morerod, Charles, O.P., Ecumenism and Philosophy. Philosophical Questions for the
Renewal of Dialogue. Ann Arbor, MI: Sapientia Press, 2006.

Oakes, Kenneth, The Cross and the Analogia Entis. In The Analogy of Being, edited by
Thomas Joseph White, O.P. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011.

Przywara, Erich, Analogia Entis. Metaphysics: Original Structure and Universal Rhythm,
translated by John R. Betz & David B. Hart. Grans Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014.

Przywara, Erich, Religionsphilosophie Katholischer Theologie. In Erich Przywara

Schriften, Band II. Einsiedeln: Johannes-Verlag, 1962.

Przywara, Erich, Analogia Entis. Metaphysik. Ur-Struktur und All-Rhythmus. Erich Przywara
Schriften, Band III. Einsiedeln: Johannes-Verlag, 1962.

Phlman, Horst Georg, Analogia entis oder analogia fidei. Die Frage der Analogie bei Karl
Barth. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965.

Theodore Sider, Contemporary Debates in Metaphysics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2007.

Swafford, Andrew Dean, Nature and Grace. A New Approach to Thomistic Ressourcement.
Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014.

White, Thomas Joseph O.P., The Analogy of Being. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011);

White, Thomas Joseph O.P., Introduction: Thomas Aquinas and Karl Barth An
Unofficial Catholic-Protestant Dialogue. InThomas Aquinas and Karl Barth. An Unofficial
Catholic-Protestant Dialogue, edited by Bruce L. McCormack & Thomas Joseph White, O.P.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013.

White, Thomas Joseph O.P., The Analogia Entis Controversy and Its Contemporary
Significance. In The Analogy of Being, edited by Thomas Joseph White, O.P. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2011.

1Jenson, Unbaptized God, 8: Our common apprehension of God is only partly Christian,
and this generates dialectics in the churchs history that must constantly compel choice
between false alternatives.
2See, e.g., White, The Analogy of Being; S. A. Long, Analogia Entis; Johnson, Karl Barth
and Analogia Entis; D. S. Long, Saving Karl Barth. The same themes are discussed from
postmetaphysical perspective in Hector, Theology without Metaphysics. See also D. Stephen
Long, Opposing or Ignoring Metaphysics, 95106.
3 While Barth and von Balthasar are well-known across the confessional borders, Przywara
still remains in the sidelines in the Anglo-American theology. Nevertheless, he was a prolific
author and the central figure in the 20th century European Catholic thought. Among his
students were, for example, Karl Rahner and von Balthasar. For a general introduction on
him, see OMeara, Erich Przywara; Johnson, Karl Barth, 3150.
4 Przywara thinks that the differences between the confessions ultimately boil down to
analogia entis. Dialectical theological puts emphasis on divine transcendence so heavily that it
renders Gods analogical presence in the creation impossible. This has effect on how
different confessions understand, e.g., the role of reason and human agency. See Betz,
Translators Preface, 18. Jenson (Unbaptized God, 7) quotes Walter Kasper who confirms
this idea: One cannot understand any of the churches by listing the specific doctrines.
One must understand each by its total conception of the faith It is quite possible that
only now, after having eliminated mountains of misunderstanding and having begun to
resolve many if not most particular problems, we will discover the true fundamental difference.
Emphasis mine. The underlying differences between Thomistic and Barthian traditions are
addressed also by White, Introduction, 1-42; Morerod, Ecumenism and Philosophy,
165-171. Morerod argues that Lutheran-Catholic dialogues on justification suffer from the
unaddressed problem in philosophical views concerning human-divine agency. The Lutheran
view is imprisoned by a distorted interpretation of Scotus, which forces Lutherans to
downplay human agency and makes it impossible for them to incorporate the idea of co-
operation within the doctrine of grace.
5 Exhibit A: Sider, Contemporary Debates in Metaphysics.
6 Thus White The Analogia Entis Controversy,, 1, 3.
7 Barth, Church Dogmatics I/1, xiii.
8 Barth made several statements about his relation to Catholicism and they do not show
great consistency ranging from enthusiasm to blunt dismissal. Observed in positive light, this
wavering demonstrates serious thinking and openness. See, Long, Saving Karl Barth, 736.
9 Natura pura is a technical term that refers to the possibility of recognizing the true essence
of natural things without the help of revelation. Von Balthasar acknowledged that natura
pura is in principle possible but it is has never taken actual form, and Barth, of course,
denied natura pura as well. Why this issue is so central? If it is actually possible to understand
the essence of nature without revelation, this creates certain possibilities. For example,
natural theology becomes possible. Moreover, it is possible to know moral norms without
revelation, which then creates room for public worship based on natural virtue and Catholic
Churchs role as the one who confirms and elevates this natural knowledge. D. Stephen Long
interprets this so that then the Church has legitimate means to use (political) power if the
truth is there for all to see. See Long, Saving Karl Barth, 9497. See also S. A. Long, Natura
Pura.
10 For different readings see, e.g., MacInerny, Aquinas and analogy; S. A. Long, Analogia entis.
11 Denzinger, Enchridion Symbolorum, 806.
12 Betz, After Barth, 46.
13 In the case of Kant, our world and transcendence are sealed off from each other and
consequently historical revelation does not have a place in Kants system. Hegel, on the
other hand, interprets history as a means of Gods self-realization so strongly that they
become almost identical. Przywara argues that the proper relation of our world and the
reality of God is ever greater dissimilarity. Thus, the world or history cannot be taken as a
source of revelation but the world points outside itself towards God - and this rhythm of
negation and affirmation creates a state which is, in Przywaras opinion able to circumvent
the problem he sees in these two static and closed systems. See Przywara, Analogia
Entis, 202203. I refer here to the new English translation because it is more accessible. I
have also used the German Original: Analogia Entis. Metaphysik. Ur-Struktur und All-Rhythmus.
14Betz (Translators Preface, 46, 65) summarizes Przywaras anti-naturalism thus: For
Przywara, therefore, to affirm the analogia entis is essentially to affirm two things: on the one
hand, that the finite is grounded in the infinite and derives its being from absolute being[];
on the other hand, that finite being cannot be equated with its divine ground but remains
both essentially distinct from it and infinitely transcended by it[]. Thus, The concept of
God is always implied in any formal consideration of metaphysics.
15Betz, After Barth, 40; McCormarck, Karl Barths Version of an Analogy of Being,
101.
16 See, e.g., McCormarck, Karl Barths Version of an Analogy of Being.
17Already in his works in 1920s (such as his lectures Gottgeheimnis der Welt (1922) and
Gott in uns oder ber uns? (Immanenz und Transcendenz in heutigen Geistesleben)
(1923)) he saw how the Western philosophy tends to collapse into extremes. Przywara,
Religionsphilosophiche Schriften, 123375; Johnson, Karl Barth, 3850; Bruce L.
McCormarck, Karl Barths Version of an Analogy of Being, 95.
18 For an overview on the problems of defining human agency in the context of Christian
life, see Htter, Christian life, 293.
19 Przywara, Got in und oder Gott uber Uns?, 348.
20 These criticisms appear also in Analogia Entis, 203231.
21 Johnson, Karl Barth, 4142.
22 Betz, After Barth, 54; Hart, The Destiny of Christian Metaphysics, 396.
23 Betz, After Barth, 52, n. 56. Przywara, Analogia entis, 118. Przywaras account is very
peculiar. On the one hand, he suggests that the formal knowledge is sort of empty but it can
be filled with correct material knowledge; it involves only knowledge of what God means.
Still, the movement from gods to God, from paganus to catholicus, involves an either-or choice,
which sounds more Lutheran than Thomistic way of describing the relation of nature and
supernature.
24Przywara, Religionsphilosophie, 410, 442; Betz, After Barth, 60; Johnson, Karl Barth,
67-80.
25 Przywara, Analogia Entis, 7374.
26 Betz, After Barth, 66; Przywara, Analogia Entis, 8283.
27Przywara, Religionsphilosophie, 400401; Oakes, The Cross and the Analogia Entis,
157.
28 Christentum gemss Johannes, quoted in Betz, Translators Preface, 112.
29 Oakes, The Cross and the Analogia Entis, 150, 163164.
30 Quoted in Johnson, Karl Barth, 126.
31Karl Barth, Fate and Idea in Theology; The Holy Spirit and the Christian Life. See Betz,
Translators Preface, 8593.
32 Phlman, Analogia entis oder analogia fidei, 72; Johnson, Karl Barth, 97.
33 For summaries of Barths initial criticisms, see Johnson, Karl Barth, 100107.
34 McCormarck, Karl Barths Version of an Analogy of Being, 114117.
35 Johnson, Karl Barth, 50.
36 Long, Saving Karl Barth, 284; Betz, Translators Preface, 102. To put it briefly, von
Balthasar denied that, e.g., following views represent genuine Catholic understanding: being
is a tertium quid in which both God and creatures participate; analogia entis does not make
creatures independent in relation to God; natural openness towards God does not
necessitate any particular relation between God and human individual as it denotes only a
capability to be addressed by God; analogia entis is not a philosophical starting point that can
be separated from theology. In the eyes of some Catholic (and contemporary Thomists, like
Steven A. Long) von Balthasar concedes here too much to Barths views.
37 Long, Saving Karl Barth, 3436.
38 On different readings of the Catholic version of analogia entis, see D. Stephen Long,
Opposing or Ignoring Metaphysics, 98103. Among Barth scholars, there is tension
between regarding correct interpretation of Barth by, for example, Bruce McCormack,
George Hunsinger and Robert W. Jenson. See Cary, Barth Wars.
39 Betz, After Barth; 70-87; Hart, The Destiny of Christian Metaphysics.
40Johnson, Karl Barth, 122123; McCormack, Karl Barths Version of an Analogy of
Being, 107108.
41 Steven A. Long, Natura Pura.
42 See, e.g., Hart, Experience of God.
43 McCormarck, Karl Barths Version of an Analogy of Being, 144.
44This includes the proponents of nouvelle theologie, like Henri de Lubac. Steven A. Long,
Natura Pura, 44, 211.
45 See, e.g., Htter & Levering, Ressourcement Thomism, 211364; Long, Natura Pura, 153.
46E.g., McCormack & White, Thomas Aquinas and Karl Barth. These two volumes can also
be seen as fruits of similar ecumenical attitude: Braaten & Jenson, In One Body Through
the Cross; Htter & Griffiths, Reason and the Reasons of Faith.
47An example of this in the original 20th setting is perhaps Przywaras analysis of Simone
Weil and St. Edith Stein, where he offers highly complex distinctions to the effect that not
even Stein is able to present the complete Catholic view. See Przywara, Analogia Entis, 596
613.
48 McCormarck, Karl Barths Version of an Analogy of Being, 144.
49 Betz, After Barth, 58.
50 Long, Saving Karl Barth, 45.
51 For Athanasius it was enough to draw a line between the world and church using
Trinitarian formulations: whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he
hold the catholic faith And the catholic faith is this. That we worship one God in Trinity,
and Trinity in unity. Have we developed as a church so much that we can push the
border into a more detailed territory?
52 Braaten & Jenson, In One Body Through the Cross, 40-41.
53 Braaten & Jenson, ibid., 41.
54 Long, Saving Karl Barth, 9499.
55 Betz, Translators Preface, 98100. See also Swafford, Nature and Grace.
56 For the same problem in ethics, see Gregory, Politics and the Order of Love, 103-105.
57 Abraham, Crossing the Threshold of Divine Revelation.