¹ (New York: Continuum, 2008).

² See Thomas Aquinas, Expositio super librum Boethii de Trinitate, ques. 1–4 as translated by Brennan, Rose E. in The Trinity and the Unicity of the Intellect (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1946)Google Scholar and ques. 5–6 as translated by Mauer, Armand in The Division and Methods of the Sciences: Questions 5 and 6 of his Commentary on the De Trinitate of Boethius (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1953), both available online at http://www.josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/BoethiusDeTr.htm.Google Scholar What follows is my modified translation. This quote and others are central to Josef Pieper's interpretation offered sixty years ago in his Philosophia Negativa: Zwei Versuche über Thomas von Aquin. (Munich: Kösel, 1953)Google Scholar. For more recent interpretations, see Elders, Leo, The Philosophical Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas (Leiden: Brill, 1990)Google Scholar; Rocca, Gregory P., Speaking the Incomprehensible God (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

³ Aquinas, Thomas, On the Power of God [De potentia], trans. English Dominican Fathers (1932; reprint, Westminster, MD: Newman, 1952), q. 7, a. 5 ad 14Google Scholar.

⁴ Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologiae, I, 18.3Google Scholar.

⁵ Johnson, Elizabeth A., Analogy/Doxology and their Connection with Christology in the Thought of Wolfhart Pannenberg (Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, 1981)Google Scholar.

⁶ See Hill, William J., Knowing the Unknown God (New York: Philosophical Library, 1971)Google Scholar.

⁷ United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Committee on Doctrine, “Statement on Quest for the Living God: Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God by Sister Elizabeth A. Johnson,” 8Google Scholar.

⁸ In I Sent. d. 8, q. 1, ad 1, ad 4 (my own translation). See Owens, Joseph, “Aquinas—‘Darkness of Ignorance,’ in the Most Refined Notion of God,” in Shahan, R.W. and Kovack, Francis J., eds. Bonaventure and Aquinas (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1976), 69–86Google Scholar.

⁹ See p. 10 of the Committee's report.

¹⁰ Johnson, Elizabeth A., She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse (New York: Crossroad, 1992)Google Scholar. The importance of taking into account Johnson's complete work is evident in the more generous reading that Michael J. Dodds gives it in his study and defense of St. Thomas' doctrine of immutability. He notes that Johnson argues that divine suffering is the preferable way of speaking about God and she endorses the views that favor ontological truth. Nevertheless she writes that in “no way is theological speech intended to yield a literal description of God” (She Who Is, 271). See Dodds, Michael J.: The Unchanging God of Love: Thomas Aquinas and Contemporary Theology on Divine Immutability, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2008), 4Google Scholar, n. 4. Such a nuanced observation avoids considering Johnson's position as guilty of patripassianism, which appears to be one objection to her work.

¹¹ Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, A338/B396–A567/B595. See Grier, Michelle, Kant's Doctrine of Transcendental Illusion (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and the classic work by Henrich, Dieter, Der Ontologische Gottesbeweis: sein Problem und seine Geschichte in der Neuzeit (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1967)Google Scholar.

¹² For a complete exposition of the importance of Rahner's use of the concept of mystagogy, see Fischer, Klaus P.Gotteserfahrung: Mystagogie in der Theologie Karl Rahners und in der Theologie der Befreiung (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald, 1986)Google Scholar.

¹³ See Louth, Andrew, The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 163CrossRefGoogle Scholar: Thomas's understanding of the relation between affirmation and negation distinguishes his position from both Pseudo-Dionysius and Moses Maimonides. On this relation, see Humbrecht, Thiery-Dominique, “La théologie négative chez saint Thomas d'Aquin,” Revue Thomiste 93 (1993): 535–566Google Scholar and 94 (1994): 71–99.

¹⁴ Buckley, Michael J., At the Origins of Modern Atheism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987)Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Rahner, Karl, “On the Theology of the Incarnation,” Theological Investigations, vol. 4: More Recent Writings, trans. Smyth, Kevin (New York: Seabury, 1974), 105–20Google Scholar; Rahner, Karl and Overhage, Paul, Das Problem der Hominisation, Quaestiones Disputatae 12/13 (Freiburg: Herder, 1965)Google Scholar. Unfortunately the English version of this volume translates only one-third of the German text.

¹⁶ Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal, Metz, Johann Baptist, Moltmann, Jürgen, and Goodman-Thau, Eveline, The End of Time? The Provocation of Talking About God, ed. Peters, Tiemo Rainer and Urban, Claus, trans. and ed. Ashley, J. Matthew. (New York: Paulist 2004), 20–21Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Ibid, at 9-11.

¹⁸ Kasper, Walter, Das Absolute in der Geschichte. Philosophie und Theologie der Geschichte in der Spätphilosophie Schellings (Freiburg: Herder, 1965)Google Scholar. Schelling sets “true theism” against both “theism” that sets God in opposition to the world and “pantheism” that identifies God and the world. It is in the sense of Schelling's “true theism” and monotheism that the term “panentheism” came to be used in twentieth-century literature.

¹⁹ Ratzinger, Joseph, Introduction to Christianity (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2004), 143Google Scholar.

²⁰ See Rahner, Karl, “An Investigation of the Incomprehensibility of God in St Thomas Aquinas” in Theological Investigations, vol. 16: Experience of the Spirit, Source of Theology, trans. Morland, David (New York: Seabury, 1979), 244–54Google Scholar. See also the previous essay in that volume, “The Hiddenness of God,” 227–43 and “The Concept of Mystery in Catholic Theology,” Theological Investigations, vol. 4, 36–73Google Scholar.

²¹ Not only did several of my theology teachers become bishops, but also some of my fellow German doctoral students. As a result, theological dialogue between theologians and bishops in German-speaking countries has a different character than in the United States where this situation is less common.

²² There is a significant linguistic problem insofar as there are different definitions and interpretations of these concepts, so that an inquiry into their specific use in a text is important.

²³ I might add that there is another side to Archbishop Wuerl's complaint about Johnson not requesting an imprimatur. Twenty years ago, when John Galvin and I co-edited a two-volume work entitled Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives, we wanted an imprimatur, and so the publisher sent the manuscript to the Vicar General of the diocese. After a year and after having to delay publication, he complained to us that he and others around him were so busy that they did not have time to read the manuscript and it might take some time before they could. The publisher did not want to delay further and we went ahead with publication. This year a second edition has appeared, and I could not persuade the publisher to request the imprimatur because of time constraints. See Fiorenza, Francis Schüssler and Galvin, John, eds., Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011)Google Scholar.

²⁴ For the argument that the immutability of God has not reached the status of dogmatic or creedal belief, see Mass, Wilhelm, Unveränderlichkeit Gottes. Zum Verhältnis von griechische philosophicher und christlicher Gotteslehre (Munich: Schönigh, 1974)Google Scholar. O'Hanlon, Gerald F., The Immutability of God in the Theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar examines von Balthasar's modification of classic views and he wisely concludes: “Church reception in the issue of divine immutability as it arises today has not reached definitive status: one may begin to speak of a broad theological consensus concerning the need to modify the tradition teaching, and within the Roman Catholic Church there is some general but far from definitive support for the main lines of the particular modification proposed by Balthasar, but it is much too early yet to speak of a consensus or any authoritative Church teaching with regard to particular positions on this issue,” 173.