"Ens a se" - A medieval term for a kind of being , which contrasts with being out of itself ( ens ex se ) and with being that depends upon another thing as the ground of its existence ( ens ab alio ). In medieval philosophy, ens a se is a thing that is completely self-sufficient and depends on nothing else for its existence, and this description is ascribed solely to God. The idea is derived from the biblical teaching that God is the Creator. God is ens a se by existing independent of anything else, but all created things, including human beings, are ens ex se because they depend on God for their existence. The term aseity (Latin aseitas ) was formed from ens a se for the abstract property of being completely independent.
(from Blackwell Reference Online)
Christ is Christ, not just for himself, but in relation to me. His being Christ is his being for me, pro me. This being pro-me is not to be understood as an effect emanating from him, nor as an accident; but it is to be understood as the essence, the being of the person himself. The core of the person himself is pro-me (Bonhoeffer, "Christ the Center", p 47).
"Christ cannot be thought of other than in his being as pro-me. It is only by acknowledging Christ’s promeity that Christology can properly proceed to discuss him as 'contemporaneous' and contemporaneously present only existing as Word, Sacrament, and Church."
This is really interesting, to me anyway. I am looking forward to reading Bonhoeffer's "Christ the Center" (after reading "Sanctorum Communio").
4 comments:
Excellent definitions. 'Promeity' does seem to be a Bonhoeffer-related neologism, but a useful one.
Thanks for this - I picked up a book to enable my first return to Bonhoeffer in 30 yeas and stumbled on page one!
Take a look at Calvin Marsh, 'Reclaiming Dietrich Bonhoeffer' (Oxford University Press, 1994) where Marsh argues that a fundamental connexion exists between Karl Barth's conception of 'aseity' and Bonhoeffer's notion of Christ's 'promeity' ... and that a proper understanding of that connexion (and the associated distinction) of the two provides the basis for Bonhoeffer's understanding of the christological rootedness of the Church and of the human Self in relationship thereto (i.e., both to Christ and to his Church). And that this 'relational' understanding of the human Self is a necessary corrective to the Cartesian/Kantian understanding of Self that has characterized many influential forms of theological thinking in modern times. (Even, perhaps, Barthian 'krisis theologie'. Marsh, who wrote the definitive modern biography of Bonhoeffer, persuasively argues that Bonhoeffer's relationship to his mentor Barth was multi-dimensional, and also argues that Bonhoeffer's relationship to 20th Century philosophers like Heidegger has been minimized by too many folks who see Bonhoeffer as some kind of 'radical Pietist' rather than as a philosophically sophisticated theologian.
Sorry, but I have to correct my reference to the author .. he is Charles Marsh, not Calvin.
Post a Comment