McCall Vondey Review
Vondey’s study, as he puts its, seeks to contribute to the understanding and implementation of Muhlen’s theology and praxis of Christian Renewal [wrought by the indwelling Christ, I add] in other parts of the world (ref. 307). I was refreshed by perusing this book of a heretofore unknown (by me!) Catholic theologian whose work was ‘all about the Spirit’ (to use the colloquial phraseology). Indeed, Muhlen built bridges in his theological endeavors amongst Pneumatology and ecclesiology, ecclesiology and ecclesial praxis, ecclesial praxis and ecclesial reform, as well as ecclesial reform and social reform. I especially appreciate the last bridge mentioned (i.e. between ecclesial reform and social reform) because Muhlen apparently reasoned it veritable that the Church, even in her hierarchy, must go forth from itself into a broken and distorted world. So then, the realization of Muhlen’s importance to Catholic theology can be seen on its renewed emphasis upon evangelization after the Vatican II Council.
I was greatly enthralled with the I-Thou-We proposition of Muhlen in reference to understanding the Trinity. Whereas I have reservations with accepting the implicit affirmation by Muhlen of the filoque clause in relation to the structure of the Trinity (according to my reading of his position, note), the notion that the Spirit is the “bond” between the Father and the Son is incalculably attractive to me mentally (99). Moreover, the subsequent appropriation of that concept of “bond-derived ‘we-ness’” to the Church’s relation to the Spirit is simply mind-boggling to me. What an insight! I want to cogitate about that posit ad nauseum. So then, the Spirit of God is always the Spirit of Christ, who is also always the Spirit of the Church!
I honestly must state that I need further reading regarding spiration in reference to the begetting of the Son and the Spirit. I was somewhat confused, therefore, by the delineation offered on page 77 regarding the passive generation of the Son versus the passive spiration of the Spirit, both being from the Father.
I find, as I have earlier mentioned, the I-Thou-We proposition of Muhlen attractive. However, as he himself pointed out, the Thou-Thou relation between the Father begetting the Son is NOT reciprocal to the notion of the Son begetting the Father, which presents a stumbling to the functionality of the analogy in my eyes (74). I took heart that Muhlen similarly to me conceded that the proposition “fails here due to the ineffability of the mystery” (74) [of the Trinity].