By \u201cTHEOLOGIANS OF TODAY,\u201d I mean the \u201cprogressive theologians\u201d in dogmatic and moral theology, that is, the ones who are carrying out a \u201cre-interpretation of Christianity.\u201d They believe that it is necessary to \u201ccarry forward\u201d the openings began by Vatican II by indiscriminately spreading philosophical and theological pluralism, ecumenism, and the like, and this on the foundation of a radical secularism, and in general by the assumption of the principle of the modern transcendental in theology which has produced the so-called \u201canthropological turn\u201d as a result.<\/p>\n
However, is this new theology able to keep its identity as a \u201csacred science\u201d (sacra disciplina)? Is it based, that is, is it really on the same path and direction as Vatican II? Is the \u201canthropological turn\u201d of theological reflection proclaimed by this new theology able to carry out a discourse regarding the message of salvation?<\/p>\n
From a theoretical point of view, what is mostly disturbing is how it is possible to \u201ccontinue doing theology\u201d without meta-
\nphysics: hence, this theology is without an absolute notion of the truth of being, the only thing upon which it is possible to establish a consistent proof that \u201cGod exists\u201d and an \u201cabsolute distinction\u201d between creature and creator, nature and grace, sin and redemption, and from this the real consistency of the redemptive Incarnation. Doesn\u2019t this new theology go back in essence to the immanentistic positions of Hermes, G\u00fcnther…<\/p>\n