Something Recent by Keith Lemna

The Heythrop Journal: Liturgical Reduction and Eucharistic Memory: Louis Bouyer's Response to the Crisis of Modern Science

Keith Lemna

He has written on Fr. Bouyer; perhaps he would be interested in a conference on Bouyer?

faculty page

Related:
Rev. Louis Bouyer: A Theological Giant | An Interview with Dr. Keith Lemna

"Perhaps the most fruitful terrain for future study of his thought at this point would be in comparing his work with Newman, say, or with that of Hans Urs von Balthasar. Balthasar, near the end of his life, placed his own thought in the "school" of Bouyer and the biblical scholars Heinz SchŸrmann and Heinrich Schlier. He distinguished this "school," all of whose adherents were rooted in biblical theology, from Henri de Lubac's ressourcement theology, with which Balthasar has generally been associated. The coherence between Bouyer's thinking and Newman's is worthy of its own special study. Moreover, only Pope Benedict XVI rivals Bouyer in being both a theologian and a scholar of liturgy. There is much that needs to be said regarding the uniquely liturgical theologies of both of these great men of the Church."

philpapers: "Louis bouyer's sophiology: A balthasarian retrieval," Heythrop Journal 52 (4):628-642 (2011)

Antiphon Articles on Bouyer

In 16.2 of Antiphon: Keith Lemna, “The Liturgical and Ascetical Heart of Louis Bouyer’s Trinitarian Theology” - Should see if I can find this article somewhere.

In 16.1: Alcuin Reid, “The Reformed Liturgy: A ‘Cadaver Decomposed’? Louis Bouyer and Liturgical Ressourcement”

Antiphon: Louis Bouyer's Defense of Religion and the Sacred: Sacrifice and the Primacy of Divine Gift in Christian Liturgy by Keith Lemna (pdf)

Related:
From 2010: Rev. Louis Bouyer: A Theological Giant | An Interview with Dr. Keith Lemna

Insight Scoop: Rev. Louis Bouyer: A Theological Giant | An Interview with Dr. Keith Lemna

Ignatius Insight: What are some aspects of Fr. Bouyer's work that are deserving of more study and consideration?

Dr. Lemna: Because there has been scant attention paid to Bouyer's work in secondary literature, I would say that every aspect of his work deserves more study and consideration. Bouyer is the least studied of the eminent Catholic theologians of the twentieth century.

Zordan published an 800 page book on Bouyer's theology in France a couple of years ago, and hopefully that will break the ice. But Bouyer's work is immense in its scope and implications, and there should be conferences and scholarly societies dedicated to promulgating his theology.

I think that the biggest obstacle to furthering his thought is that Bouyer wrote in a very polemical style at times, in a way that was off-putting to both "traditionalist" and "progressivist" camps in theology. But the old battles that fueled those polemics are largely a thing of the past by now, and most of the participants in those battles are dead. Bouyer could be equally sharp toward neo-Thomists, Rahnerians, and toward theologians influenced to a great extent by liberal Protestantism. Zordan notes an "anti-Augustinian attitude" in his writing at times. He definitely had, like Newman (as Ian Kerr, the pre-eminent Newman scholar in our day, has shown), a preference for the manner of theology practiced in the Christian East and for the Western monastic theology embodied in the works of a figure such as William of Saint Thierry (12th century). At the same time, as his Dictionary of Theology demonstrates, he saw the central importance of Saint Thomas for Catholic theology. Despite his penchant for polemics, his overall vision of the unity of Catholic doctrine, of the connection between theology and Christian life, and his unrivalled sense of the central importance of sacred liturgy for theology and for the existence of the Church stands out over and beyond all of the heated disputes. Cardinal Lustiger had said that Bouyer was perceived as "untimely" and "unwelcome" to the "very generations" to whom he was "providentially sent." But perhaps in our time we can begin to see more clearly precisely how lucid and comprehensive—and, one might even say, "forward-looking"—was Bouyer's vision of Catholic theology.

Perhaps the most fruitful terrain for future study of his thought at this point would be in comparing his work with Newman, say, or with that of Hans Urs von Balthasar. Balthasar, near the end of his life, placed his own thought in the "school" of Bouyer and the biblical scholars Heinz Schürmann and Heinrich Schlier. He distinguished this "school," all of whose adherents were rooted in biblical theology, from Henri de Lubac's ressourcement theology, with which Balthasar has generally been associated. The coherence between Bouyer's thinking and Newman's is worthy of its own special study. Moreover, only Pope Benedict XVI rivals Bouyer in being both a theologian and a scholar of liturgy. There is much that needs to be said regarding the uniquely liturgical theologies of both of these great men of the Church.

In sum, I would reiterate that Bouyer was one of the major figures in twentieth century Catholic theology. His work needs only to be first acknowledged in its depth and scope in order to be made the object of future study.