Doxological (Im)Purity? Nicholas of Cusa’s ‘Art of Praising’ and Liturgical Thinking in 21st Century

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Against the background of recent debates in Anglo-Saxon theology, the present study considers the significance of liturgy —a field, in the perspective of the Kantian-Cartesian view of science, outside the realm of rationality— not only for theology, but also for philosophy. The author wants to answer the question about how liturgical practice can show a way out of the closed world of modern subjectivity.

Recently, in his book Thinking Prayer, Andrew Prevot also dealt with the issue through the idea of doxology and an eye on the existential-phenomenology thinking of Heidegger. However, the American theologian would not have been able to escape the dilemma in which liturgy appears today, that is, either as a particular private object or as an abstract universal entity. Therefore, the author of the article wants to try a different strategy. To this, the author refers to Nicholas of Cusa, who in constant dialogue with Dionysius Areopagite, developed a scientia laudis. At this point, the question central to the remainder of the article becomes if whether Nicholas’ “science of praise” can contribute to an understanding of liturgy beyond Andrew Prevot’s “doxological impurity”.

The author concludes that the formulation of a “science of praise” is an indication that Cusanus was really looking for a connection between praising God and the way of reason. And, for the specificity, that Cusanus’ hymnic thinking offers a way out of the dilemma facing Prevot’s liturgical thought.

From the title, the article confronts Prevot’s idea and tries to propose an alternative approach. To benefit properly from this study, readers need therefore familiarity with this theologian’s ideas, as the indication in note 5 may suggest. Regarding the essay itself, it would have been more profitable to deepen the dialogue between Prevot and Cusanus’ thoughts in the context of the 21st century; in fact, much of the content is about Cusanus’ reception of the Pseudo-Dionysius. Lastly, in the writing one might get the impression that praise, prayer, and liturgy are used almost interchangeably. Or else, why to pull together Prevot and liturgy, when he offers in his book only a few passing glances at it? (In fact, as stated on page 29 of Thinking Prayer, he wants to draw “attention to prayer itself, with liturgy serving only as an occasional —and admittedly underdeveloped— example”).

Author Response

Many thanks for your clear and useful comments to improve my article.

I agree with you that the discussion with Prevot could have been further explored and that there is now a certain imbalance between Cusanus and Prevot. My main concern however was to find in Prevot a theologian who sees the problems of rediscovering the doxological dimensions, which also necessitate reverting to Cusanus. 
- Many thanks also for pointing out to me the intermingling of liturgy and prayer. I have adjusted this somewhat in the article by at least making a comment about it. Your comments have at least given the author the experience of being understood. I think what Cusanus calls "praising" does correspond to Prevot's doxological dimension. 

Reviewer 2 Report

See attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Many thanks for the comprehensive comments and detailed corrections and observations. I have adopted all the suggestions you have given in your comments.