Humani Generis and de Lubac / Nouvelle Théologie

[PolycarpOfSmyrna]

It is widely regarded that Humani Generis from Venerable Pope Pius XII, along with its other primary objectives, was an attempt to condemn de Lubac and a few other theologian ideas. I was wondering if that is indeed accurate, and how so, and how does Nouvelle Theologie stands as a whole in light of Catholic teaching. It seems to me while there are certain proponents of NT that are problematic, such as some of the writers from Concilium, others do seem more in light of Orthodoxy, such as Pope Benedict XVI from Communio. After all, is Nouvelle Theologie truly a disguised equivalent to Modernism, or is it more complicated than that?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

was an attempt to condemn de Lubac and a few other theologian ideas

If Ven. Pope Pius XII didn’t explicitly condemn the theology of de Lubac and other Nouvelle Theologie theologians, then his/their theology isn’t condemned. The Church doesn’t hint around at condemnations of specific strands of theological thought (or theologians for that matter). De Lubac was very highly praised by both Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, both of whom were part of the Nouvelle Theologie/Ressourcement movement.

It seems to me while there are certain proponents of NT that are problematic, such as some of the writers from Concilium

This is certainly true, which is why von Balthasar, Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, de Lubac, et al formed Communio - they wanted to correct the errors and excesses of the Concilium movement.

s Nouvelle Theologie truly a disguised equivalent to Modernism

No. Nouvelle Theologie was/is an attempt to return to the Patristic sources in an effort to curb the excesses of neo-scholasticism.

 

[Genesis315]

Nouvelle Theoligie is a broad term encompassing many individuals and their thought. No doubt some was good, but there were also some problems. Humani Generis addresses specific errors to be avoided, but it clearly was not an in toto condemnation of the whole movement (the Pope could have done that, but he intentionally stuck to specifics).

I have seen this specific line said to be aimed at something from de Lubac:

Others destroy the gratuity of the supernatural order, since God, they say, cannot create intellectual beings without ordering and calling them to the beatific vision.

Whether it was or not, if we find this error in anyone’s writings–whether de Lubac or anyone else–we should reject it. But that doesn’t mean everything they say is valueless or condemned.