"Ressourcement" or "Nouvelle Theologie" before the Second Vatican Council

[fnr]

Between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries, there was a growing interest in returning to the words of the Church Fathers as a means of furthering theological inquiry. Theologians such as Henri de Lubac, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Hans Urs Von Bathlasar, Yves Congar, Karl Rahner, and Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) were involved in this type of research and theology.

de Lubac and Jean Daniélou, both Jesuits, published a critical series of the patristic writings in translation, under the name “Sources Chrétiennes” (Christian Sources). They called for a “ressourcement” (return to the sources) in theology.

Standing in opposition to this research and the theology done were a number of neo-Thomistic theologians, such as Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, who was a teacher of Karol Wotyla, later Pope St. John Paul II. He first coined the term “Nouvelle Theologie” (New Theology) to describe this new movement, a name intended to say that “ressourcement” was not really a hearkening back, but a close to a form of condemned “modernism” that was incompatible with Catholic tradition. Garrigou-Lagrange is believed to have heavily influenced the thinking of Pope Pius XII, who in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis seems to condemn theology that based on the writings of the Church Fathers and that was critical of Neoscholasticism.

In 1950, two months before Humani Generis, de Lubac and three other professors were removed from the Jesuit seminary at Fourviere, France, and de Lubac’s books were taken off the shelves of Catholic libraries, under the pressure of the Holy Office. Earlier, in 1942, also under the influence of Garrigou-Lagrange, the words of Chenu were placed on the index of forbidden books.

Pope St. John XXIII reversed course and rehabilitated these theologians. In fact, he recruited them to be among the *periti *at the Second Vatican Council. de Lubac, Rahner, and others among the formerly-condemned ended up being among the most influential of theologians at the council.

How do Traditionalists view this change of course? I see the Council as returning the Church to its roots, but are there other explanations?

 

[edwest2]

Humani Generis is very critical of various trends that were emerging at the time and was quite specific: only the Magisterium can interpret and guard the proper interpretation of scripture. Whatever these theologians wanted or thought, may or may not have had merit, but referring again to Humani Generis, all must submit to the final judgment of the Church.

The Second Vatican Council was not a call to anything new but to a fresh commitment to teaching the same truths to the faithful, and all who would listen, among the competing philosophies, ideologies and fears and concerns that were affecting all people at the time. The threat of nuclear war, the threat of replacing God with other philosophies and ideas, among other issues. It was to remind the laity of their mission as evangelizers. It was an opportunity to listen to those inside the Church as well.

The contest between good and evil, truth and falsehood, is ongoing. The problem is evil is constantly repackaging itself and finding new ways to deceive people. To convince them that some kind of change will make something better. Since it began, the Church has had to deal with all who challenged it in one form or another. The responses included clarification and identifying certain ideas as being incompatible with what the Church teaches and/or harmful to leading a life that is inconsistent with our universal call to holiness, or to reinterpret the Bible by those who sought novelty as opposed to the truth.

Humani Generis was an excellent warning of how false, misleading and harmful ideas can spread and addresses them.

Regarding the Second Vatican Council, let us read the words of Pope John XXIII ourselves:

ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[Bookcat]

I am not a “traditionalist” in the sense that the term often gets used.

I do though hold fast the Tradition - passed down from the Apostles and recognize that there are many varied riches in the Church!

That said I would note that I love Henri de Lubac, Jean Danielou and most especially Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI -favorite Pope after Peter) AND I love - G. Lagrange. I do have to keep their works apart on my bookshelf - for they may not always see eye to eye and I would not want my books get into a disagreement (well they likely do now! most having gone to their reward).

I am very much “Ressourcement” as well as rather Thomistic (Jacques and Raissa Maritain and G. Lagrange, J. Pieper).

Above all I am a Christian - a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth within the Catholic Church -professing the fullness of the Catholic Faith!

 

[dmar198]

Between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries, there was a growing interest in returning to the words of the Church Fathers as a means of furthering theological inquiry. Theologians such as Henri de Lubac, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Hans Urs Von Bathlasar, Yves Congar, Karl Rahner, and Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) were involved in this type of research and theology.

de Lubac and Jean Daniélou, both Jesuits, published a critical series of the patristic writings in translation, under the name “Sources Chrétiennes” (Christian Sources). They called for a “ressourcement” (return to the sources) in theology.

Standing in opposition to this research and the theology done were a number of neo-Thomistic theologians, such as Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, who was a teacher of Karol Wotyla, later Pope St. John Paul II. He first coined the term “Nouvelle Theologie” (New Theology) to describe this new movement, a name intended to say that “ressourcement” was not really a hearkening back, but a close to a form of condemned “modernism” that was incompatible with Catholic tradition. Garrigou-Lagrange is believed to have heavily influenced the thinking of Pope Pius XII, who in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis seems to condemn theology that based on the writings of the Church Fathers and that was critical of Neoscholasticism.

In 1950, two months before Humani Generis, de Lubac and three other professors were removed from the Jesuit seminary at Fourviere, France, and de Lubac’s books were taken off the shelves of Catholic libraries, under the pressure of the Holy Office. Earlier, in 1942, also under the influence of Garrigou-Lagrange, the words of Chenu were placed on the index of forbidden books.

Pope St. John XXIII reversed course and rehabilitated these theologians. In fact, he recruited them to be among the *periti *at the Second Vatican Council. de Lubac, Rahner, and others among the formerly-condemned ended up being among the most influential of theologians at the council.

How do Traditionalists view this change of course? I see the Council as returning the Church to its roots, but are there other explanations?

Like a previous poster, I don’t consider myself a traditionalist. Nevertheless, I do not buy the narrative you have reported. Humani Generis promotes the same thing the Second Vatican Council calls for: a return to the sources that is based on explaining and defending the truths defined by the Magisterium, rather than a return to the sources that rejects the definitions of the Magisterium.

This comes out in Humani Generis 21 and in the Second Vatican Council’s Dei Verbum 10. Can you spot a difference between the ultimate objectives of those two documents?

 

[Abu]

“Ressourcement” or “Nouvelle Theologie” before the Second Vatican Council
Of the famous group of theologians mentioned, the one theologian we should be wary of is Karl Rahner. The fact of dissent proliferated following Vatican II and the influence of Karl Rahner with his “parallel magisterium” and opposition to the Magisterium, for Rahner joined the disgraceful public dissent against Humanae Vitae. After *Humanae Vitae *Rahner himself explicitly supported dissent from Magisterial teaching on moral questions.” Why Humanae Vitae Was Right: A Reader, 1993, Ignatius; article: Conscience Formation and the Teaching of the Church, p 365-380; referencing Rahner’s dissent from HV found in: Theology and the Magisterium, *Theology Digest *29.3 (1981): p 261]

As Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote as Cardinal Ratzinger in his Memoirs, Milestones, Ignatius 1998.
“Rahner and I lived on two different theological planets…his theology was totally conditioned by the tradition of Suarezian scholasticism and its new reception in the light of German idealism and of Heidegger…a speculative and philosophical theology in which Scripture and the Fathers in the end did not play an important role and in which the historical dimension was really of little significance.” (p128).

In 1969 Fr Ratzinger was appointed to the International Papal Theological Commission, in which he says, “there was considerable tension”, but found much support from such as “Henri de Lubac, Jorge Medina (Chile)”, and the “great figure of Hans Urs von Balthazar….Never again have I found anyone with such a comprehensive theological and humanistic education as Balthazar and de Lubac….” (p143).

“Rahner, on the other hand, for the most part allowed himself to be ‘sworn in’ according to the progressive slogans, and allowed himself as well to be pushed into adventuresome political positions difficult to reconcile with his own transcendental philosophy….Rahner and Feiner, the Swiss ecumenist, finally left the Commission because, in their opinion, it was worthless since the majority of its members was not ready to subscribe to radical theses.” (p143-4).

On Dei Verbum, #10, of Vatican II Fr James T O’Connor comments “that the duty of authentically or authoritatively teaching that same Faith belongs not to all the People of God in general but to the Magisterium of the Pope and bishops. ‘The duty, however, of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed down, has been given only to the living Magisterium of the Church whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.’ ”

Fr O’Connor comments on the objection by Karl Rahner to the “only” in the quotation, pointing out that the it avoids among the faithful “a constant quarrelling to determine which is the more essential”, and that “the prophetic mission of the People of God is in fact safeguarded by the recognition among such groupings that there is ultimately one Magisterium that authoritatively speaks for Christ.” The Gift of Infallibility, Fr James T O’Connor, Ignatius, 1986, p 108-110].

 

[CrossofChrist]

Standing in opposition to this research and the theology done were a number of neo-Thomistic theologians, such as Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, who was a teacher of Karol Wotyla, later Pope St. John Paul II. He first coined the term “Nouvelle Theologie” (New Theology) to describe this new movement, a name intended to say that “ressourcement” was not really a hearkening back, but a close to a form of condemned “modernism” that was incompatible with Catholic tradition. Garrigou-Lagrange is believed to have heavily influenced the thinking of Pope Pius XII, who in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis seems to condemn theology that based on the writings of the Church Fathers and that was critical of Neoscholasticism.

Much of how one would view the change is in whether one thinks HG was an attack against the Nouvelle Theologie, or whether it wasn’t (as de Lubac maintained) and rather was merely reaffirming opposition to modernism and potential misinterpretations of theological positions.

Pope St. John XXIII reversed course and rehabilitated these theologians. In fact, he recruited them to be among the *periti *at the Second Vatican Council. de Lubac, Rahner, and others among the formerly-condemned ended up being among the most influential of theologians at the council.

Also of interest is that de Lubac and Danielou eventually became Cardinals.

I see the Council as returning the Church to its roots, but are there other explanations?

That’s a pretty accurate interpretation. But lest we disparage Neoscholasticism, we ought to remember that the debate wasn’t so much about Scholasticism per se as it was about whether our “natural end” is the same as our “supernatural end”. Certainly the new theology preferred to use less technical language in the tradition of the Church Fathers to more effectively present the Gospel in the modern age, but Scholasticism always has its place because of its effectiveness in providing answers.

Studies of the thought of Saint Thomas and other Scholastic writers received new impetus. Historical studies flourished, resulting in a rediscovery of the riches of Medieval thought, which until then had been largely unknown; and there emerged new Thomistic schools. With the use of historical method, knowledge of the works of Saint Thomas increased greatly, and many scholars had courage enough to introduce the Thomistic tradition into the philosophical and theological discussions of the day. The most influential Catholic theologians of the present century, to whose thinking and research the Second Vatican Council was much indebted, were products of this revival of Thomistic philosophy. Throughout the twentieth century, the Church has been served by a powerful array of thinkers formed in the school of the Angelic Doctor. (Fides et Ratio 58)

Abu:

Of the famous group of theologians mentioned, the one theologian we should be wary of is Karl Rahner.

Rahner was ambiguous, but I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss him. Many members of the hierarchy have great respect for him.

There is also this excerpt from Fides et Ratio 59 that seems like a hidden yet clear reference to Rahner’s work: Yet the Thomistic and neo-Thomistic revival was not the only sign of a resurgence of philosophical thought in culture of Christian inspiration. Earlier still, and parallel to Pope Leo’s call, there had emerged a number of Catholic philosophers who, adopting more recent currents of thought and according to a specific method, produced philosophical works of great influence and lasting value. Some devised syntheses so remarkable that they stood comparison with the great systems of idealism.

 

[Abu]

CrossofChrist #6
Rahner was ambiguous, but I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss him. Many members of the hierarchy have great respect for him.

From the lectures by the faculty of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Catholic Doctrine, at St John’s University in 1977, and published by the Daughters of St Paul in 1978 as The Teaching Church in Our Time, Rahner seemed to be mesmerized by pluralism:
“In former days the statements of the Church’s Magisterium were the truly important theses of theology. This need not be the case for theology in the future. Indeed it cannot be the case if theology is to perform its proper task…official formulations of the Magisterium, and their grammar,” a process that “shows us clearly that theological pluralism is both possible and justifiable, and that theology can move even further away from the formulations of the Magisterium.” He concludes that (where there is a dispute) “the Church will again leave it up to the theology to interpret our credal profession.” (Msgr Eugene M Kevane, p 32). [From Karl Rahner, S.J.,* Pluralism in Theology and the Oneness of the Church’s Profession of Faith. Concilium 46 (New York, Paulist Press, 1969) p 104].

Notice how easily “philosophical” pluralism has become “theological” pluralism. Here we have the much vaunted Rahnerian alternative or parallel Magisterium of the theologians. Karl Rahner dissents.

This is why Rahner can no longer be relied on as a defender of the faith, but as a sower of dissent. What we need are doctrines, truths, instead of the tyranny of opinions. Faithful theologians are a treasure, and they nourish and promote the faith.

 

[fnr]

From the lectures by the faculty of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Catholic Doctrine, at St John’s University in 1977, and published by the Daughters of St Paul in 1978 as The Teaching Church in Our Time, Rahner seemed to be mesmerized by pluralism:
“In former days the statements of the Church’s Magisterium were the truly important theses of theology. This need not be the case for theology in the future. Indeed it cannot be the case if theology is to perform its proper task…official formulations of the Magisterium, and their grammar,” a process that “shows us clearly that theological pluralism is both possible and justifiable, and that theology can move even further away from the formulations of the Magisterium.” He concludes that (where there is a dispute) “the Church will again leave it up to the theology to interpret our credal profession.” (Msgr Eugene M Kevane, p 32). [From Karl Rahner, S.J.,* Pluralism in Theology and the Oneness of the Church’s Profession of Faith

. Concilium 46 (New York, Paulist Press, 1969) p 104].

Notice how easily “philosophical” pluralism has become “theological” pluralism. Here we have the much vaunted Rahnerian alternative or parallel Magisterium of the theologians. Karl Rahner dissents.

This is why Rahner can no longer be relied on as a defender of the faith, but as a sower of dissent. What we need are doctrines, truths, instead of the tyranny of opinions. Faithful theologians are a treasure, and they nourish and promote the faith.
Just based on your post, Abu, it’s not clear to me that Rahner was moving beyond what the Council Fathers said together at Vatican II. Here is Dei Verbum 8:

1. And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the
   inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until
   the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had
   received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have
   learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) (4) Now what
   was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the
   holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church,
   in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations
   all that she herself is, all that she believes.

This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the
help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the
realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the
contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their
hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual
realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have
received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the
centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the
fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment
in her.

The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living
tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing
and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church’s full canon of the
sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly
understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old,
uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son; and the Holy
Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and
through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the
word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (see Col. 3:16).

 

[CrossofChrist]

From the lectures by the faculty of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Catholic Doctrine, at St John’s University in 1977, and published by the Daughters of St Paul in 1978 as The Teaching Church in Our Time, Rahner seemed to be mesmerized by pluralism:
“In former days the statements of the Church’s Magisterium were the truly important theses of theology. This need not be the case for theology in the future. Indeed it cannot be the case if theology is to perform its proper task…official formulations of the Magisterium, and their grammar,” a process that “shows us clearly that theological pluralism is both possible and justifiable, and that theology can move even further away from the formulations of the Magisterium.” He concludes that (where there is a dispute) “the Church will again leave it up to the theology to interpret our credal profession.” (Msgr Eugene M Kevane, p 32). [From Karl Rahner, S.J.,* Pluralism in Theology and the Oneness of the Church’s Profession of Faith

. Concilium 46 (New York, Paulist Press, 1969) p 104].

Veritatis Splendor 29: *Certainly the Church’s Magisterium does not intend to impose upon the faithful any particular theological system, still less a philosophical one. *

Rahner’s statement has to be read in context. Before the Second Vatican Council, Neoscholasticism was the way of doing theology; anything else was either ignored or suspected of heresy. And then there was (or rather, still is) the dispute of whether or not Neoscholasticism was faithful to the Scholasticism of Aquinas and Albertus Magnus.

The point is that while Scholasticism will forever keep its importance, it doesn’t need to be all encompassing; other ways of doing theology are acceptable.

 

[Abu]

fnr #8
it’s not clear to me that Rahner was moving beyond what the Council Fathers said together at Vatican II.
CrossofChrist #9
Rahner’s statement has to be read in context.

The refusal to assent to doctrine when it suits him, and the endless speculation of the arrogant selfist became the hallmark of Karl Rahner, the dissenter. It was this dissenting influence of Rahner, and Schillebeeckx among others that precipitated the beak with Concilium.

“In 1972 the magazine’s policies had become so manifestly subversive and so much of its contents questionable that Frs von Balthazar, Ratzinger and de Lubac detached themselves and founded the rival international theological quarterly Communio, to which other members of the reform party still loyal to the Holy See, like Frs Louis Bouyer and Rene Laurentin, soon adhered.” [Philip Trower, *Turmoil and Truth, Ignatius Press 2003, p 32].

Although one of the founders of *Concilium *in 1964, by 1972 Fr Ratzinger had founded Communio with other great Catholics because as he said:
“It is not I who have changed but others….I pointed out two prerequisites to my colleagues. The first one; our group must not lapse into sectarianism or arrogance, as if we were the new, true Church, an alternative Magisterium with a monopoly on the truth of Christianity. The second one: discussion had to be conducted with without any individualistic flights forward, in confrontation with the reality of Vatican II with the true letter and the true spirit of the Council, not with an imaginary Vatican II. These prerequisites were increasingly less observed…up to a turning point…around 1973 – when someone began to assert the texts of Vatican II were no longer the point of reference of Catholic theology…. I very soon disengaged myself from the directorate as well as from the contributors’ staff.” The Ratzinger Report, Vittorio Messori, Ignatius 1985, p18-19].

 

[CrossofChrist]

The refusal to assent to doctrine when it suits him, and the endless speculation of the arrogant selfist became the hallmark of Karl Rahner, the dissenter.

“Notwithstanding some ambiguous formulae, Rahner was an orthodox Catholic theologian.” - Cardinal Angelo Amato

cathnews.acu.edu.au/403/85.php

 

[Abu]

The late Father Karl Rahner, amongst other things, did not accept the Church’s Christology, but replaced it with a Teilhardian-based one that represents Our Lord as not being at all times a Divine Person, but merely as one ascending towards divinity. He also rejected Pius XII’s prohibition against acceptance of the evolutionary inference of polygenism. [See Joseph Cardinal Siri, *Gethsemane: Reflections on the Contemporary Theological Movement (Eng. trans.: Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1981), pp. 77-87 ISBN 0819908258; G.H. Duggan, S.M., Christologies Ancient and Modern, in *The Priest *(Australia), Vol. 1 (Winter, 1989)].

The arrogance of the “later” Rahner continued:
“ ‘Infallibility’ confined to one person or to the word ‘pope’ will be ‘as obsolete as a dodo bird.’ ”
His “tiny flocks” will find unity in the One Lord who is identified with no particular group, and the Pope himself will be merely an ombudsman to arbitrate disputes and to inspire. [See Rahner’s *Structural Change in the Church as Duty and Prospect, Herder and Herder, 1972; also Karl Rahner’s Brave New Church, *America *Feb 16, 1974, John Carmody, p 109-111; also National Catholic Reporter, March 30, 1973, p 5].

“At the opening of the German Synod in January 1971 Cardinal Hoffner of Cologne announced that before any discussions could be conducted some truths must be presupposed, since their denial placed one outside the Catholic faith. Among such doctrine he mentioned were Christ’s divine sonship and resurrection, the Virgin Birth, the indissolubility of a consummated and validly contracted marriage. Karl Rahner rose to intervene, claiming that assertions in this form were of little use to people today because formulas themselves were still subject to further questioning and discussion.” *The Teaching Church in Our Time *in What Future Is There For The Teaching Church?, Msgr George A Kelly, Ph.D., Daughters of St Paul, 1978, p 225].

Despite his earlier orthodoxy, Rahner displayed the confusion and dissent that Cardinals Siri and Hofner identified.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

I´m a great admirer of de Lubac and and von Balthasar, especially de Lubac’s Medieval Exegesis and Catholicism, and von Balthasar’s The Glory of the Lord. I’ve never felt a great affinity for scholasticism, but the fault is mine, not scholasticism’s.

What I find interesting is that there seems to be something of a minor movement afoot to synthesize the insights of thomism and the nouvelle theologie.

I haven’t read it yet, but on my list is Fr. Aidan Nichols’ (surely he’ll receive the cardinal’s hat someday) Chalice of God, is supposed to ‘`draw together the insights of high scholasticism, the mid-twentieth-century ressourcement movement…’ and patristic and biblical sources.

Another interesting figure is Reinhard Hütter (whom I know much less about than I do about Nichols), a convert from Lutheranism and editor of Ressourcement Thomism (also on my list, still unread). In his First Things’ article The Ruins of Discontinuity, Hütter argues that the rich, virtuoso texts in the ressourcement style do not replace foundational texts like Peter Lombard’s Sententiae or St. Thomas’ Summa Theologica

Hütter: The Communio movement is diverse. It is unified by a shared vision, a shared intuition, and a shared approach of patristic ressourcement rather than by a shared conceptual vocabulary. For a theological student already formed in proper ways, the great Communio theologians provide the occasion for a profound spiritual illumination and theological edification, in large part because they are exemplary soloists. Yet today we have a greater need, perhaps, for basic training; this requires a disciplined school of inquiry with masters who practice theology more as an intellectual craft and who form apprentices in a traditioned as well as expansive practice of theological study and reflection.

I haven’t read Hütter yet, and so can’t speak for his work. But it does seem logical to me that, now that the ressourcement victory seems decisive and long-lasting, a *rapprochement * between these two great streams would be the next theological task.

 

[AndyP2010]

Can we move past Karl Rahner for now, or does his errors stain the entire project?

 

[RyanBlack]

Another interesting figure is Reinhard Hütter (whom I know much less about than I do about Nichols), a convert from Lutheranism and editor of Ressourcement Thomism (also on my list, still unread). In his First Things’ article The Ruins of Discontinuity, Hütter argues that the rich, virtuoso texts in the ressourcement style do not replace foundational texts like Peter Lombard’s Sententiae or St. Thomas’ Summa Theologica

Hütter: The Communio movement is diverse. It is unified by a shared vision, a shared intuition, and a shared approach of patristic ressourcement rather than by a shared conceptual vocabulary. For a theological student already formed in proper ways, the great Communio theologians provide the occasion for a profound spiritual illumination and theological edification, in large part because they are exemplary soloists. Yet today we have a greater need, perhaps, for basic training; this requires a disciplined school of inquiry with masters who practice theology more as an intellectual craft and who form apprentices in a traditioned as well as expansive practice of theological study and reflection.

I haven’t read Hütter yet, and so can’t speak for his work. But it does seem logical to me that, now that the ressourcement victory seems decisive and long-lasting, a *rapprochement * between these two great streams would be the next theological task.

I know Reinhard Hütter personally. I took four courses with him when I was a student at Duke Divinity School, one of which was a course in the thought of de Lubac. I can’t speak highly enough of him. He is perhaps the brightest scholar I’ve ever known (and at five years at Duke, I studied with many outstanding scholars). He is very widely read, having a vast knowledge of modern theology, and is very knowledgeable of Aquinas. He is also an Ordinary Academician of the Pontifical Academy of Saint Thomas Aquinas.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

I know Reinhard Hütter personally. I took four courses with him when I was a student at Duke Divinity School, one of which was a course in the thought of de Lubac. I can’t speak highly enough of him. He is perhaps the brightest scholar I’ve ever known (and at five years at Duke, I studied with many outstanding scholars). He is very widely read, having a vast knowledge of modern theology, and is very knowledgeable of Aquinas. He is also an Ordinary Academician of the Pontifical Academy of Saint Thomas Aquinas.

I see he’s written a fairly recent book with the intriguing title ‘Dust Bound for Heaven: Explorations in the Theology of St. Thomas’. I’ll have to move Hütter to the top of my reading list.

Humani Generis promotes the same thing the Second Vatican Council calls for: a return to the sources that is based on explaining and defending the truths defined by the Magisterium, rather than a return to the sources that rejects the definitions of the Magisterium.

This comes out in Humani Generis 21 and in the Second Vatican Council’s Dei Verbum 10. Can you spot a difference between the ultimate objectives of those two documents?

I must confess, I really can’t find massive differences in the documents themselves, certainly not in ‘ultimate objectives’. I’m reading Fr. Aidan Nichols’ The Shape of Catholic Theology, and he does feel that the theologian’s task was reoriented by Dei Verbum. According to Nichols, Humani Generis presented the magisterium as the ‘proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians’. If this were true, there would be no need to return to the sources of scripture and tradition, which are remote and obscure.

Dei Verbum explicitly calls for a return to the sources of Scripture and Tradition. The magisterium here is not properly a source, but an aid and servant:

Dei Verbum 23: Therefore, she (the Church) also encourages the study of the holy Fathers of both East and West and of sacred liturgies. Catholic exegetes then and other students of sacred theology, working diligently together and using appropriate means, should devote their energies, under the watchful care of the sacred teaching office of the Church, to an exploration and exposition of the divine writings.

According to Nichols, this shifts the theologian’s locus of attention from contemporary magisterial pronouncements to the sources themselves.

Of course, Nichols does not suggest that we can oppose scripture and tradition on the one hand and the teaching of the ordinary magisterium on the other, or that we should ignore the magisterium or surpass the limits that the magisterium sets. But if I’m reading him correctly, he doesn’t believe that the magisterium sets the theologian’s agenda.

 

[Abu]

CharlesdeFoucld #14
Fr. Aidan Nichols’…doesn’t believe that the magisterium sets the theologian’s agenda.

The Magisterium sets limits.

Donum Veritatis (On The Ecclesial Vocation Of The Theologian), C.D.F. 1990.
“11. Never forgetting that he is also a member of the People of God, the theologian must foster respect far them and be committed to offering them a teaching which in no way does harm to the doctrine of the faith.”

“12. In theology this freedom of inquiry is the hallmark of a rational discipline whose object is given by Revelation, handed on and interpreted in the Church under the authority of the Magisterium, and received by faith. These givens have the force of principles. To eliminate them would mean to cease doing theology.”

Further, “In theology this freedom of inquiry is the hallmark of a rational discipline whose object is given by Revelation, handed on and interpreted in the Church under the authority of the Magisterium, and received by faith. These givens have the force of principles. To eliminate them would mean to cease doing theology.”

#38: “The right conscience of the Catholic theologian presumes not only faith in the Word of God whose riches he must explore, but also love for the Church from whom he receives his mission, and respect for her divinely assisted Magisterium. Setting up a supreme Magisterium of conscience in opposition to the Magisterium of the Church means adopting a principle of free examination incompatible with the economy of Revelation and its transmission in the Church and thus also with a correct understanding of theology and the role of the theologian. The propositions of faith are not the product of mere individual research and free criticism of the Word of God but constitute an ecclesial heritage. If there occur a separation from the Bishops who watch over and keep the apostolic tradition alive, it is the bond with Christ which is irreparably compromised(38).
(38) Cf. Paul VI, Apost. Exhort. Paterna cum benevolentia, n. 4: AAS 67 (1975)15.

Donum Veritatis was approved by Pope St John Paul II.

 

[CrossofChrist]

The Magisterium sets limits.

I think what is meant is that the Magisterium isn’t saying theology must be done in a certain form, as if all theology must be Scholastic (as it often seemed pre-VII) or all theology must be nonScholastic (as it seems post-VII). It would not be healthy for theology if today Pope Francis said that only Monastic Theology must be done in the Church today. Just clarifying.

But yes, of course, the Magisterium certainly does set the boundaries for theology in determining what can or cannot be done staying within Catholic doctrine.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

I think what is meant is that the Magisterium isn’t saying theology must be done in a certain form, as if all theology must be Scholastic (as it often seemed pre-VII) or all theology must be nonScholastic (as it seems post-VII). It would not be healthy for theology if today Pope Francis said that only Monastic Theology must be done in the Church today. Just clarifying.

But yes, of course, the Magisterium certainly does set the boundaries for theology in determining what can or cannot be done staying within Catholic doctrine.

Very well said. Yes, I was trying to draw a distinction between setting limits (which is the Magisterium’s duty as guardian of the deposit of faith) and setting a theological agenda (which the Magisterium does not normally do, as the landscape of scripture and tradition is prohibitively vast).

Normally, the Magisterium neither prescribes the form theology takes nor the specific questions that theologians put to the sources of revelation. Because theology is currently in a state of disarray, we tend to be suspicious, so following are a couple of examples to illustrate the point.

Sometimes, the Magisterium will suggest a course of theological investigation. Such was the case with St. John Paul II’s Ut unum sint, when he proposed that the exercise of the Petrine ministry be investigated. This is entirely legitimate.

Sometimes the Magisterium will propose that a line of investigation has surpassed the boundaries of orthodoxy. Thus, speculation about the possibility of women priests has been ruled to fall outside the tradition. This is also a legitimate exercise of magisterial authority.

Normally, though, theologians explore the sources of revelation without specific reference to the contemporary teaching of the ordinary Magisterium. As far as I know, bishops were not asking theologians to write about theological aesthetics when Hans Urs von Balthasar wrote The Glory of the Lord. There were no magisterial pronouncements about hermeneutics in the middle ages when Henri de Lubac wrote Medieval Exegesis. These works are fully orthodox and have enriched the tradition, but they did not arise under the explicit direction of the magisterium.

Following Nichols, I’m suggesting that the schema subtly shifted from Humani Generis to Vatican II’s Dei Verbum, and that this shift expanded the field of investigation for theologians, making more space for the *ressourcement *theologians. Under Humani Generis, which dubbed contemporary magisterial teaching as the proximate norm of interpretation, theologians would be more inclined to juggle and juxtapose magisterial statements, only returning to the sources to support what the Magisterium was teaching. Dei Verbum, on the other hand, makes clear that the real sources of revelation are scripture and tradition. Theologians can now turn directly to the sources, although always under the watchful care of the Magisterium.

The young Josef Ratzinger (whom, I gather, Fr. Aidan Nichols is following on this point) wrote an influential commentary on Dei Verbum that articulated this difference between the schema held by Humani Generis and that of Vatican II:

Dei Verbum 10 first makes the point that the preservation and active realization of the word is the business of the whole people of God, not merely of the hierarchy. The ecclesial nature of the word, on which this idea is based, is therefore not simply a question which concerns the teaching office, but embraces the whole community of the faithful. If one compares the text with the corresponding section of the encyclical Humani Generis, the progress that has been made is clear… The idea of solo magisterio is taken up here in the next paragraph, but the context makes it clear that the authentic interpretation which is restricted to the teaching office is a specific service that does not embrace the whole of the way in which the word is present, and in which it performs an irreplaceable function precisely for the whole Church, the bishops and laity together… For the first time a text of the teaching office expressly points out the subordination of the teaching office to the word, e.g., its function as a servant. One can say, it is true, there could never have been any serious doubt that this was in fact the case. Nevertheless the actual procedure often tended somewhat to obscure this order of things, though it had always been acknowledged in principle’ (Ratzinger, Dogmatic Constitution of Divine Revelation, Origin and Background).

Thanks to Abu for pointing me toward Donum Veritatis, which was written about the time that Nichols’ The Shape of Catholic Theology was published, and so was not included for consideration. Given that Donum Veritatis was promulgated when Cardinal Ratzinger was Prefect of the CDF, it’s no surprise that its basic orientation of the document fits with Ratzinger’s earlier interpretation of Vatican II: ‘The theologian’s role is to pursue in a particular way an ever deeper understanding of the Word of God found in the inspired Scriptures and handed on by the living Tradition of the Church. He does this in communion with the Magisterium which has been charged with the responsibility of preserving the deposit of faith’ (DV 6).

In Donum Veritatis, as in Vatican II, Scripture and Tradition are the primary sources, rather than remote obscure sources that underlie the proximate norm of Magisterial teaching.

If anyone is interested in Fr. Nichols’ critique of the view of the theologian as a mere functionary of the Magisterium, see his What Theology Is, especially #2 beginning with ‘The appeal to the authority of God…’

 

[CrossofChrist]

There is also this excerpt from Fides et Ratio 59 that seems like a hidden yet clear reference to Rahner’s work: Yet the Thomistic and neo-Thomistic revival was not the only sign of a resurgence of philosophical thought in culture of Christian inspiration. Earlier still, and parallel to Pope Leo’s call, there had emerged a number of Catholic philosophers who, adopting more recent currents of thought and according to a specific method, produced philosophical works of great influence and lasting value. Some devised syntheses so remarkable that they stood comparison with the great systems of idealism.

Just looking back at this thread, and I have to retract this statement and say this was probably not a reference to Fr. Rahner’s work.