1 Introduction: The Rupture between Theology and Life ‘The Church is not a special little group, isolated, apart, remaining un- touched amidst the changes of the world. The Church is the world as believing in Christ, os what comes to the same thing, it is Christ dwelling in and saving the world by our Fath, ‘Yees M-J. Congar! JEAN DANIELOU’S PROGRAMMATIC STATEMENT In a spirited, programmatic 1946 essay, Jean Daniélou (1905-74), student of Henri de Lubac (1896-1991) and patristic scholar at the Institut Catholique in Paris, outlined what he saw as the main characteristics of the growing French theological trend to ‘return to the sources’.? The essay, entitled ‘Les Orientations 1 Yoes MJ. Congat, ‘The Reasons for the Unbelief of Our Time: A Theological Conclusion’ rg (De. 938) 3 For helpfl (autobiographical accounts on the most significant theologians deal within this, book sce se lowing” On Chana Mare Dominique Chenu, Un seoten om lice Jace Duguesne interne le Pere Chenu (Paris: Cencurion, 1975); Christophe E Porworowski, Contemp ‘ion and Incarnation: The Theology of Marie-Dominique Chena (Montscal: McGill-Queet’s Univer- sity Press, 2001), passim: Fergus Kert,Tivensieoh-century Catholic Theologians: From Newcholstcm 10 Nupaal Mptcum (Malden, Mass: Blackwell, 2007), 17-21. On Congar: Congat, Une pasion: Unité: Réfexions et souvenirs 1929-1973 (Pats: Crt, 1974); i, Une vie pour la vei: Jan dnnorge ie Congr Jean Pay (ar Cention, 1079s ura da hein UAC 1956), ed. Feienne Fouillous (Paris: Cer, 2000); Jean Pere Josua, Yes Conger: Theology in he Sei of Gods Pepe (Chicago Ms roy, 1368), 11-37 Adan Nich, - Yer Conger Witon, forehouse/ Barlow, 1989), 1-13; Etienne Fouilloux, ‘Friar Yes, Cardinal Congar, Domin- ican: Ieinerary of a Theologian’, USCath Hist 17/2 (1998), 63-90; Bizabeth Teresa Groppe, Yies Gonger's Theology of te Holy Spirit (Onford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 15-27; Fergus Kerr, Tiwentiobrcentury Catholic 34-8. On de Lubac: Henri de Lubac, Ar the Seretce of the Church: Henri de Lubec Refecs on the Circumstances thas Occasoned his Writings wans. Anise Elizabeth Englund (San Francisco, Calif: Tgnatius, 1993); Jean-Pierre Wagnes, Henri de Lbac Pars: Cerf, 2001), 9-46; Georges Chantraine, Henri de Luba, i Dela naisance dla démobilisation (1896-1918) (Pasi: Cerf, 2007); Kers, Tientiab-censury Catholic Theologians, 67-77: Rudolf Vodetholzer, Meet Henri de Lubae: His Life and Work, trans. Michael J. Miller (San Francisco, Ignatius, 2008), 19-103. On Bouillard: Michel Castro, ‘Henri Bouillard (1908-198) Flémentsde biographie inelectelle’, MSR 60/4 (2003), 43-58: 63/2 (2006), 47-59. On Danilo: Jean Danidlou, Ez qui ex mon prochain? Mémoires (Pass: Stock, 1974); Paul Lebeau, ean Danicl2 Nouvelle Théologie présentes de la pensée religicuse’, proved to be controversial, and for the public eye it served to identify the group of theologians that became known as nowvelle théologie ot the movement of ressourcement.> Daniélou observed that the ‘Mod- cemist Crisis, which had been the cause of great upheaval in the Catholic Church forty years caslict, remained unresolved. While Daniélou himself criticized Modernism’s ‘agnosticism’ and ‘abuse of critical exegesis’, the Jesuit patrologist none the less insisted that the condemnation of Modernism should not be the final word on the matter. While Modernism had rightly been rejected, the central theological problem continued to plague the Catholic world. There still existed, in Danielou’ day, a ‘rupture between theology and life’ The Modernists had ly sensed that this rupture, reinforced by the dominance of neo-Thomism since the late nineceenth century, needed to be bridged.’ Daniélou was convinced that contemporary thought would no longer be satisfied with the unresolved dualism: “The theoretical speculations, separated from action while not engaging life, have had their day’ Daniélou maintained that contemporary theology could overcome the rupture between theology and life by meeting three conditions. First, it would have to “treat God as God, not as an object, but as the Subject par excellence’ To do this, a “return to the sources’ would be necessary. The resourcement Daniélou advo- ccated was a return co the Bible, the Church Fathers, and the liturgy: Biblical resourcement meant a reappraisal of the “increasing rupture between exegesis and theology’, ever since the thirteenth century.? While Daniélou believed a great deal of work had already been done in terms of the ‘restoration of the Bible to its central function in Christian thought’, until now theological thought had insulficiently benefited from the advances in biblical scholarship. OF particular importance, Danidlow insisted, was the theological appropriation of the Old (Pars: Fleurs, 1967); Jemima Rosario Sullivan, “The Contribution of Jean Danilou oan Under- standing of Biblical and Liturgical Typology in Liturgical Catechesis (PHD diss., Catholic University ‘of America, Washington, DC, 1999), 68-104, On Balthasar: Peter Henrici, ‘Hans Urs von Balthasar: ‘A Sketch of His Life, in David L, Schindler (ed), Hara Urs von Balthaar: His Life and Work an Francisco, Calif: CommuniofIgnatius, 1991), 7-43. + Danidlou, ‘Les Orientations présente de la pens rligicue’ Frudes, 249 (1946), 5-21. Cf the response of Marie-Michel Labourdene, ‘La Théologe et ses sources, R7 46 (1946), 353-71 ‘The dare is reviewed in Philip). Donne, On the Developmen of Dogma andthe Sperat unl, 75 8 (1947), 471-7. For further analysis of Daniélows essay, ee John Auricchio, The Future of Theolgy (Staten Island, NY: Alba, 1970), 265-72. *'Danidlou, ‘Les Orientations 6. 5 Neo Thomis theology suoly oppased Kanan eubjectvam and insisted chat human ex rience should nox influence is explains Danidlou's complaint about a ‘rupcure Feces deciogy nga eee TH on mel “ © Danidou, ‘Les Orientations’ 7. 7 Ibid. * For historical accounts ofthis threefold resourcement, see Roger Auber, La Thioleie catholique an iene 3° le Cena: Casermar, 195, ames M: Connelly, he Ves of Pome A Survey of Contemporary in France (New York: Macmillan, 1961), 30-69. Sinha ts Oren 8Introduction 3 “Testament. He insisted that onc could learn a great deal from the Church Fathers’ willingness to look to the Old Testament for types of Christ, while also keeping in mind the new insights of scientific exegesis." With these comments, Daniélou moved on co the necessity of a resourcement ‘of the Church Fathers, whose work had been ‘in large part a vast commentary on Holy Scripture’! Noting the recent initiatives of the monograph series Théo- logie and of the republication of the Church Fathers in the Sources chrétiennes series (which he had initiated together with de Lubac), Daniélou explained that the Fathers ‘are not just genuine witnesses to past state of affairs; they are still the most timely nourishment for people today’.!? Persuaded that the notion of history was ‘alien to Thomism’, Daniélou wished to restore to theology a sense of historical development, and he looked co Church Fathers like Irenaeus (d. 202), Origen (6185-254), and Gregory of Nyssa (c.334-.395), for assistance in this endeavour.!? Convinced that ‘the West since Saint Augustine’ (354430) had viewed salvation as an individual matter Daniélou believed that the Greek Fathers could assist in. bringing the collective understanding of salvation back into focus. In addition to biblical and patristic resourcement, the reintroduction of earlier patterns of liturgical celebration also ranked high in Daniélou’s programme. He was convinced that liturgical resourcement would allow for the retrieval of “contemplation of realities hidden behind the sacramental signs. A shift in focus from the efficacious character of the liturgy to the actual contents of its teaching would draw attention co the fact that the liturgy first of all signified something: only then was it also efficacious. The liturgy, Daniélou maintained, should more clearly take the form of a human encounter with the mystery of God."6 Danidlou’s return to biblical, patristic, and lieurgical resources was fuelled by the conviction that such a renewal fit the demands of the time. The second condition to overcome the rupture between the theology and life, therefore, was that theology would have to enter into dialogue with contemporary philosoph- ical developments. It should respond to the ‘modern spirit’ (I’ime moderne) and take into account the ‘new dimensions’ that science and history had provided for time and space and that literature and philosophy had given to the soul as well as to society."”Resourcement theology would battle the neo-scholastic rupture be tween theology and life by means of dialogue with contemporary philosophy, most notably Marxism and existentialism: ‘Ie is the proper function of the theologian to go back and forth, like the angels on Jacobs ladder, between heaven. and earth and to weave continually new connections between them." Although rical both of Marxism and of existentialism, Daniélou none the © Ibid. 9. © Ibid. 2 Ibid. 10. © Ibid, M Thid. 11.15 Ibid 46 Ibid. 12 Y Tbid 7.18 bid. 13.4 Nouvelle Théologie less arg thatthe significance of history inthe former and the role of human the latter allowed for dialogue with these philosophical move- ularly helpful in Soren Kierkegaard’s (1813-55) existentialism, for example, was the affirmation of the mystery of a personal God as opposed to a theology that treated God as an object.!9 Third, in order to overcome the separation between theology and life, it was necessary for theology to function as a concrete attitude, as ‘a response that ‘engages the entire person, an interior light of an action where life unfolds in its centircty’2° This meant that theology and spirituality, as well as constructive and moral theology, should be reintegrated.2! Here Danielou commented positively ‘on recent theological exploration of the vocation of individual lay people, the spirituality of marriage, and temporal (especially political) activities. Theology was in need of a universal perspective, and it was called to become ‘incarnate’ in. the great cultures of the world, those of India, China, and Alrica, Although revelation had come to an end with Christ’ redemptive work, the incarnation of the Christian faith in diffrent cultures would enable ‘a progress of dogma’.2? The forms of each cultural mindset would highlight ‘new aspects of the inexhaustible treasure of Christ’? RESSOURCEMENT AND THE RETURN TO MYSTERY The Shared Sensibility of Nouvelle Théologie Daniélou’s essay was not appreciated by the neo-Thomists. Their scholasticism had dominated the theological landscape since Pope Leo XIIP’s revival of Thom- ism in the late nineteenth century. The theological manuals of the neo-Thomist scholastic theologians tried to be faithful to the theology of Thomas Aquinas (1224/5-74), and they believed that this could be done only by maintaining a strict separation between the natural and supernatural realms. In che natural realm, the rational ‘preambles to the faith’ (praeambula fide) presented argu- ments for the existence of God and demonstrated the reliability of divine revelation by pointing to divine miracles and prophetic fulfilment. Once these preliminary natural steps had been taken, the supernatural truth of the gospel presented itself, In the supernatural realm, faith accepted the Church's teaching as, divine revelation coming from the outside or from above. Daniélou regarded this strictly extrinsic character of the supernatural in neo-Thomism as the reason for the ruprure between theology and life. He believed that theology had the duty to connect with the experiences of people's actual day-to-day lives. Nature and the ' Daniélou, ‘Les Orientations’ 16. Ibid. 7. Thid. 17, 2 Ibid. 20.29 hid. 21. % For mote denied discussion of neo-Thomism, see Chap. 2, secu: Nineteenth-century “Foomnotes’ to Kant.Introduction 5 supernatural had to be reconnected, if theology was to restore its meaningful role in people's actual lives. At the heart of nouvelle shéologie's sacramental ontology was, therefore, the desite to reconnect nature and the supernatural. The nowvelle theologians were convinced that God had created the human person with a supernatural end, so that the supernatural was not a stricly extrinsic divine imposition on nature. Such a separation of nature and the supernatural would render the realm of nacure (as well as people's day-to-day lives) strictly autono- mous or secular, while theology and faith would become privatized and discon- nected from life in the natural realm. In other words, according to Danidlou and the other nouvelle theologians, nco-Thomism ended up endorsing modernity’s acceptance of the autonomy of nature as well as the Enlightenment belief in human progress in this independent (or immanent) realm of nature. In the eyes of the nouvelle theologians, this was a deeply ironic situation, considering neo- Thomist distrust of the Enlightenment and the secularism that it had brought. Notwelle théologie wished to reconnect nature and the supernatural, $0 as to ‘overcome the rupture between theology and life. Only in this way could faith and theology be meaningful in contemporary society. The result of this desire to reconnect nature and the supernatural was a strong Christological focus. Hans Urs von Balthasar (1905-88) used the image of an ‘hourglass’, whose two contiguous vessels (God and the creature) met at the narrow passage at the centre (Jesus Christ). Revelation was primary, was supernacural in character, and did come from above. At the same time, the gift of supernatural revelation through ‘Christ made it legitimate to turn the hourglass upside down, so that nature, t00, made its genuine contribution, in and through Christ2> In his essay, Daniélou did not just express a few marginal reservations about nco-Thomism and its dry, intellectual manuals of theology; he seemed to take issue with the entire system. His article touched on many of the main issues that the nowelle theologians would take up over the years. OF particular significance was his allusion co the sacramental mindset of the resourcement movement, expressed in his insistence that the liturgy should be an encounter with the ‘mystery’ of God. All of the other nonvelle theologians would agree with Dani Jou that the focus of theology should be the contemplation of the realities behind. the sacramental signs rather than the latter's legitimacy or efficacy. For the nouvelle theologians, ‘mysteries’ did not simply refer to unknown or obscure divine wuths that rational, discursive thought would gradually be able to uncover, An intellectualise approach like this implied hat theology’s task was to grasp and overcome mystery. According to nowelle théolagie, however, the purpose of theology was rather to enter into mystery’s hidden depths. Truth was the dynamic realization of existential, loving engagement of the known 25 Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Theology of Karl Barth, cans. Edward '. Oakes (San Francisco, (Calif: Communio/Ignatius, 1992), 197. CE. Chap. 4, sect: Kael Barth: Christ asthe Hourglass.6 Nouvelle Théologie object rather than abstract, objective analysis. As Balthasar put it in his 1947 Wabrbeit der Welt: In the end, only something endowed with mystery is worthy of love. It is impossible to love something stripped of mystery; a best it would be a thing one uses as one sees fit, but not a person whom one could look up to. Indeed, no progress in knowledge, not even ‘when it occurs in love, may life the veil from the beloved. Love itself demands, not only possession and unveiling, but just as forcefully reverence and, therefore, veiling,” Truth, according to Balthasar, required unveiling and veiling, simultaneously. Teuth was a crusting, loving, and hence dialogical entry into the mystery of life. This implied a much more experiential chan just intellectual view of theology. ‘An cpistemology that focused on mystery had implications throughout the theological spectrum, and it necessitated a return to a patristic and medieval mindset that had been sacramental in character. Mysterium—a term that had sometimes been regarded as identical to the material sacramentum and at other times had pointed beyond it to the intended spiritual reality itself—had been central throughout the earlier Tradition.2” Nouvelle shéologie was keen to recover ‘mystery’ asa central theological category serving an overall sacramental ontol- ogy.28 Thus, in his discussion of the mystery of the Eucharist, Henri de Lubac, Daniélou’s mentor and colleague, maintained that for the Church Fathers and medieval theologians, the term ‘mystery’ ‘conveys dynamism and synthesis. Ie focuses ess on the apparent sign, or rather the hidden reality, than on both at the same time: on their mutual relationship, union and implications, on the way in which one passes into the other, or is penetrated by the other. Turning to the interpretation of Scripture, de Lubac reiterated that ‘{iJn Latin mysterium serves as the double for sacramentum. For Saint Augustine, the Bible is essentially % dug Theo-Legic: Theolgical Logical Theory rans. Adtian J. Walker and Graham Harrison, 3 vols (San Francisco, Calif: Ignatius, 2000-5). i (Truth of the World), 209, Balthasar published Wabrheit der Wels (Eieiedeln® Benziger, 1947) as the fist volume of a planned series ended Wabrheit. He the book in 1985 3 the frst volume of Tiealgi, the third part his wilo rg emetic ten ete igte iia Church in the Middle Ages Hisorical Survey, trans. Gemma Simmonds, Richard Price, and Cheis- topher Stephens and ed. Laurence Paul Flemming and Susan Frank Parsons (London: SCM, 2006), 37-54: id, Medieual Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture, ans. Matc Sebane and E. M. Macier- fowski, 2 vols (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1998-2000), ii 19-27; Congat, Un peuple ‘mesianique: LE gis, sacrement de salut Salut et bération (Pais: Cerf, 1975), 47-55. 2% A quick sarvey of some ofthe noncelle theologians’ tiles serves to illustrate the centrality of “mystery Seg de Lubas, Le Mystre du surnaturel (Paris: Aubiee/ Montaigne, 1964); i. Parador et re de Elise (Paris: Aubier/Montaigne, 1967); Danidlou, Le Mystere di salu des nations (Pais: Seuil, 1948): i. Le Mystire de Tavent (Paris: Sui, 1948); i, Calsure et mtere Brussels: Editions “nivesitaites, 1948); id, Myths paiens, mpsere chrétien (Pass: Fayard, 1966); id Ea sur le mysere 12 Vhsnre bars Ct 198) Cana East mute de Bee (Pats Cat 099), ‘Le Mystve du temple, ou, [Econamie tela prtence de Dieu asa eréaure dela Genie aU Apocabpe (Pacis: Cerf, 1958); Balthasar, Mpterum Paschale: The Mystery of Easter introd. Aidan Nichols (1990; reps San Francisco, Calif: Ignatius, 2000); English wans. of Theologie der drei Tage (insiedcin: Benziger, 1970). % De Lubac, Corpus Mpstcum, 51Introduction 7 the “writing of mysteries,” and its books are the “books of the divine sacra~ ments”,"3° ‘The sacramental ontology of nouvelle shéolagie meant that the relationship between the sacramental sign (signum) and the reality (rs) of the mystery served as the key to questions concerning the nature-supernatural relationship, the historical and spiritual meanings of Scripture, secular and sacred history, the development of doctrinal truth in human language, and the Eucharistic character of the Church.5! Theological truth always aimed at the dynamic purpose of centering into the mysteries of sacramental realities. Throughout this book, therefore, I will highlight the sacramental ontology of nouvelle chéologie and its focus on theology as arising from and leading to an experiential entry into the divine mystery. Historical realities of the created order served, according to nouvelle théologie, as divinely ordained, sacramental means leading to eternal divine mysteries. The interpenetration of signum and res meant that the external, temporal appearances already contained the spiritual, eternal realities which they represented and to which they dynamically pointed forward. The sacramental interpenetration of sign and reality could also be applied to the relationship between nature and the supernatural. For the nouvelle theologians, nature was inherently oriented to the supernatural, God had created the natural world in such a way that ac its depth it bore the supernatural stamp of its divine 0 end. The created order—and the spirit of the human person, in particular— sacramentally represented the supernatural reality of the mystery of God. Speaking of sacramental ontology as the key to understanding nouvelle séologie may give the impression that the nouvelle theologians formed a clearly identifable school of thought with a sharply delimited system of theological convictions, This is hardly the case. The expressions ‘nowwelle déologe’ and “ressourcement movement’ may perhaps convey more cohesion or unanimity than history actually warrants. Yves Congar (1904-95), in his 1950 Viaie et fausse réforme dans VEglise, insisted that the first condition for successful reform was that the pastoral needs of the Church rather than an intellectual system would form the impetus. It was important, he maintained, that a propher’s discernment ‘not develop in an abstract fashion, in a systems that it not become a tradition or a school by itself and for itself” 2 Congar argued that 5 Ni incprarog of vee ilo wereed on of novel shologie as primarily interested in returning to a sacramental enulog ian bn wth oent wen in esnrdonet sta CE fh AM, MeDroe,Lve ad Undertinding: The Relation of Wil and Inlet in Pere Rowselots Chriszloical Viton (Rome: Univers Gregotiana Editice, 1983); Susan K, Wood, Spiral Exes and the Church in the Theokegy of Henri de Lubac (Grand Rapids, Mich. Eerdmans, 1998); Cornelis Th, M. van Vliet, Garman amas Da Kintearn Yi Cn eri dail ee (Maina: Matthiae Granewald, 1995); Kevin Mongrain, The Spromatie Thought of Hane Ur som Dilagn ay lean Raoul (en Woce Cearad/icnes 2002) Bees b. Bley, te Nowrdle Théologe andthe Patstc Revival: Sources, Symbols and the Science of Theology’ JST 7 (2005), 362-82. 52 Conga, Vee fis réfrme dans gle (Pais: Cerf, 1950), 249.8 Nouvelle Théologie if prophetrelormers based themselves on an intellectual system of thought, they ‘would end up absolutizing their theories, thereby ignoring the requirement that reform should occur within the Church.’ Nouvelle chéolegie, by seeking an alternative co the dominant intellectualist approach of neo-Thomism, did not ‘want to establish another school of thought. Instead, the resourcement project was based on the conviction that the Church’ living Tradition provided che criteria and parameters for doctrinal development. We need to keep in mind, therefore, that the ‘nouvelle théologie label was not ‘one thar che movement chose for itself. The term was fist used in a negative sense by its detractors, for whom any innovative departure from the neo-Thomist system was deeply problematic.%® The Jesuit theologian from the Gregorium in Rome, Charles Boyer (1884-1965), used the adjective ‘nouvelle’ no fewer than six times in a 1940 essay dealing with recent theological trends. Pietro Parente (1891-1986), Rector of the seminary in Naples, made reference to ‘nowelle shéologie’ ina sharply critical 1942 article in LOsservatore Romano.s” Next, the term was picked up by Pope Pius XII in 1946 in a presentation to the General Congregation of the Jesuits. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (1877-1964), the indomitable scholar from the Angelicum in Rome, ensured that the ‘nouvelle théologie’ designation became the standard term for the theologians under dis- cussion, when he published a rebuttal of the recent theological trends in a 1946 essay entitled “La Nouvelle Théologie, oii va-t-elle?’ Many of the resourcement scholars themselves, however—Henri de Lubac, Jean Daniélou, Henri Bouillard (1908-81), Hans Urs von Balthasar, and Yves Congar—questioned the appro- priateness of the term. Intent on a ressourcement of the Tradition, they did not regard their theology as news nor had they any intention of starting a distinct 2 Ct Conga Vt fie rfrme 25: We must noc mae nate Crh ane etre li and we must make, to some degree, a different Church (une Elise aur SC A.N, Willams agres with the objections tothe term nowwelle theologie—namely, ‘that those designated by the term had never constituted themselves 2s any kind of group, did not espouse any ovine an east sigan ca at an of tie Ss seat sp at “new” (The Fucure of che Past The Contemporary Significance of the Nowell Théologie, IST7 (2005), 348). 25 Thus, by using the term nouvelle oleic inthis book Tam not expressing the idea ofa distinct school of thought: Tam simply adapting to the common use ofthe word in most of the secondary Tirerature, 56 Charles Boyer, (Quiest-ce que la chéologi: Réflexions sur une controverse’, Greg 21 (1940), 255-66, Lome the reference to the sixfold use of nowvelé to Jean-Claude Patt, La Comprehension de la théologie dans a théologie francaise au XX" sige: Vers une nouvelle conscience historique: G. Rabeau, M-D. Chenu, L. Chale? £7? 47 (1991), 229. © Diet Parente, ‘Nuove tendense cologiche’, LOservutore Romana (2-10 Feb. 1942), 1. 28 Cf, Etienne Fouilloux, Une Egle on quéte de libené: La penée catholique flancaise entre ‘moderne e Vatican II 1914-1965) (Pa de Brouwer 1998), 193, % Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, ‘La Nouvelle Théologic,oit valle?” Ang 23 (1946), 126-45. For Garrigou-Lagrange, sce Richard Peddicord, The Sacred Monster of Thomism An Introduction to dhe Life and Legacy of Reginald Garrigow-Lagrange (South Bend, Ind: St Augustine's, 2005); Aidan Nichols, Reson with Piety: GarrigouLagrange in the Service of Catholic Thought (Naples, Fl: Sapientia Press of Ave Maria University, 2008).Introduction 9 theological school.“ Indeed, nouvelle shéologicis less a school of thought than a ‘common sensibiligy—namely, a shared sacramental ontology. * Accommodation versus Sacramental Ontology The shared sensibility of a sacramental ontology did not prevent the various theologians from developing their own distinct directions and emphases. Danié lou’s 1946 essay alluded to quite a variety of issues that he believed required attention. It was one thing to assert that the Modernist Crisis had raised issues that were waiting to be addressed. It was quite another to indicate precisely how to deal with these issues, and different theologians might well deal with them in different ways. Daniélou’s allusion to the demands of his cultural context— mentioning specifically Marxism and existentialism—raised numerous and dilff- ccult questions regarding the relationship between faith and culture, without spelling out in detail how to resolve them, Daniélou’s appeal to the Incarnation to deal with the question of the enculturation of the gospel was theologically promising, but it did not address practical implications. Talk of the vocation of lay people might be suggestive of a new way forward, but i raised the question of the relationship between hierarchy and laity without in any way resolving it. And. accentuating history as a theological category by itself did not provide clarity ‘on how doctrine might develop without endangering the continuity of the Tradition. This broad scope of Daniélou's essay did not detract from its value. Bur it did mean that when the nouvelle theologians actually addressed the wide spectrum of issues that were at stake, they did so in a variety of ways. The ressourcement movement was home not just to a shared sacramental sensibilicy, but to some extent also to theological tensions, contradictory viewpoints, and direct personal disagreements. © Scede Lubac, A Brief Catechess on Nature and Grace, tans. Richard Amandez (San Francisco, (Calif: Ignatius, 1984), 251: id, De Lube: A Theologian Speaks, rans. Stephen Maddux and ed. ‘Angelo Scola (Los Angeles, Cali: Fwin Circles, 1985), 3; Hensi Bouillad, Veit du cristianiome, cd, Karl H, Neufeld (Paris: Desciée de Brouwer, 1989), 406; Balthasa, Tax Freryhing: Hold Fast What ls Good: An Interview with Hans Urs on Balthasar, ed, Angdo Scola and wans. Maria Shrady (Gan Francisco, Calif: Ignatius, 1989), 11—12; Congar, A History of Theology, tars. anded. Hunter Guthrie (Garden Cigy: Doubleday, 1968), 8. Cf. Marcelino G. D'Ambrosio, ‘Henri de Lubac and the Recovery of the Traditional Hermeneutic’ (PhD diss, Catholic University of America, ‘Washington, DC, 1991), 20-1; Wood, Spiritual Excess, 13-14; Rudolf Voderholer, ‘Die Bedeu- tung der 0 ‘genannten “Nouvelle Théologie” (insbesondere Henri de Lubacs) fur die Theologie “Hans Uss von Balthasar in Logik der Liebe und Herrlchkett Gots: Hans Ury son Balthasar im Gepprth, ed. Walter Kasper (Ostildern: Matthias-Griinewald, 2006), 206; igen Menepenningen, “Truth a: Issue in a Second Modernist Crisis? The Clash between Recontextalization and Rezo ° In this book, I will argue that the purpose of this ressourcement was to revitalize the sacramental ontology thathad been obscured by the neo-scholastic separation, between nacure and the supernatural. NOUVELLE THEOLOGIE AND CATHOLIC-PROTESTANT DIALOGUE Part of my motivation for writing this book has been ecumenical in nature. As a Protestant theologian, my interest in nouvelle rhéologicis tied in with the growing 4 Thexbroadstrokesdo need qualifatons inal sn of ways, Se Thomas had bee nfluenerd to just hy Arde but alo by Denys Neopaonism. We wil se tat for Balthasar (hom we imay count among the Fourie theologian) history ad the goodness of the crested order were ‘Citalothe Chis uth, Boul teacher at Fourie, shared Chen and Cangas incest {'Thomast approach, while Kat Barks Chitologecphass leo infeed he thinking Finally. we nel keep in mind that mys theolgy as imprtan fo Chen and that Congnts fll ose mee on hse ety the Crh thn on etal “2 Marcelino D'Ambrosio, ‘Raveucoment Theology, Agionanent, andthe Hermeneutics of “radii Comm 18 (1991), 534. * 5 i 549,Introduction 13, conviction thar Protestants need to take the Catholic tradition more seriously than they sometimes do. My reading of the resourcement theologians has also reinforced my belief that, intramural debates notwithstanding, Catholics and Protestants largely face a common theological task. It may seem to some that a reading of nowelle théologie as reconnecting with pre-modern sacramental sens- ibilities will do litcle to stimulate my ecumenical motivation. Afier all, sacra- mental sensibilities may precisely be the feature that distinguishes the Catholic imagination from the Protestant mindset. In The Catholic Imagination Andrew Greeley argues that Catholic theologians and artists tend to emphasize the presence of God in the world, while the dassic works of Protestant theologians tend to emphasize the absence of God from the world, The Catholic writers stress the nearness of God to His creation, the Protestant writers the distance between God and His creation; the Protestants emphasize the risk of superstition and idolatry, the Catholics the dangers ofa creation in which God is only marginally present. Or, to put the matter in diferent terms, Catholics tend to accentuate the immanence of God, Protestants the transcendence of God.* Greeley makes a valid point. A sacramental imagination differs from a rational mindset, and the differences largely result from the way in which narratives, symbols, and practices function within the respective communities.>? Protestants have traditionally focused on the Word rather than on the sacraments and as a result rational confessional ruth claims have often taken centre stage. Catholics may conclude that for Protestants truth appears to trump unity.®> My focus on nouvelle shéologie's'sacramental ontology’ may, therefore, well seem to accentuate rather than to overcome Catholic—Protestant differences. ‘There are several reasons, however, why a study of nouvelle théolegie holds cccumenical promise. First, nouvelle théologie has contributed significantly to Catholic interest in ecumenical dialogue. Beginning with his 1937 Chréviens désunis, Yves Congat, in particular, devoted himself tirelessly to the cause of Christian unity.54 The resourcement scholars were keenly interested in Protestant thought. Balthasar and Bouillard both wrote large tomes on the theology of Karl 5 Andrew Greeley, The Catholic Imagination (Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press, 2000), 5. Greeley draws especially on David Tracey, The Analo ination: Christian an he Cure Patsy Ne York Crosson, 1981, Twat he Picard Mou ° This cooperation is particularly evident in biblical interpretation.” Protestant sensitivity towards the authority of Trad- ition is further evidence that a project of resourcement may echo across ccclesi boundaries.5* A number of evangelical Christians have embarked on exp! 5 Balthasar, Karl Barth: Darstellung und Deutung seiner Theoogie (Cologne: Hegnes, 1951); English ans: The Theology of Karl Barth, wans. Edward ‘T. Oakes (San Francisco, Cali: Cormmunio/lgnatius, 1992); Boullard, Karl Barth i, Gente et évoluion dela théolgie dialectigue, ii, Parle de Dieu e existence bumaine (Pais: Aubied Montaigne, 1957). 56 Fora discussion ofthe various ECT statements see Mark A. Noll and Carolyn Nystrom, fs the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Asesrment of Comemparary Roman Catholicim (Grand Rapids, ‘Mich: Baker Academic, 2005), 151-83. For recent evangelical interaction with Catholic theology, see eg, Tim Perry, Mary for Exanglicab: Toward an Understanding of the Mother of Our Lard (Downers Grove Ill: IncerVarsity Press, 2006): id. (d.), The Legacy ofJobn Paul I: An Evangelical Assesment (Downers Grove, Il: Inter Varsity Pres, 2007). 7°Cf, Chap. 5, sect: Spiritual Imerpretation and Ecumenical Dialogue. 58 Seeeg, lames S, Cutsinger (e.), Relining the Great Tradition: Feangeticals, Catholic, and Orthodox in Dialogue (Dewnets Grove, I: InterVarsty Press, 1997); Christopher A. Hall, Reding Seripnure with the Church Fathers (Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 1999); id, Lear swith the Church Fathers (Downers Grove lil InerVarsty Pres, 2002): D. Cwilams ering the Ton and Renewing Ennion A Prine or Suporte (Grand ds, Mich: Eeany, 199); Cg Dll, ig) View erp The Authority ofthe Bilicand the oration se New Tan Canoe Rapid Mick faker Aca 2007 Fora fascinating intra-Prorestant discussion on the relationship berween Seriprure and Tradition,Introduction 15, attempts at evangelical resourcement of the great “Tradition, taking their cue directly from the Catholic movement of nowelle rhéolagie.®® My study of nowvelle shéologie ties in, therefore, with a growing interest in resourcemene and in ecumenical discussion between Catholic and Protestant theology. Third, this book will make clear that the recovery of a sicramental ontology is, incumbent not only on Protestants but also on Catholics. They owe their common task co a shared intellectual history that has caused problems on both sides of the ecclesiastical divide. Protestants may be characterized by a rational mindset more than by a sacramental imagination. But the argument of the ressourcement theologians was that a sacramental ontology had been declining also in Catholicism. Their ressourcement of patristic and medieval theology implied a negative evaluation of later theological approaches. The immediate object of nouvelle théologie’s critique was the manualist theology—the systematic theology handbooks or manuals—of contemporary Thomist thought. But the nouvelle theologians were agreed that the problems went back much further than the nineteenth-century rise of neo-Thomism. This is particularly clear from the historical account of the desacramentalizing of the West that emerges from the work of Henri de Lubac and Yves Congar.® Interestingly, their gencalogy of modernity partially overlaps with the negative accounts that Louis Dupré and the “Radical Orthodoxy’ group are presenting today." According to the assessment of all of these scholars, sixteenth-century Protestants and Catholics were both heirs to the problematic ramifications of the decline of mystery. De Lubac pointed to several key historical developments that had caused difficulties. He was convinced that the neo-scholastic separation of nature and the supernatural had already entrenched itself in the sixteenth and seventeenth, centuries and that part of the problem was a Catholic overreaction against the sce Heiko A. Oberman, Quo nas, er? Taivon fom Irenaeus to Human gene in The Daum {Fe Rao yin Late Medial andar) Rormaion Thong feipbrghs tT Gain, 1986), 269-96; § Lane, ‘Scriptre, Tradition and Churcs An Hiscricl Survey, VES (1995), 37-35. % Lam thinking hereof Baker Academic’s ‘Evangelical Resourcoment series (ed. D. H, Williams) and of Rober E, Webber’ 2006 Call an Anckn xanga Far which ha eto annual ‘conferences aimed at the promotion of a resourcement of the Fathers among evangelicals. “© Chen's evaluation of medieval developments was markedly diferent from that of de Lubae ad Conga. Chena ws uta by what he sw asthe dearalaton and descaling of twalfh and thieenth centuries This coincided with his more optimise aude towards Inodomty and towed Cac derclpmente serthe Send Vaan Counel CE Chap. ects Desacraliction and Signs of the Times. he wd Cuber “4 See Louis Dupré, Pasage 1 Modernity: An Euay in the Hermeneutics of Nawre a (cw Hine, Conk We Ushecty teas 1995)" R. Re the Be of Med Care (Nowe Dame, ind: Universiy of Note Dame Pres, 2008). For Radical Orthodoxy, sce John Milbank, heb and Sul Daye Boond Sender fenon (Ofori Blade, 190) Cathrine Pidstok, fer Writing On the Liang! Consmaton of Play (Oni: Brel 198) Mabank Cathrine sind Caen Wand co), id Orde New Thao London: Routledge, 1999) Connor Cunningham, Gerealegy of Nibilim (London: Rowdedge, 2002). For a Rl Sano Radel Greeny genes sede Sn anda Rad Orthod, 87-122. have followed a similar line of thought in Boersma, “Theology 2s Queen16 Nouvelle Théologie radical Augustinianism of Michac Baius (1513-89) and of the Protestant Reformers.6 De Lubac also took issue with the increasing fixation on real presence and on the legitimacy of the sacraments at the expense of the spiritual reality to which the sacraments pointed. He traced this development back to the twelfth-century Berengarian controversy on the nature of Christ's presence in the Eucharist. As a result of these medieval developments, the sacramental unity between the Eucharisticand the ecclesial body of Christ had already disintegrated by the time of the Reformation, so that the loss of a sacramental ontology had afcted both sides of the Reformation debate. De Lubac was convinced that these developments were tied in with an increasingly rationalist approach to the- ‘ology—which was nor the exclusive domain of Protestantism. Although Congar’s focus was slightly diffrent, he also understood the loss of a sacramental ontology to be rooted in the Middle Ages. He pointed repeatedly to the Gregorian Reform of the eleventh century, as he was convinced that the decline of the laity’ role in the Church and the juridicizing of ecclesial authority could be traced to the attempt of Pope Gregory VI to establish the priority of papal supremacy over the state. Asa result, authority came to be viewed as something extrancous to the sacramental life of the Church. For Congar, this initial desacralizing of the medieval imagination had additional consequences. ‘The juridicized authority of the Church could now be played off against the authority of Scripture. Conflict between Church and Scripture had become a real possibility by the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The two sides of the Refor- mation debate had opted for opposite sides of an altogether mistaken dilemma. Again, itappeared that the decline of a sacramental ontology affected Catholics as well as Protestants, and Congar had particularly harsh words for the role played by post-Tridentine ecclesiology. Nouvelle théologie's return to mystery does present a challenge to Protestant thought, in particular to its abandonment of a sacramental ontology. One of my hopes for this book is that it will contribute to a Protestant re-evaluation of the nominalist fragmentation of the created order, which regards sensible objects as. separate from one another and from their transcendent origin. In line with the participatory or sacramental ontology of the great Tradition, this book is based ‘on the conviction that appearances signify and make present a mystery that they do not possess of themselves.% While some may fear that such a return t0 Platonic sensibilities may surrender the value of the created order, this fear seems to me entirely unwarranted. The opposite is, in fact, the case, Created © See Chap. 3, sect: Pure Nature and Navaral Desire {See Chap 7 sect: The Buchan Maes the Church See Cha cure, Tradition, and Church: The History of Juridicizng Ek balun ant efcons onthe rl of mages in Teo Loe 33° ‘To be sure an uncitcal acceptance of Neopltonism would be problematic, The Christian “Tradition has largely recognized that the Platonic tradition had serous faults and shortcomings. (Creation ec mihi, dhe doctrine of the Tiinity (hich implied plurality 2¢ the hear of being ite),Introduction 17 ‘objects derive their value from sacramental participation in their wanscendent ground. As Balthasar put it: ‘In order to be really significant, what expresses itself in the image must be nonidentical with the image itself” The world of images ‘or appearances derives its value ftom a transcendent source. This book is an attempt to re-source the sacramental ontology of nouvelle shéolagic, and in so doing it urges Protestant theology to re-evaluate the abandonment of a pre- modern sacramental oncology. ‘Ac the same time, nouvelle shéologie represents a challenge to Catholic the- ology. The ressourcement project was not simply a protest against nco-Thomist intellectualism—though it was that, too. The purpose of the protest was to re appropriate the mystery of being. An interpretation of the Second Vatican Council thac primarily focuses on the gain of theological freedom and on aggiornamento (or accommodation to contemporary culture) overlooks the dee- pest intentions of the resourcement project of the preceding decades. The Second Vatican Council may well have opened up genuine possibilities for dialogue with Protestant thought. But it did noc do so by embracing secular modernity’s adherence to a radical autonomy of the natural order, Rather, nouvelle chéologie was concerned to reintegrate nature and the supernatural by way of a sacramental ontology. The post-conciliar period will be amenable to ecumenical dialogue only co the extent that Catholics and Protestants are both willing to accept the challenge of a genuine return to mystery, which was implied in the ressourcement of the pre-modern period. CONTROVERSIES OVER NOUVELLE THEOLOGIE Modernism’s Non-sacramental Mindset If we interpret the nonelle theologians as primarily concerned with a sacramental ontology, this allows us to take seriously their disavowals of the Modernist theology of the turn of the ewentieth century. OF course, we have already seen. that Daniélou believed that the Modernist Crisis had lefe unfinished business for and the goodness ofthe created order (along with the resurrection of the body) were esential to the ‘Chuistian faith and, oa large extent, incompatible with the Pltoaic tadivon, Cl. Andrew Louth, The Oriins of the Christian Mystical Tradition: From Plato 10 Denys (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981). 78; Dupré, Passage co Maderity 168. © Balthasar, Th-Logi, i 139. “© CF. Boersma, ‘Accommodation to What? Univocty of Being, Pure Nature, and the Anthro pology of S Irenaeus, IfST'8 (2006), 266-93. ‘©°CE.the ‘Final Report ofthe 1985 extraordinary Synod of Bishops: ‘Despite secularism, signs ‘of «return to the sacred also exist. Today, infact, there are signs of a new hunger and thirst for the transcendent and divine. In order to favor this retur to the sacred and to overeome secularism, we sms open she way t9 the dimension ofthe ie” or of mys and fr the preambles of ith to mankind today’ (Origins, 15 (1985), 446). This cemark abour signs ofa return to mystery ings ceven more true today than it did in 1985,18 Nouvelle Théologie the Church to deal with, particularly in terms of a reintegration of theology and isly a controversial assessment. Modernism had, after all, cernation in the Catholic Church, both because of its embrace of historical critical exegesis and because of its neo-Kantian focus on subjective ‘experience rather than propositional truth.’° Modernism may not have been the well-coordinated, concerted attempt to overturn Catholic doctrine that some of its critics, notably Pope Pius X, thought it was; a number of theologians were none the less simultaneously engaged in a rather drastic reworking of Catholic doctrine. The Modernist movement included Italian thinkers like Ernesto Buo- naiuti (1881-1946) and Antonio Fogazzaro (1842-1911); Germans such as Joseph Schnitzer (1858-1939) and Thaddius Engert (1875-1945); the French- men Alfred Loisy (1857-1940), Edouard Le Roy (1870-1954), and Lucien Laberthonniére (1860-1932); as well as the Irish-born British theologian, George Tyrrell (1861-1909). This international scope of the movement contrib- uted to the sense that the Church was under serious attack. The Modernist C came to an abrupt end, however, when, in July 1907, Pius X’s decree Lamentabili sane exitu condemned sixty-five Modernist propositions. Two months later, the Pope published the encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis in which he unequivocally condemned the agnosticism, immanentism, and relativism of Modernism as the ‘synthesis of all heresies’ Pius X subsequently enforced the condemnation of Modernism by forcing all clergy co swear allegiance to the so-called ‘ant Modernist oath’ of 1910.7? A brief look at the Modernist theologians Alfred Loisy and George Tyrrell will make clear that the Modernist agenda was fundamentally different from that of nouvelle théologie.”> Loisy was a Hebrew and Assyrian scholar. He initially taught at the Parisian Institut Catholique, but lost his position in 1893 as a result of controversy over cxegctical freedom. Loisy's dismissal from the Institue Catholi- que was immediately followed by Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Providentissimus 7 For more detailed expositions on the Modernist Crisis, sce Gabriel Daly, Traneendence and Immanence: A Study in Catholic Modernion and Inegraiom (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980); ‘Marvin R. O'Connell, Criss on Trial: An Intreducrion tothe Caolic Moderniss Cris (Washington, DC: Catholic Universiy of America Press, 1994); Pie Colin, Ludace et le soupgon: La Crise du modernime dans le eatholicime frais 1893-1914 (Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1997); Darrel Jodock (ed.), Catholicism Contending with Modernine Reman Catholic Modernism and ‘anton i Bina Comes (Cambs Cambie Unt Posy 200) 71 ASS 40 (1907), 593-650, at 632; English tans. Pascendi dominici gris, 39 . ® The oath remained in force until 1966, Cf. Fergus Ker, ‘A Different World: Neoscholasticism and its Discontents, ST 8 (2006), 134-6. . 73 For the controversy surrounding Loisy see exp. fimile Poul, Criigne © Autor de Leroi concen stole [apis madore ars Cemuion, 1980 Hite, dame critique dan la crite modernist (3rd ed, Pais: Albin Michal, 1996). For Tyrell, see Ellen Leonard, ‘Tjrell andthe Catholic Tradition (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1982); David G Shulenont Geo ren Sarco Catholic (Shphexstn, W.Va Pao 1981) Aidan Nichols, From Newman to Congar: The Idea of Docrinal Development from the Vierorians t0 the Second Vatian Council (Edinburgh: T. 8 T. Cla, 1990), 114-35.Introduction 19 ‘Deus, in which he issued a stern warning against a historical critical approach to igs of the Church and challenged the crust- worthiness of Scripture. Loisy, who subsequently cook up a position as spiritual director at a girls’ boarding school, continued to explore questions surrounding In the end, his disagreements with the Church led to his excommunication in 1908. Loisy’s Modernism was predicated on a separation between history and thcology. Continuously insisting that he was merely engaging in historical research, Loisy was reluctant to acknowledge the significant doctrinal implica tions of the exegetical and historical work he was doing. To his critics, however, it seemed clear that his rejection of later hierarchical developments in the Church ‘was based on his historical exegesis. Bernard Reardon explains: “[AJlways his personal concern was to claim autonomy for the critical exegete. What he could not allow was that the scope of criticism should be determined by the theolo- gians, History was history, he insisted —Was ist geschehen, in Ranke’s phrase—and had every right ro be pursued independently of a theological a priori. 6 Loisy was istence on exegetical autonomy was theologically motivated. He realized that Harnack’s book on the essence of the Christian faith had theological underpinnings, and he objected to the German theologian's confusion between historical scholarship and theology.7” Thus, Loisy’s insistence ‘on the radical autonomy of history and of critical exegesis was the motivating factor behind his opposition to Harnack. George Tyrrell was an Irish priest and Thomist scholar who had converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism. Baron Friedrich von Hiigel (1852-1925), a well-connected and influential Catholic lay theologian from England, drew 74 Alfied Loisy, LEvengile t Léglise (Parss Picard, 1902); Adolf von Harnack, Das Ween des Christentums: Vorlesungen vor Seudierenden aller Fakultiten im Wintersemester 1899/1900 an der Univers Brn haben (Lepsig inchs, 1900. 75 Lois, Autour dn pets live (Paris: Picard, 1903). 76 Bernard M. G. Keardon, ‘Roman Catholic Modernism, in Ninian Smart et al (eds), Nincteenth-centiry Religious Thonghe in the Wer, ii (Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres, 1985), 153. 7 Tot Lois ininene on the autonomy of istia cholaship, se Haryey Hil Lis “Mystical Faith: Loisy, Leo XIM, and Sabatier on Moral Education and the Church, 78.65 (2004), 73-94: id, ‘Loisys LEuangile et Féghive in Light ofthe “Essais"', TS 67 (2006), 73-98,20 Nouvelle Théologie ‘Tyrrell’s attention to the work of John Henry Newman (1801-90), and particu- larly to the laters organic approach to doctrinal development. Tyrrell’s thought, however, soon turned into a direction that was different from that of Hiigel and Newman, when he separated the prayerful experience of faith from subsequent theological exposition. In his books LE glse et Vavenir (1903) and Through Scylla and Charybdis (1907) Tyeeell took his starting-point unambiguously in the practical purpose of Christian doctrine, identifying revelation with experience rather than with propositional truth.’* Revelatory experience, which he regarded as ongoing throughout history, was independent of theoretical truth and trans cended the theological concepts that surrounded the experience. Edward Schi lebeeckx helpfully summarizes Tyrrell’ position: ‘The two aspects of the act of faith—the aspect of experience and the conceptual aspect—were ... according to ‘Tyrrell, completely separate. The conceptual aspect was simply an extrinsic, symbolic, and pragmatic protection for the real core of faith (the so-called revelation in time consisting in this conceptual aspect).”? This separation between revelatory experience, on the one hand, and theological concepts, on the other hand, caused the neo-Thomists to fear that Tyrrell had lapsed into agnosticism: it was no longer clear that theological concepts were connected to @ particular reality. Tyrell’s radical focus on human piety and experience led to his expulsion from the Society of Jesus in 1906 and to his exclusion from the sacraments several years later. Undoubtedly, there is overlap between Modernism and nouvelle théologie. Both reacted against neo-Thomist theology with its conceptualist understanding of Christian doctrine, its rational apologetic, its logical view of doctrinal devel- ‘opment, and its juridical, perhaps even authoritarian ecclesiology. Most import- antly, both wanted theology to take subjective experience much more seriously than scholastic theology had been willing to do. Ie would be erroneous, however, to look to Modernism as one of the main precursors to nowvelle ehéologie.*° The fundamental difference between Modernism and nouvelle shéolagie lay precisely in the latter's sacramental ontology. Despite their strong disagreement with neo- Thomism, Loisy’s view of history and Tyrrell’s approach to theology presupposed the same gap between nature and the supernatural on which the manualist adition insisted. Loisy considered history and theology as separate from one 78 George Tyrrell (Hilaire Bourdon}, Egle et l'avenir (piv. pub. 1903):id, Through Sle and Cherybdis or, The Old Theology and the New (London: Longmans, Green, and Ca, 1507). Tyrell ‘wrote the former pseudonymously in French and had i privately published. 7% Edward Schillebeeckx, Revelvion and Theology. ii The Concept of Truth and Theological Renewal, wars. N.D. Smith (London: Sheed 8¢ Ward, 1968), 12. CE. Nichols, From Newman 10 Gongar, 132-5. Allesandro Maggiolini makes the interesting observation that Tyrell ‘could not admit that our statements about God have an authentically analogical character. In this way, Pascends change of agnosticism docs indeed apply to Tyrell’ Magisterial Teaching on Experience in the Twentieth Century: From the Modernist Criss to the Second Vatican Council, trans. Andrew Matt and Adrian Walker, Gon 23 (1996), 235-6). ‘Fortis eason, I deal with Modernism in this chapter, rather than in the nest, which discusses ‘ineteenth- and twenteth-cennury precursors tothe sacramental ontology of nouvelle chéalogieIntroduction 2 another, while Tyrrell divided human discourse and divine revelation. Both Modernist scholars evinced the modern incapacity to reach beyond the natural horizons. In terms of history (biblical exegesis) as well as human discourse (theology), nouvelle théologie took a much bolder approach because of its sacra- ‘mental reintegration of nature and the supernatural. Rather than focusing on historical critical exegesis, nouvelle shéologie presented a plea for a resourcement of pre-modern spiritual interpretation, a method that had been based on the conviction that historical appearances contained spiritual, eternal realities.* And, rather than collapsing revelation into mystical experience, nownelle shéologie saw doctrinal statements as sacramentally (or analogically) conveying the divine ruth that infinitely surpassed human language.*? The Modernists were largely uninterested in resourcement; by contrast, ressourcement of the Tradition was indispensable for nouvelle théologie, since this allowed for the recovery of sacra- mental ontology and thus for the reconnection of theology and life. Controversy over the Nature of Theology (1937-42) “The neo-Thomist theologians, perhaps blindsided by the fact that their position ‘was again coming under attack, were convinced that the ressourcement movement ‘was Modernism in disguise.®? In an essay that carried as its title the probing question, ‘La Nouvelle Théologie, oit va-telle?” (‘Nowvelle héologie: Whereis it Headed?’), Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange answered his own question with the now legendary response, ‘I goes back to Modernism.’** Beyond question, it was the perceived affinity benween Modernism and nouvelle shéologie that led wo the repeated stifling of the voices associated with nouvelle shéologie. These attempts to silence the nouvelle theologians caused immense personal suffering, which even- tually came to an end in the 1960s. The announcement of the Second Vatican Council—when John XXIII appointed de Lubac and Congar to the preparatory Theological Commission in 1960—was the beginning of an exoneration that climaxed under the papacies of Paul VI and John Paul II, who elevated several of the nouvelle theologians to the position of cardinal. © Ch. the discussion of spiritual interpretation in Chap. 5. We will see in Chap. 2 (sect: neamity te Doin a manent uri Mg as ced werent ifn ‘on nouvelle shéologie, was never convinced of Loiy’s Modernism, precisely because of the laters iolang of history fem th. © Ch Chap. 2, sect: The Sacramental Character of Analogical Pedication; Chap. 3, sect: Bouilard, Le Blond, and the ‘Analogy of Truths Chap. 6, sects: Marie-Dominique Chenu: Development and the Theandric Myscery: and Louis Charlier: Growth of dhe Reveal it "© For historical overviews ofthe controversies surrounding nowuele dhcoogi, see exp. Jacques Guillet, La Théologi catholique en France de 1914 41960 (Paris: Médiaseves, 1988); Foulloux, Une Eglse. Ch. also below, nn. 100, 122. ‘Gir va la nouvelle théologie? Elle revient au modemisme’ (Garsigou-Lagrange, ‘1a Nouvelle Thole 1) 5 The following resourcemens theologians were appointed cardinal Jean Danilou (1969), Henri de Lubac (1983), Hans Urs von Balthasar (1988), and Yves Congar (1994). Balthasar died ‘on 26 June 1988, wo days before he was o be elevated tothe College of Cardinals.2 Nouvelle Théologie Nonwelle théologie is commonly associated with the study centres of Le Saulchoir and Lyons-Fourvigre.** The Dominican studium of Le Saulchoir was Marie-Dominique Chenu's initial caining ground for ordination, and he returned there after finishing his doctorate at the Angelicum in Rome, in 1920. Interestingly, the supervisor for his dissertation was Garrigou-Lagrange. After completing his doctorate, Chenu returned to Le Saulchoir, where in 1932 he was appointed as Regent of Studies, following in the footsteps of his illustrious predecessor, Ambroise Gardeil (1859-1931). Although Gardeil had remained within the neo-scholastic tradition, his theology did prepare the way for nouvelle shéologie. He had stressed the continuity (homogénéité) between the supernatural origin of faith and people's actual lives and had emphasized that faith was not blind obedience to the Church's external authority. Gardeil, explains Poowor- owski, had erected a bridge ‘between the data of revelation and the believing subject’#” Chenu’s 1937 Une école de théologie: Le Saulchoir radicalized his predecessor's approach.** The book approvingly quoted George Tyrell, and ‘Chenu made clear that his theological direction would not fic the neo-scholastic mould: ‘Theological systems’, he insisted, ‘are simply the expression of spiritual- ities... A theology worthy of the name is a spirituality that has found rational instruments suitable to its religious experience. ®° Chenu's insistence that theo! ‘was connected to experience caused apprehensions in Rome that Le Saulchoi Regent was advocating theological relativism. As a result, Chenu was ordered to appear the next year before his erstwhile doctoral supervisor in Rome and was forced to sign ten propositions, designed to exclude any possible relativism.>° In 1931, Yves Congar, one of Chenu’ former students at Le Saulchoir, joined him there as a colleague. Chenu and Congar together with church historian Henri-Marie Féret (1904-92) embarked on a programme of renewal that they believed was required for the Church's well-being. Congar was passionate about the unity of the Church and was deeply troubled by the growing signs of French indifference towards the Church and the Christian faith. In 1928, Chenu had given him a copy of Johann Adam Méhler’s (1796-1838), Einheit in der Kirche (1825), and Congar was impressed with the organic ecclesiology and the & The Dominican Centre had been located in the Dominican Province of Paris since 1865. I ‘was renamed Le Saulchoir in 1903, when itwas expelled from Parisand moved to Kain-Lez-Tournai in Belgium, In 1937, the studium recurned to Ftioles near Pais, where i remained und it moved to the Dominican convent of St Jacques in Pais in 1971 © Porworowski, Contemplation and Incarnation, 45. * Chenu, Une cele de sbgolgie: Le Saudchoir (Kain-Lee-Toumai: Le Saulchoir, 1937). For analysis of the book and its hiswrical context, see Porworowski, Comemplation and Incarnation, 46-55; Fergus Ker, ‘Chenu Litle Book, NBI'66 (1985), 108-12, See also Chap. 4, sec: Chenu's Programme of resourcement. © Chenu, Une écle de tolgie: Le Saulchoir with contributions by Giuseppe Alberigo, Etienne Koullou, Ja Die fos, aed Jan Lads (ar Cet 1985), 148.5°CE. Rare ifent World’, 144 5% “The fest proposition stated: ‘Dogmatic formulations express absolute and immutable truth. Fora helpful account, se Kert, ‘Different World, 128-48Introduction 23 appreciation for the Church Fathers that he found in the German Romantic theologian. He began a French translation of the book, which he published in 1937 in Unam sanctam, a new series that he had initiated ovo years earlier?" In 1935, the Parisian publisher Les Editions due Cerf invited Congar to write a theological conclusion to a thrce-year-long inquiry into the causes of unbelief in France”? Congar published his findings in an essay in the journal La Vie intellectuelle.?> He identified a ‘hiatus between faith and life’ as the root cause of the spreading problem of unbelief." Congar's diagnosis was, of course, nearly identical to that of a ‘rupture between theology and life’, which Daniélou would lament just overa decade later. Both were concerned with the Church's retreat into the private domain, which was contributing co the secularizing of society® The ‘Unam sanctam series was Congar's attempt to relate ecclesiology to thellved needs of society and so to contribute to a solution to the ‘problem of unbelief’. The first volume of the new series was Congar’s own Chrétiens désnis (1937), which broached the sensitive topic of ecumenical dialogue. The second volume, his translation of Mahler's Binheit der Kirche, was soon followed by Henri de Lubac’s Catholicisme (1938), which de Lubac wrote at Congar's request” Congar’s overtures to Orthodoxy and Protestantism caused such concern that Mariano Cordovani, Master of the Sacred Pontifical Palace, criticized his Chrétiens démnis in LOsservatore Romano. The result was that the Dominican Master General, Martin Stanislas Gillet (1875-1951), summoned Congar co Paris for a repri- mand? ‘Around the same time, controversy erupted over the nature of the theological discipline. In 1937, the Franciscan scholar Jean-Frangois Bonnefoy (1887-1958) published a series of essays on Sc Thomas’s understanding of theology which departed significantly from the common approach of the nco-Thomists.2° Then 9% Mhler’s work was published as L'Unié dans Pglse ine du Catholicisme d’apris apr sPesdeos poms es de lie ars Ana e Lend Pao Cel. 1998) 2" For Congar’s ndings surrounding the inquiry, sce esp. Gabriel Flynn, “The Role of Unbelief in the Theology of Yves Congar, NBI 85 (2004), 426-43. 55. Congar, Une conclusion théologique a enquéte sur ies raisons actuelles de Vincroyance’, Vint 37 (1935) 214-49; English anos “The Reasons for the Unbdif of Our Times A Theological ‘Conclusion’ Integr (Aug, 1938), 13-21; (Dec. 1938), 10-26. 54 Td, ‘Reasons for the Unbelie?” (Aug. 1938), 14: (Dec. 1938), 26, ° Congar warned aginst ‘the principle of immanence implying the sufciency of reason and the possibilty ofan indefinite progress in the world’ ibid. (Dec. 1938), 13). 56. Owing to translation problems wich Mahler’ Einheit der Kirche, Congar'sown book Chrétien: unis (195) became the ist in the Unam sanctam srcs, See Congar, Une re pour la vr ‘Pago interoge le Pire Conger, ed. Jean Puyo (Paris: Centurion, 1975), 48, 5 De Lubac, Catholicime: Les Aypects sociaux du dagme (Pats: Cerf, 1938); English trans: Cusholicism: Chris and the Common Desing of Man, trans. Lancelot C. Sheppard and Elizabeth Englund (San Francisco, Calif Ignatius, 1988). 38 Congar, Une vie pour la vérité, 100, In 1950, Congar was unable to obtain permission for 2 sccond edition of Chrétien: deni rom the new Master General, Manuel Suérce (ibid. 107). 59 Jean- Frangois Bonnefoy, ‘La Théologic comme science et explication de la oi selon Thomas «’Aquini, ETL 4 (1937), 421-46, 600-31: 15 (1938), 491-516. This material was republished as La Nature de la théologe ston saine Thomas d’Aguin (Pais: Vin, 1939).24 Nouvelle Théologie Louis Charlier (1898-1981), a Louvain Dominican, published a book entitled Essai sur le problime shéologique (1938) which set off a storm of controversy because it rejected the neo-scholastic conceprualist view of theology—according o which divine truth could be adequately accessed by human concepts—and because it insisted that the revealed deposit of faith continued to grow through the development of doctrine. René Draguet (1896-1980), who taught at the Catholic University of Louvain, wrote. review of the book in which he explained thar, unbeknownst to him, Charlier had taken much of the book from Draguet’s lectures, but in which he then expressed his general agreement with Charlie's anti-intellectualist approach.!°" Earlier, in 1936, Draguct himself had already published a series of articles on the nature of theology, as well as on the development of doctrine, in which the Louvain patrologist had distanced himself from the neo-scholastic approach. "*? By associating himself directly with Char- licr's position, Draguet implicated himself even more in the crisis that ensued. By the time Draguet brought up the topic of doctrinal development again, in his 1941 Histoire du dogme catholique, the lines had already been drawn in the sand.!°3 Maric-Rosaire Gagnebet (1904-83), a Dominican from the Angelicum in Rome, reacted strongly and in detail w the publications of Charlier and Bonnefoy.!©* Congar wrote a review essay in which he discussed several of the positions that had recently been expressed. Interestingly, while he was relatively sympathetic to Charlier, he showed himself rather critical of Bonnefoy’s position, convinced that the Franciscan scholar had insufficiently acknowledged the ra~ tional character of theology:!°> Henti-Dominique Simonin wrote an article expressing strong disagreement with Charlier.!°% Charles Boyer then entered 100 Louis Charlies, Eva su le problime téolegique (huillies: Rama, 1938). Cf, Chap. 6, sect ‘Louis Charlier: Grow ofthe Revealed Deposi. For thecontroversics from 1937 to 1942, sce Robert Guelluy “Les Antéoédents de Vencyclique “Humani Generis” dans les sanctions Romaines de 1942: Chenu, Charlier, Draguet,, RHE81 (1986), 421-7; Jean-Claude Pett, La Compréhension, dela théologi’, 215-29; Frienne Foulloux, ‘Autourd une mise i inde’, in Joseph Doré and Jacques Famine), Mare Domingue Co Moir tad (ic Ct 1997). 25-56 ‘Metiepenninggn, Essai de Louis Charlier (1938): Une contibusion ala nouoellerhéologié, RTI 39 (2008), 211-32. 01 Draguet characterized Chatler’s borrowing from his leccuresas‘a simple omission, which will ‘eventually be fixed in the preface to the second edition’ (René Draguet, review of Louis Charlier, ‘Esai sur le probleme théolgique, in ETL 16 (1938), 143). "o> René Draguet, ‘Méthodes chéologiques hier et d'ayjourd'hui, RCUF 15/42 (10 Jan. 1936), 1-7; 15/46 (7 Feb, 1936), 4-7: 15147 (14 Feb, 1936), 13-17: id. C'Bvolution des dogmes, in Maurice Brillant and Maurice Nédoncelle (eds), Apologétique: Nos raisons de croir, répomes anex René Draguet, Hioire du dogme catholique (Pais: Michel, 1941. 108 Marie Rosie Gagneber, ‘Un essai su le probleme chéologique’, R7"45 (1939), 108-45, *© Congr review of R- Draguet, "Méthode hologique hie et 'ajoun hs J-B Bonneloy, “La Théologie comme scicnce e Fexplication dela fi selon saint Thomas fAquin' L. Chas, Eset surle probleme theologique; and R. Gagnebst, La Natuede lathcologie speculative, in BT'5 (1937-9), 490-505. 106 HenricDominique Simonin, ‘De la nécessité de certaines conclusions théologiques’, Ang 16 (1939), 72-82. Simonin had also writen an eatier essay on the topic: “Implicite” et “expliite™ dans e développement du dogme', Ang 14 (1937), 126-45.Introduction 25 the fray by writing in opposition to the ‘new interpretation’ of Se Thomas, which he believed undermined the Angelic Doctor's intellectualist position. He chal- lenged not only Draguet, Charlier, and Bonnefoy, but also implicated Congar in his attack on the new experience-based theology." In the end, the heated controversy brought about a formal condemnation from Rome. In February 1942, Charlier’s book, along with Chenu’s Une éeole de théologie, was placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, and by July of the same year, Chenu, Charlier, and Draguet had all been removed from their teaching positions." Pietro Parente (1891-1986), Professor at the Lateran University in Rome, explained the theological rationale behind the decisions in an article in LOservatore Romano.'® Parente’s criticism was that Chenu and Charlier had substicuced religious experience for rational arguments and had created room for the growth of divine revelation through the development of Christian doctrine.!! It was clear that Rome suspected the nowvelle héologie of Le Saulchoir and Louvain of a return to Modernism.!!" Controversy over Ressourcement (1944-50) De Lubac, Professor of Fundamental Theology at the Catholic University of Lyons, moved into the nearby Jesuit scholasticate up the hill in Fourvigre in 1934. Although he taught only one regular course for the Jesuits, his presence none the less ensured that he had a profound impact on thoologians such as Daniélou, Bouillard, and Balthasar. De Lubac was no more impressed with the theological manuals of the neo-Thomists than were the Dominicans from Le Saulchoir and Louvain, De Lubac, however, did not focus directly on the experiential character of theology. Instead, he began with a sustained reading of the Church Fathers and medieval theologians, focusing particularly on the nature-supernacutal relationship, the spiritual interpretation of Scripture, and the relationship between Eucharist and Church. De Lubac’s intense reading programme led to his prodigious output between 1944 and 1946."? One of the results was his wide-ranging book, Catholicisme (1938), which he published in Congar’s Unam sanctam series. De Lubac’s manuscript on the relationship between Eucharist and Church, Corpus mysticum, had also been completed 107 Charles Boyer, (Qu'est-ce que la théologie: Réflexions sur une controvers', Greg 21 (1940), 255-66. . . "O® Chenu moved co the cole des Hautes Fudes in Paris and retumad 1 Le Saulehoit in 1962. After being dismissed in 1942, Charlier returned co the Dominican studium of La Sarte in 1953. Draguet was moved from the theological faculty to that of philosophy and literature and ‘was allowed to return to the theological faculty in 1948 "09 Parente, ‘Nuove tendenze, 1. NO Cf, Mettepenningen, ‘UEssai de Louis Charlier, 229. I. Robert Guelluy describes the dominane mindset of the carly 1940s in Rome as ‘traumatized bby modemistimmanemtism’ (Les anécédents’ 430) 42 Fora careful account, see Ftienne Fouilloux, ‘Henri de Lubac au moment de la publication de Surnaturel, RT 101 (2001), 13-30.26 Nouvelle Théologie around 1938, although he had to wait for its publication until 1944 as a result of| the war.1?9 De Lubac’ controversial Surnaturel did not get published until 1946, but de Lubac had been working on i for years and had finished much of the writing by the late 1930s." This book went to the heart of his disagreement with nco-scholastic theology: its separation between nature and the supernatural, De Lubae argued, in uncompromising fashion, that nacure and the supernatural ‘were not evo parallel orders, running alongside one another, each with its own, distinct end. Instead, he argued that God had created nature in such a way that from the beginning ic had a supernatural goal for its purpose. The natural desire (desiderium naturale) for the beatific vision that this implied scemed, to the nco- Thomists at least, t endanger the gratuity of divine grace: if human beings contributed a natural desire, the process of salvation did not seem to be origin- ating only with God. De Lubac’s Sumaturel was the cause of serious controversy. Angelicum scholars Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Louis-Bertrand Gillon (1901- 87),5 and Marie-Rosaire Gagnebet, as well as Gregorium theologian, Charles Boyer, all weighed in on de Lubac’s startling thesis."!6 Bernard Sesboiié rightly notes that de Lubac was suspected of being a ‘nco- oF crypto-modernist "7 Asked by the General of the Society of Jesus not to respond immediately, de Lubae waited until 1949 before finally publishing an essay in self-defence.""* De Lubac’s open challenge of the neo-Thomist hegemony had been preceded by a simibaly starding publication from his younger colleague in Fourvitre, Henri Bouillard. In 1941, Bouillard had joined the Fourviére faculty, and his theological position fit with de Lubac’s general approach, Bouillard published his 13 De Lubec, Corpus mysticum; LEucharistie VE glte au moyen age: Erude bistorique (Pats: Aubier, 1944); Engh trans: Corpus Myrticum. Already in 1939 and 1940 de Lubae published Several anil on the relationship berween Eucharist and Church (‘Corpus mysticume Erude sur Forgive cles premicrs sens de lexpresson, RSR 29 (1939), 257-302, 429-80; 30 (1940), 40-80, 191-226) . 14 De Lubac, Surnacurel: Etudes historiques Pats: Aubier, 1946). De Lubac wrote hiss sketch for Surnaturd in the late 1920s while still theology scudent. He published the frst tree chapters, ‘on Baius and Jansenius in a 1931 essay (Deux Augustiniens fourvoyés: Baius ee Jansénius’, RSR 21 (1931), 422-43, 513-40). He also wrote an article on the history ofthe word supernatural in 1934 (Remarques sur Phistoire du mot “surnacurel”’, NAT 61 (1934), 225-49, 350-70), In 1939, he published an inal skerch ofthe second pare of Surnaturel (Esprit t lberté dans la radon théologique’. BLE 40 (1939), 121-50, 189-207), Owing wo circumstances of the wa, de Lubac was ‘unable to continue working on his manuscripc until 1943, See de Lubac, Ar th Service ofthe Church, 2 Tam mach Laff, OP for providing me with valuable info 108 Tam much indebeed to Fe Au 7 OP for me wit le information con Gillon fom the archives of the Toulowe Dominicans "M6 Réinald Garigou-Lagrang, ‘La Nouvelle Théologie’ Louis-Berrand Gillon, ‘Aux origines de la “puissance obédienticle”», RT'55 (1947), 304-10; Boyer, ‘Nature pure et surnacurel dans le Sumaturel du Pere de Luba’, Greg 28 (1947), 379-96: Gagnebet,EAmou naturel de Dieu chez ‘saint Thomas et ses contemporains, R756 (1948), 394-446; 57 (1949), 31-102. CE. Bruno de Solages' defence of de Lubac in ‘Pour Phonneut de la thologie, les contresens du R. P Garrigou- Lagrange’, BLE 48 (1947), 64-84. Ty Bernard Sesbodt, ‘Le Surnaturel chez Heari de Lubse: Un confit autour d'une théologie’, ‘RSR 80 (1992), 387. The article provides 1 careil account ofthe entre controversy. "N8'De Lubac, ‘Le Mystére du surnaturel, RSR 36 (1949), 80-121.Introduction 7 dissertation in 1944, three years after he had obtained his doctorate at the Gregorium under Charles Boyer. The dissertation, Conversion et grice chez s Thomas d’Aguin, was the first volume in the new Théologie series, another significant plank in Fourvigre’s resourcement platform." Bouillard’s book so ‘emphasized the human role in conversion that to the nco-Thomists it scemed to call into question God’ assistance in the process. The supernatural gratuity of grace seemed to be at stake, and Bouillard also appeared to relativize Thomas's theology as well as human truth claims in general.'2° Bouillard’s book, which appeared two years prior to de Lubac’s Surmaturel, caused a great deal of discussion. Numerous authors entered the fray to oppose Bouillard’s perceived betrayal of Thomism: Michel-Louis Guérard des Lautiers (1898-1988) from the Pontifical Lateran University, Garrigou-Lagrange and Gillon from the Angeli- cum, and Garrigou’s former student Marie-Michel Labourdette (1908-90), who taught at the Dominican studium of Saint-Maximin and served as editor of the Revue thomiste.?" OF course, the controversy around Bouillard’s dissertation did little to ease the reception of de Lubac’s book when it came out in 1946, The debate surrounding Bouillard became part of a more general debate on the position of the Fourviére theologians, including de Lubac’ approach to the nature-supernatural relationship."2> Jean Daniélou was also included in the barrage of criticism.12 Although he taught at the Institut Catholique in Paris, he was one of the Fourvigre theolo- gians. During his three years of theological studies in Lyons-Fourviére (1936-9), he took de Lubac’s history of religions course, and it was de Lubac who directed 19 Bouillard, Converion et grice ches. Thoma d'Aguin: Etude historique (Pais: Aubier, 1944). For mor on te Theology suller La Tab cathe 2 Fouts Ure Ese 187-91. "20° Cf Chap. 3, sects Fear of Relativism. 121 Michel-Louis Guérard des Laurier, ‘La Théologie des. Thomas eta grice actuelle’, ATH 6 (1945), 276-332: Louis Bertrand Gillon, “Théologie dela grace, RT'46 (1946), 603-13; Labourd- cee, ‘La Theologie ex ses sources, 353-71; Garigou-Lagrange, ‘La Nouvelle Théologie' id, "Verte ec immutabiité du dogme, ng 24 (1947), 124639; ky ‘Les Notions conscrées par es Conc, Ang 24 (1947), 217-30: id ‘Neves de revenir a défnition tradiionnelle de la vértd, Ang 25 (1948), 185-8; id, “immurabilié du dagme selon le Concile du Vatican, et le relativisme’s Ang 26 (1949), 309-22: id, ‘Le Relaivisme et Vimmutabiltité du dogme', Ang 27 (1950), 219-46 id, ‘La Structure de eneyclique'"Humani generis", Ang 28 (1951), 3-17. Ck. the common ‘esponse ofthe Fourvire theologians to Labourdette ‘La Théologie et ses sources: Réponse’ BSR 3 (iStoy 385-401 The dea beteenLabourdeae andthe nal haan wes epabihed in M. Labourdette, M-J. Nicolas, and RL. Bruckberger, Dialogee théolgique: Pics du debut entre ‘La Revue Thomiite dine part ct ky RR PP de Lubac, Daniclow, Bouillard, Feserd, vn Balthasar, Sf, aur part Se Maxi: Arcades, 1947), For Labour, ep, Henry Donneaud, "Une vieau service de la chéologi', RT'92 (1992) 1751. This entire issue of RTs devoted to Labourdete. "22 The controversy is traced in Karl-Heine Neufeld, ‘Fundamentaltheologie in gewandeler Welt: H. Bouillads theologscher Beitrag’, ZKT° 100 (1978), 417-40: Fouilloux, ‘Dialogue th logiqu? (1946-1948), in Serge-Thomas Bonino, etal. (eds), Saint Thornes ae XX sel (Pars: St- Paul 1994), 153-95; Aidan Nichols, ‘Thomism and the Nowselle Theologe, Thoms, 64 (2000), 1719 Redicond, Suge Monier 146-60; Jggen, Mevepeningz, Truth 3 Isue in Secor ‘Modernist Crisis Cf. Erieane Fouillouy, La “Dialogue théologique” selon Mari-Joseph Nicolas, ‘BLE 103 (2002), 19-32. 125 Ch above, m3.28 Nouvelle Théologie him to the Church Fathers and encouraged him to work on St Gregory of Nyssa.12 This resulted in Daniélou's 1943 Platonisme et chéologie mystique, which he wrote in Paris at the Institut Catholique.!?5 Around this same time, he joined forces with de Lubac 10 publish scholarly editions of the Church Fathers—particularly the Eastern theologians—in a series called the Sources chrétiennes. Daniélou edited the very first volume, which was, not surprisingly, Gregory of Nyssals. The Life of Moses.26 Clearly, Danilou owed his lifelong interest in ressourcement to de Lubac. What is more, Daniélou also shared de Lubac’s and Bouillard’s desire for reform in the Church. When, two years after the publication of Bouillard’s book, Daniélou published his programmatic esay, “Les Orientations présentes de la pensée religieuse’, it was becoming obvious that dissent was fomenting among the Fourviére theologians. Hans Urs von Balthasar, too, had a great deal at stake in the debate. He had studied theology at the Fourviére scholasticate from 1933 till 1937. And, although he had never taken courses from de Lubac, Balthasar left no doubt about his indebtedness to the patristic scholar. Looking back on his years at Fourvitre, Balthasar commented that fortunately Henri de Lubac was in residence, and he referred us beyond scholasticism to ‘the Church Fathers, generously making his notes and excerpts available to us. So it came about thac while the others were playing soccer, | studied with Daniélou, Bouillard and a number of others (Fessard was no longer there), and I wrote books about Origen, Gregory ‘of Nyssa and Maximus.!27 De Lubac was a source of inspiration to Balthasar. The latter's ressourcement of the Fathers, his opposition to nco-Thomism, and his interest in spiritual interpretation canall be traced to de Lubac. Despite de Lubac’s influence, Balthasar stayed outof the Fourvigre debates, except that he was briefly mentioned in Labourdette’ essay."28 ‘The Fourvigre debates climaxed in the appearance of Pius XII 1950 encyc- | Hlumani generis. In the time leading up to its publication, a number of the faculty lost their positions and were exiled from Fourvitre, including de Lubac and Bouillard, who ended up as neighbours in Paris"? De Lubac had three of his books removed from circulation: De la connaissance de Diew,!°Corpus mysticum, 124 Daniélou, Bt gui et mon prochain’, 92. 125 Id, Platonisme et théologie mystique: Doctrine spiritulle de Saint Grégoire de Nyse (Pati: Auber, 1944), 126 Gregory of Nyssa, La Vie de Moie ow Traté de lt prfetion en matire de vert, ed. and trans. Jean Danielou, Sources chrétiennes, 1 (Paris Cerf, 1942). In 2000, Cerf republished the corrected “3rd edn. For the origin of che Sources chrétiennes, see Fouilloux, La Collection Sources chrétennes: ite es Peres de VEglise au XX site (Pati: Cerf, 1995). 17 Balthasas, Tet Fvershing, 11-12. Ck, Hentci, ‘Sketch, 13. "28 Labourdette abo briefly referred to Gaston Fessard and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. 129 Cf de Luba, Ae she Service of the Church, 67-8. De Lubac took up his teaching tesponsi- bilities again towards the end of 1953. Also removed from their ficulty positions were Alexandre ‘Durant, Pierre Ganne, Emile Delaye, and the Prefect of Studies, Henri Ron 130 De Lubac; Dela connatisance de Diew (Paris: Temoignage chrétien, 1941); English trans: The Discovery of God, vans. Alexander Dru, cal. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Ferdmans, 1996).Introduction 29 and, of course, Surnaturel. The encyclical appeared to take direct aim at the Fourvitre ressourcement scholars, even though it did not mention any of them by name." The encyclical rejected the view that ‘the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever change- able notions, in which the uth is to some extent expressed’.!9? The view that ‘was here repudiated closely echoed comments Bouillard had made in Conversion et grace. The encyclical reacted against the ressourcement of patristic interpret- ation, warning against a ‘new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual’.'33 De Lubac and Daniélou were clearly the targets. And de Lubac's Corpus mysticum scemed referenced when the encyclical argued that some theo- logians regarded the consecrated species merely as ‘efficacious signs of the spiritual presence of Christ and of His intimate union with the faithful members ‘of His Mystical Body’.134 Even if de Lubac was not quoted directly, the reference to the Fourviere Jesuit scemed clear enough when the encyclical stated: ‘Others destroy the gravuity of the supernatural order, since God, they say, cannot create intellectual beings without ordering and calling them to the beatific vision.”9> The shake-up at Fourvigre, along with the publication of Human generis, was the most serious setback that the resourcement movement experienced. Controversy over Worker-Priests (1943-54) ‘The events of 1950 were soon followed by a similar suppression of the Domin- ican studium of Le Saulchoir. The issue here was quite different in character. Icconcerned primarily the involvement of the Saulchoir faculty with the worker priest movement.!36 The worker-priest movement was a post-war response of dlerics and theologians to the growing secularization and de-christianizing of France. Prior to the war, Chenu had been involved with the Jeunesse Ouvriére Catholique (JOC).!37 Henri Godin and Yvan Daniel, chaplains of the JOC, had. 151 CE, Gustave Weigel, “The Historical Background of the Encyclical Hiomani Generit, TS 12 (1951), 208-30; id, ‘Gleanings from the Commentaries on Haman Gener, TS 12 (1951), 520-49. 132 AAS 42 (1950), 566; English cans: Human genera, 15 . 15 Thid, 570 (Human generis 23) 136 Thid. 571 (Human generis, 26). 15 hid. 570 (onan genrs 26) De Lae dpayed emalale ingen acral clan ‘thar the encyclical had called fora renewal that would support his theological conclusions (Aug finianiom and Modern Theolegy, trans. Lancelot Sheppard (New York: Crossroad/Herder, 2000), 2745; ce also id, De Lubac: A Theolegian Specks, trans. Stephen Maddux; ed. Angelo Scola (Los “Angeles, Calif: Twin Circles, 1985) 4). For the question of de Lubac’ relation co Hunani generis, scealso Schindler, Introduction to id, The Mystery of the Supernanurl, rans. Rosemary Sheed (New York: Crossroad/Herder, 1998), pp. xxi-xxi 156 or che worker-priest movement and Chenu’ involvement init, ely on Oscar Arma, Piet, Jn Working-clas Blue: The History of the Worker-Pricts (1943-1954) (New York: Paulst, 1986); and id, "Theology and Commiement: Marie-Dominique Chenu’, CC 38 (1988), 64-75. is The kts eivng from JOC) ver lay Catholic Aon groups involved in mision work among the working classes: CE. Chenu's 1936 essay, La JOC au Saulchoir’, in La Parle de Dw, it ‘LB vangile dans le temps (Paris: Cerf, 1964), 271-430 Nouvelle Théologie drawn the Church's attention to the problem of secularization in a 1943 book, France, pays de mission2™3® As a result, priests began to enter the factories to join the workers there. They saw this involvement as part of their missionary apos- tolate, Chenu was a strong supporter of this workerpriest movement. Hi understanding of the ‘law of the Incarnation’ was that it called for the involve ment (engagement) of the Church and her priests in the actual lives of the working people, and so he supported dialogue with Marxism, and later on also wrote in support of liberation theology. ‘Chenu’, comments Oscar Arnal, ‘saw the organ- ized working class, even with its atheistic and Marxist ideology, as the force which under the hand of God could liberate the proletariat and create a more humane world for all.159 These convictions led to Chenu's direct involvement in the experimental seminary of Mission de France, which since 1942 had tained priests to work among the working classes. Chenu also joined Father Henri Godin in establishing the Mission de Paris, which became the centre for many of the workerpriests, All this involvement came to an end in the frst two months of 1954, Many Catholics, both in France and in Rome, had been looking askance at the worker priest movement. The apprehensions were that the priests were abandoning their proper calling in their parishes and that the Church might be converting to the (socialist) world rather than the other way around. The dampdown finally came when, at Rome’ direction, the French bishops called on the worker-priests t0 leave the factories. Overnight, the worker-priest movement came to an end."40 Chenu was told to leave Paris and t0 move to Rouen. Chenu’s younger colleague, Congar, had not been involved in the worker priest movement. His publications had none the less caused a great deal of anxicty in Rome. The fist signs of concern had already been expressed after he had published his book on ecumenical dialogue (Chrétiens désunis, 1937). He hhad subsequently published major books on «wo other controversial topics: ‘Church reform and the role of the laity.""" Thus, when the Dominican Master General, Emmanuel Suarez, visited France to ensure that the study houses would comply with the new measures, he removed not only Chenu, but he also exiled ‘Congat; who from then on would have to submit his writings to his superiors for approval prior 10 publication.“ After brief stays in Jerusalem, Rome, and 198 Henri Godin and Yean Daniel, La France. pays de mision’, Rencontres, 12 (Pais: L’Abeile, 1943); English tans: France Pagan? The Mision of Abbé Godin, trans. Maisie Ward (New York: Sheed 8 Ward, 1949). "> Amal, Theology and Commitment, 74 Cf Oscar L. Amal, ‘A Misionary “Main ‘Tendue” towards French Communists: The “Temoignages” of the Worker-Priess, 1943-1954’, FHS 13 (1984), 529, 1 Congar, Vote ot fause réforme: id. Jalons pour une thologie du laicat (Pais: Cerf, 1950): English tans. Lay People in the Church: A Study fora Theology ofthe Laity trans. Donald Attwater (ev. edn 1965; epe. London: Chapman, 1985). "42 On Suite visi to Pari, see Thomas O'Meara, “Raid on the Dominicans”: The Repression (of 1954, Ameria, 10714 (5 Feb, 1994), 9-18, Also removed from Pati were Hensi-Marie Féte, the