Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T13:01:31.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Yves Congar and the “Monster” of Nouvelle Théologie

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2013

Jürgen Mettepenningen
Jürgen Mettepenningen
Affiliation:
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the last decade a number of publications have appeared regarding the life and work of the French Dominican Yves Congar. The present essay presents the “young Congar” of the 1930s, in particular his vision of what Catholic theology should be. The author defends the thesis that it is Congar who initiated the “program” of (the first phase of) the so-called nouvelle théologie (“new theology”). After a general survey of the central features of the nouvelle théologie and its development, the author gives an overview of the three ways in which Congar is to be understood its pioneer and representative.

Type
Articles
Information
Horizons , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , Spring 2010 , pp. 52 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © The College Theology Society 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Yves Congar, OP was born on 13 April 1904 in Sedan (France). In 1994, Pope John Paul II made him cardinal. On 22 June 1995, Congar passed away in Paris. His Council diaries appeared in 2000: Congar, Yves, Mon Journal du Concile, ed. Mahieu, Éric, 2 vols. (Paris: Cerf, 2002).Google Scholar Within the framework of the present contribution we cannot offer a general presentation of his life and work; we refer to Fouilloux, Étienne, “Frère Yves, Cardinal Congar, dominicain: Itinéraire d'un théologien,” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 79 (1995): 379–404Google Scholar; Cardinal Yves Congar 1904–1995, ed. Vauchez, André, Histoire (Paris: Cerf, 1999)Google Scholar; Yves Congar: Theologian of the Church, ed. Flynn, Gabriel, Louvain Theological Pastoral Monographs, 32 (Louvain/Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2005)Google Scholar; Kerr, Fergus, Twentieth Century Catholic Theologians: From Neoscholasticism to Nuptial Mysticism (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007), 34–51Google Scholar; Bunnenberg, Johannes, “Yves Congar OP (1904–1995): Mit dem Konzil über das Konzil hinaus,” in “Mutig in die Zukunft”: Dominikanische Beiträge zum Vaticanum II, ed. Eggensperger, Thomas and Engel, Ulrich, Dominikanische Quellen und Zeugnisse, 10 (Leipzig: Benno, 2007), 39–63Google Scholar; Famerée, Joseph and Routhier, Gilles, Yves Congar, Initiations aux théologiens (Paris: Cerf, 2008).Google Scholar

2 On the nouvelle théologie and its theological-historical background, see Frey, Christoph, Mysterium der Kirche, Öffnung zur Welt: Zwei Aspekte der Erneuerung französischer katholischer Theologie, Kirche und Konfession, 14 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Petit, Jean-Claude, “La compréhension de la théologie dans la théologie française au XXe siècle: Vers une nouvelle conscience historique: G. Rabeau, M.-D. Chenu, L. Charlier,” Laval théologique et philosophique 47 (1991): 215–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Petit, Jean-Claude, “La compréhension de la théologie dans la théologie française au XXe siècle: Pour une théologie qui réponde à nos nécessités: la nouvelle théologie,” Laval théologique et philosophique 48 (1992): 415–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fouilloux, Étienne, Une Église en quête de liberté: La pensée catholique française entre modernisme et Vatican II (1914–1962), Anthropologiques (Paris: Declée de Brouwer, 1998)Google Scholar; Mettepenningen, Jürgen, Nouvelle Théologie—New Theology: Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of Vatican II (London/New York: T&T Clark, 2010Google Scholar On nouvelle théologie's systematic-theological importance, see for example Boersma, Hans, “Nouvelle Théologie” and Sacramental Ontology: A Return to Mystery (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Chenu alludes here to Gardeil, Ambroise, Le donné révélé et la théologie, Bibliothèque théologique, 4 (Paris: Cerf, 1909,2 1932).Google Scholar Chenu provided a foreword to the second edition of Gardeil's book (“Préface pour la deuxième édition,” vii–xiv). For the expression of the “three musketeers,” see Henri-Marie Féret: Dominicain: 1904–1992, unpublished brochure of the “Groupe évangélique” (Paris, 1992), 3.

4 Chenu, , “Position de la théologie,” Revue de science philosophique et théologique 24 (1935): 232–57, at-257, there 233Google Scholar; idem, Une école de théologie: Le Saulchoir (Kain: manuscript, 1937); reissued in Une école de théologie: le Saulchoir, ed. Alberigo, Giuseppe et al. , Théologies (Paris: Cerf, 1985), 91–173, at 145.Google Scholar

5 Charlier, Louis, Essai sur le problème théologique, Bibliothèque Orientations: Section scientifique, 1 (Thuillies: Ramgal, 1938).Google Scholar

6 Cf. Mettepenningen, Jürgen, “L'Essai de Louis Charlier (1938): Une contribution à la ‘nouvelle théologie’,” Revue théologique de Louvain 39 (2008): 211–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Cf. Acta Apostolicae Sedis 34 (1942): 37. See also Fouilloux, Étienne, “Autour d'une mise à l'Index,” in Marie-Dominique Chenu, Moyen-Âge et modernité, Les Cahiers du Centre d'études du Saulchoir, 5 (Paris: Cerf, 1997), 25–56.Google Scholar

8 The idea that the nouvelle théologie evolved in a number of phases is also supported by Rosino Gibellini and Tarcisus Tshibangu. See Tshibangu, , La théologie comme science au XXème siècle (Kinshasa: Presses universitaires, 1980), 79–110.Google Scholar Rosino Gibellini and Étienne Fouilloux confirm that the nouvelle théologie is to be divided into two phases, although the dates of each phase differ from scholar to scholar (Gibellini, Rosino, Panorama de la théologie au XXe siècle, Théologies [Paris: Cerf, 1994], 186–96Google Scholar; Fouilloux, , Une Église en quête de liberté, 193–300).Google Scholar While Fouilloux appears to suggest that the movement consisted of three phases, he does not discuss the third phase explicitly (cf. Fouilloux, , “‘Nouvelle théologie’ et théologie nouvelle (1930–1960),” in L'histoire religieuse en France et Espagne, ed. Pellistrandi, Benoît, Collection de la Casa Velázquez, 87 (Madrid: Casa de Velázquez, 2004) 411–25.Google Scholar

9 See, e.g., the letter of Chenu to Henri-Dominique Gardeil, 28 February 1939, 5 pp., in the “Archives de la Province dominicaine de France,” “Corr Chenu Février 1939,” p. 2. Chenu writes that the Dominicans experienced internal conflict because the younger generation wanted to free itself from the prevalence of Thomism. He notes in the margins: “Je présume que l'incident Charlier (Louvain) est à l'origine de cette recrudescence.”

10 Parente, Pietro, “Nuove tendenze teologiche,” L'Osservatore Romano, 9–10 February 1942, 1.Google Scholar

11 Petter, Dominicus-Maria De, “Impliciete intuïtie,” Tijdschrift voor Philosophie 1 (1939): 84–105.Google Scholar

12 Wijngaarden, Johan Van, “Voorstudie tot het denken van E. Schillebeeckx: D.M. De Petter o.p. (1905–1971): Een inleiding tot zijn leven en denken. Deel 1: Een conjunctureel-historische situering” (master's thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1988–1989), 114–17.Google Scholar

13 Bouillard, Henri, Conversion et grâce chez saint Thomas d'Aquin: Étude historique, Théologie, 1 (Paris: Aubier, 1944).Google Scholar Bouillard defended his doctoral dissertation in 1941.

14 Ibid., 219.

15 Jean Daniélou, , “Les orientations présentes de la pensée religieuse,” Études 79 (1946): 5–21.Google Scholar

16 Lubac, Henri de, Surnaturel: Études historiques, Théologie, 8 (Paris: Cerf, 1946).Google Scholar

17 Lubac, Henri de, Mémoire sur l'occasion de mes écrits, Œuvres complètes, vol. 33 (Paris: Cerf, 2006 [orig. 1989]), 34.Google Scholar

18 On de Lubac and the difficulties with which he was confronted at the time, see Comte, Bernard, “Le Père de Lubac, un théologien dans l'Église de Lyon,” in Henri de Lubac: La rencontre au cœur de l'Église, ed. Durand, Jean-Dominique (Paris: Cerf, 2006), 35–89Google Scholar, esp. 73–81; Étienne Fouilloux, “Autour d'un livre (1946–1953),” in ibid., 91–107, esp. 93–95. For a more general study, see Komonchak, Joseph A., “Theology at Mid-Century: The Example of Henri de Lubac,” Theological Studies 51 (1990): 579–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also the following note.

19 Kerr, Fergus, After Aquinas: Versions of Thomism (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002), 134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The conference “Surnaturel: une controverse au coeur du thomisme au XXe siècle” took place in 2000 and its proceedings appeared in Revue Thomiste 109 (2001): 5–351; ET: Surnaturel: A Controversy at the Heart of Twentieth-Century Thomistic Thought, ed. Bonino, Serge-Thomas, transl. Williams, R. & Levering, M. (Naples, FL: Sapientia, 2009).Google Scholar Reference can also be made to Milbank, John, The Suspended Middle: Henri de Lubac and the Debate concerning the Supernatural (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005).Google Scholar

20 Garrigou-Lagrange, Réginald, “La nouvelle théologie où va-t-elle?,” Angelicum 23 (1946): 126–45.Google Scholar

21 The concept of “retrocontextualization” was first used in my article “Truth as Issue in a Second Modernist Crisis? The Clash between Recontextualization and Retrocontextualization in the French-Speaking Polemic of 1946–47,” in Theology and the Quest for Truth: Historical- and Systematic-Theological Studies, ed. Lamberigts, Mathijs, Boeve, Lieven and Merrigan, Terrence, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium, 202 (Louvain: Peeters, 2006) 119–41, at-141.Google Scholar

22 Pius, Pope X, Encyclical “Pascendi dominici gregis (8 September 1907)” in Acta Sanctae Sedis 40 (1907): 593–650.Google Scholar

23 The encyclical does not mention the nouvelle théologie, although it condemns thirteen matters it refers to as “new”. There was clearly little to misunderstand: the nouvelle théologie had been rejected. Cf. Fouilloux, , “‘Nouvelle théologie’ et théologie nouvelle (1930–1960),” 414, n. 13.Google Scholar

24 Cf. Mettepenningen, Jürgen, “Edward Schillebeeckx: Herodero y promotor de la ‘nouvelle théologie’,” Mayéutica 78 (2008): 285–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Cf. Mettepenningen, Jürgen, “Christus denken naar de mensen toe: De ‘nouvelle théologie’ christologisch doorgedacht door Piet Schoonenberg,” Tijdschrift voor Theologie 46 (2006): 143–60.Google Scholar Schoonenberg's doctoral dissertation is the most comprehensive Dutch language representation of the French debate. He does not hesitate to express his sympathy for nouvelle théologie's endeavour, especially Charlier's vision. Such sympathy did not square with the prevailing wind in Rome at the time, and Schoonenberg was not granted permission to publish. Sixty years later, however, the dissertation finally went to press: Schoonenberg, Piet, Theologie als geloofsvertolking: Het proefschrift van 1948, ed. Kenis, Leo and Jürgen Mettepenningen, Documenta Libraria, 36 (Louvain: Faculteit Godgeleerdheid/Maurits Sabbebibliotheek/Peeters, 2008).Google Scholar

26 Cf. Sesboüé, Bernard, Karl Rahner, Initiations aux théologiens (Paris: Cerf, 2001), 193–95.Google Scholar

27 Cf. Voderholzer, Rudolf, “Die Bedeutung der sogenannten ‘Nouvelle Théologie’ (insbesondere Henri de Lubacs) für die Theologie Hans Urs von Balthasars,” in Logik der Liebe und Herrlichkeit Gottes: Hans Urs von Balthasar im Gespräch, ed. Kasper, Walter (Ostfildern: Matthias Grünewald, 2006), 204–28.Google Scholar

28 See, for example, Müller, Wolfgang W., “Was kann an der Theologie neu sein? Der Beitrag der Dominikaner zur ‘nouvelle théologie,’” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 110 (1999): 86–104, at 103.Google Scholar

29 Cf. Fouilloux, Étienne, “La ‘nouvelle théologie’ française vue d'Espagne (1948–1951),” Revue d'histoire de l'Église de France 90 (2004): 279–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), 18 November 1965, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 58 (1966): 817–835.Google Scholar

31 Second Vatican Countil, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes), 7 December 1965, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 58 (1966): 1025–1120, at 1084.Google Scholar

32 Cf. Quisinsky, Michael, Geschichtlicher Glaube in einer geschichtlichen Welt: Der Beitrag von M.-D. Chenu, Y. Congar und H.-M. Féret zum II. Vaticanum, Dogma und Geschichte, 6 (Berlin: LIT, 2007).Google Scholar

33 Forte, Bruno, “Le prospettive della ricera teologica,” in Il Concilio Vaticano II. Recezione e attualità alla luce del Giubileo, ed. Fisichella, Rino (Milan: San Paolo, 2000), 419–29, at 423.Google Scholar

34 Cf. Eicher, Peter, “Von den Schwierigkeiten bürgerlicher Theologie mit den katholischen Kirchenstrukturen,” in Theologie in Freiheit und Verantwortung, ed. Rahner, Karl and Fries, Heinrich (Munich: Kösel, 1981), 96–137, at 101Google Scholar, reissued in Die Theologie und das Lehramt, ed. Kern, Walter, Quaestiones Disputatae, 91 (Freiburg/Basel/Vienna: Herder, 1982), 116–51.Google Scholar

35 Cf. the letters of Congar and Chenu (in the “Archives de la province dominicaine de France,” Paris) and of H. de Lubac (in the “Archives françaises de la Compagnie de Jésus,” Vanves).

36 Féret, Henri-Marie, L'Apocalypse de saint Jean: Vision chrétienne de l'histoire, Témoignages chrétiens (Paris: Corrêa, 1943).Google Scholar Here Féret provides, among other things, an explanation and interpretation of history based on the Apocalypse.

37 Cf. Aubert, Roger, “Discussions récentes autour de la Théologie de l'Histoire,” Collectanea Mechliniensia 33 (1948): 129–149.Google Scholar

38 Congar, Marie-Joseph, “Déficit de la théologie,” Sept, 18 January 1935, 2.Google Scholar

39 Congar, Marie-Joseph, “Une conclusion théologique à l'enquête sur les raisons actuelles de l'incroyance,” Vie Intellectuelle 37 (31 July 1935): 214–49Google Scholar; ET: “The Reasons for the Unbelief of Our Time: A Theological Conclusion,” Integration (August 1938): 13–21Google Scholar, and (December 1938): 10–26.

40 Cf. Famerée, and Routhier, , Yves Congar, 23Google Scholar, n. 3.

41 Congar, Yves-Marie-Joseph, Chrétiens désunis: Principes d'un œcuménisme catholique, Unam Sanctam, 1 (Paris: Cerf, 1937)Google Scholar, ET: Divided Christendom: A Catholic Study of the Problem of Reunion (London: Bles, 1939).Google Scholar

42 Möhler, Johann-Adam, l'unité dans l'Église ou le principe du catholicisme d'après l'esprit des Pères des trios premiers siècles de l'Église, trans. Lilienfeld, Andreé de, Unam Sanctam, 2 (Paris: Cerf, 1938).Google Scholar

43 Lubac, Henri de, Catholicisme: Les aspects sociaux du dogme, Unam sanctam, 3 (Paris: Cerf, 1938)Google Scholar, Œuvres complètes, vol. 7 (Paris: Cerf, 2003), ET: Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man (San Francisco, Calif.: Ignatius, 1988).Google Scholar

44 Marie-Joseph Congar, review of Bonnefoy, “La théologie comme science et l'explication de la foi selon saint Thomas d'Aquin”; Charlier, Essai sur le problem théologique; Draguet, “Méthodes théologique d'hier et d'aujourd'hui”; Gagnebet, , “La nature de la théologie spéculative,” Bulletin thomiste 5 (1937–1939): 490–505.Google Scholar

45 Bonnefoy, Jean-François, “La théologie comme science et l'explication de la foi selon saint Thomas d'Aquin,” Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 14 (1937): 421–46, 600–31Google Scholar; 15 (1938): 491–516. This series also appeared in the form of a book entitled La nature de la théologie selon saint Thomas d'Aquin (Paris: Vrin, 1939).

46 Bonnefoy, , “La théologie comme science,” 627.Google Scholar

47 Gagnebet, Marie-Rosaire, “La nature de la théologie spéculative,” Revue thomiste 44 (1938): 1–39, 213–55, 645–74.Google Scholar

48 Gagnebet, published another article along similar lines entitled “Le problème actuel de la théologie et la science aristotélicienne d'après un ouvrage récent,” Divus Thomas 43 (1943): 237–70.Google Scholar

49 René Draguet, review of Charlier, Louis, Essai sur le problème théologique, Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 16 (1939): 143–45.Google Scholar Cf. Guelluy, Robert, “Les antécédents de l'encyclique ‘Humani generis’ dans les sanctions romaines de 1942: Chenu, Charlier, Draguet,” Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 81 (1986): 421–97Google Scholar; Pril, Ward De, “De Leuvense theoloog en oriëntalist René Draguet (1896–1980): Studie van zijn theologische positie en zijn conflict met de kerkelijke overheid” (Ph.D. dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2010).Google Scholar

50 Draguet, René, “Méthodes théologiques d'hier et d'aujourd'hui,” Revue catholique des idées et des faits 15/42 (10 January 1936): 1–7Google Scholar; 15/46 (7 February 1936): 4–7; 15/47 (14 February 1936): 13–17.

51 Cf. Coppens, Joseph, “In memoriam R. Draguet (1896–1980),” Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 57 (1981): 194–200Google Scholar, at 198.

52 Cf. the “Archives de l'Université catholique de Louvain-la-Neuve,” C II 4335: handwritten notes by Gustave Thils, academic year 1934–35, 105 pp.

53 Congar, review of Bonnefoy, et al., 490.

54 Ibid., 490.

55 Ibid., 492.

56 Congar, Marie-Joseph, “Théologie,” in Dictionnaire de théologie chrétienne 15 (1946): 341–502, at 417, 430 and 446Google Scholar, ET: A History of Theology (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968).Google Scholar

57 Congar quotes Charlier, , Essai sur le problème théologique, 145–46.Google Scholar See Congar, review of Bonnefoy, et al., 496.

58 Ibid., 498.

59 Ibid., 503, n. 3.

60 Letter of Congar to Emmanuel Suárez, 16 January 1950, in the “Archives de la province dominicaine de France,” “Corr Congar, January 1950.”

61 Letter of Congar to Emmanuel Suárez, 16 January 1950.

62 Jean Puyo interroge le Père Congar: “Une vie pour la vérité,” Les interviews (Paris: Centurion, 1975), 99.

63 Fouilloux, Étienne, “Présentation générale,” in Congar, , Journal d'un théologien 1946–1956, ed. Fouilloux, Étienne (Paris: Cerf, 2001), 12.Google Scholar