order to resist Protestantism, in 1930 described as willing to destroy all Latin aspects because of their reference to Rome. By its adhesion to Rome, the Catholic Church was, according to Beuron, able to resist the “hérésie moderne” of nationalism.<fnref n="106" />

In 1920, Romano Guardini (1885-1968), who, as is known, had a great impact on the liturgical movement in Germany, came into contact with the youth movement Quickborn (Burg Rothenfels).<fnref n="107" /> This contact will result in a profound relation between the liturgical movement and the German Catholic youth movement.<fnref n="108" /> Guardini had discovered the mystery of the liturgy during a visit to the Abbey of Beuron in 1906.<fnref n="109" /> Once ordained a priest in 1910, he was upset about the way liturgy was celebrated: he was saying mass while the faithful were praying the rosary. It is true that Guardini was not a liturgist in the strict sense of the word.<fnref n="110" /> However, his in 1918 published booklet *Vom Geist der Liturgie*, became a huge success. It is sometimes considered as the start of the liturgical movement in Germany.<fnref n="111" /> It was many times reprinted and translated into several other languages. Through his Benedictine friend Kunibert Mohlberg, Guardini’s reflections about liturgy had come into the hands of Herwegen, who published Guardini in the first issue of the series *Ecclesia Orans*. In his book, Guardini emphasized the importance of a living liturgy, related to human beings’ life.<fnref n="112" /> For Guardini, it was of the utmost importance that the whole community should participate in it. He also insisted on interaction between religion and culture. He criticised the utilitarian use of religion (e.g. to pray in order to deserve a reward; indulgences as a help to receive forgiveness for punishments in purgatory). He described Liturgy as “Spiel”.<fnref n="113" /> In line with Pius X he emphasized that one should not pray during mass, but should pray the mass, an idea he developed in a booklet, published in 1920: *Gemeinschaftliche Andacht zur Feier der heiligen Messe*. The booklet presented a simplified German translation of the ordinary of the mass and created space for dialogue between the leader in prayer, the left and right side in the Church and the whole community. It was suggested that the priest should read the first and second readings and the Gospel in German (after the unavoidable reading of these Scriptural texts in Latin). The booklet was meant for the youth. They should be actively involved in praying mass, although one should immediately add that it was an interaction between the leader in prayer and the community, the priest for the most

<footnote n="106">¹⁰⁶ HAMMENSTEDE, *Rapport sur le movement liturgique en Allemagne*, p. 299.</footnote>

<footnote n="107">¹⁰⁷ With regard to this movement, see, e.g., *Die Bünde der katholischen Jugendbewegung*, p. 56-138.</footnote>

<footnote n="108">¹⁰⁸ MAAS-EWERD, *Was wollte die Liturgische Bewegung?*, p. 237.</footnote>

<footnote n="109">¹⁰⁹ Romano GUARDINI, *Berichte über mein Leben. Autobiographische Aufzeichnungen aus dem Nachlass, hrsg. von Franz HENRICH, Düsseldorf, 1984*, p. 87-88. See also LEEMANS, *Over Romano Guardini*, ch. 4: *Romano Guardini (1885-1968) en de liturgie*, p. 193-221, p. 194-195.</footnote>

<footnote n="110">¹¹⁰ Theodor MAAS-EWERD, *Anwalt des liturgischen Anliegens. Guardini und die liturgische Bewegung*, in Walter SIEDEL (ed.), *Christliche Weltanschauung. Wiederbegegnung met Romano Guardini*, Würzburg, 1985, p. 163.</footnote>

<footnote n="111">¹¹¹ MAAS-EWERD, *Was wollte die Liturgische Bewegung?*, p. 235.</footnote>

<footnote n="112">¹¹² GUARDINI, *Vom Geist der Liturgie*, p. 1.</footnote>

<footnote n="113">¹¹³ See the remarks of W. DIRKS, *Guardini als Führer zur Liturgie*, in *Liturgisches Jahrbuch*, 10 (1960), p. 202-210, p. 204. In this regard, Guardini worried about the fact that the Church was not really able to reach the male human beings for the participation in the liturgy; see GUARDINI, *Vom Geist der Liturgie*, p. 17.</footnote>
part of the mass, being isolated. However, what is important is the concern that the faithful pray the mass, not attended the mass. The booklet was a huge success and a bit less than 500.000 copies were spread throughout Germany.<fnref n="114" /> Needless to say that due to the success of his books Guardini became an important representative of the liturgical movement. However, due to his engagement in the Quickborn-movement at Burg-Rothenfels, he not only reached many youngsters, but was also criticised because the “success” at Burg-Rothenfels was experienced in the parishes as a kind of alienation of the youth from their parishes, something which was evidently not the goal of Guardini. Burg-Rothenfels was indeed meant as place where people were given the possibility to recover the essence of Christian life.<fnref n="115" /> Further, soon the views of Guardini and the German monastic centres of liturgy became different, the latter not really liking Guardini’s sympathy for popular devotion.<fnref n="116" /> In other words, as with regard to so many aspects of his life, Guardini’s positions were criticized, among others by Benedictines such as Odo Casel (1886-1948; monk of Maria Laach), Casel, being an ex *professo* liturgist.<fnref n="117" />

It should be said that the use of the vernacular in the liturgy was a great concern within the German-speaking countries. The so-called *Gemeinschaftsmesse* was introduced. Given the fact that the priest was obliged to pray whisperingly all the texts in Latin (except the part he was expected to sing in the *Missa in cantu celebrata*), an intercessor read the lectures and some of the prayers said by the priest in German. Moreover, in the sung mass, the *Ordinarium* and the *Proprium* were replaced by German songs. Proposals for such *Gemeinschaftsmesse* had been developed by individuals such as Guardini (1917; 1920), Parsch (1923), Kramp (1924), Wolker (1928), and the Abbey of Maria Laach (1924). In 1928, a German unity text was available for the ordinary of the mass: the Kyrie, Gloria, Creed, Holy Holy, Lamb of God and the *Ite missa est*. This type of mass was not only successful in Germany but was taken over in other countries. The mass with the people will become the prototype for the Eucharist in Germany after Vatican II. At that moment intercessors will, evidently, disappear.

Like Guardini, Pius Parsch (1884-1954) opted for an approach different in comparison to that of the Benedictines. This Augustinian Canon at Klosterneuburg in Austria —his impact in the countries under discussion is such that one cannot overlook this intriguing figure—,<fnref n="118" /> was deeply influenced by the liturgical work of the Abbey of Beuron, the Vienna pastoral theologian H. Swoboda, and the work among

<footnote n="114">¹¹⁴ LEEMANS, *Over Romano Guardini*, p. 205-207.</footnote>

<footnote n="115">¹¹⁵ See the examples given in LEEMANS, *Over Romano Guardini*, p. 214-215.</footnote>

<footnote n="116">¹¹⁶ LEEMANS, *Over Romano Guardini*, p. 209-211. At the same time, people in parishes were very much influenced by Guardini's approach; see, e.g., with regard to the experiments in Freiburg, QUISINSKY, *Das II. Vatikanum in der Pfarrgemeinde*, p. 168. The Beuron Benedictine HAMMENSTEDE, *Rapport sur le movement liturgique en Allemagne*, p. 304 does not reject the personal devotions, but considers them as not comparable with the participation in the Eucharist.</footnote>

<footnote n="117">¹¹⁷ Already in 1921, Casel had founded the *Jahrbuch für Liturgie*.</footnote>

<footnote n="118">¹¹⁸ With regard to the impact of World War I on Parsch's ideas about liturgy, see, e.g. Jozef LAMBERTS, *Pius Parsch (1884-1954) en het 'Volksliturgisch apostolaat'. Een terugblik 70 jaar na de eerste 'Gemeenschapsmis', in *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie*, 77 (1993), p. 151-162 (152-154); on his influence in Germany, see HAMMENSTEDE, *Rapport sur le movement liturgique en Allemagne*, p. 294-295.</footnote>
the academic youth in Vienna.<fnref n="119" /> Also Pius X's promotion of the active participation of the laity in the liturgy played a role. During World War I, he came into contact with all societal classes and thus discovered what the faith of the common faithful was all about.<fnref n="120" /> He became a promoter of the use of the vernacular in the liturgy,<fnref n="121" /> partly because he was of the opinion that the use of Latin was too often meant for an elitist minority of intellectuals,<fnref n="122" /> but was a hindrance for the common people.<fnref n="123" /> For Parsch, two elements were crucial: “Verstehen; Aktive Teilnahme”.<fnref n="124" /> Like in the case of Beauduin, his main concern was the promotion of a pastoral liturgical approach, rooted in the Bible—for Parsch, Bible and Liturgy always went hand in hand—,<fnref n="125" /> and the means used were quite similar: liturgical gatherings, in which the Eucharist was explained, the great Feasts of the Church were prepared and the like.<fnref n="126" /> Journals such as *Lebe mit der Kirche* were founded, aiming at educating all, also the simple people.<fnref n="127" /> As a pastor, he soon became aware of the need to engage all people in the liturgy: the liturgical movement should not be limited to clergy and academics, “sie sollte auch Gemeingut *des Volkes* werden”.<fnref n="128" /> Parsch emphasized that all, even the simplest faithful, should actively participate in the liturgy.<fnref n="129" /> For him, the liturgical movement was the movement of all people (cf. *volksliturgische Bewegung*).<fnref n="130" /> It was considered to be a reaction against individualism.<fnref n="131" /> Liturgy should be the cornerstone of the life in parishes, an idea that later was taken over by the liturgical movements in Germany and France.<fnref n="132" /> He insisted that the liturgy was more than liturgical customs. He even was of the opinion that the people's movement had the right to disobey the liturgical laws if these were a hindrance for renewal. In other words, the faith of the people becomes the norm for liturgy. Liturgy has to descend to the level of

<footnote n="119">¹¹⁹ See Pius PARSCH, *Die liturgische Aktion in Österreich*, in *Les Questions Liturgiques et Paroissiales*, 15 (1930), p. 351-363 (352).</footnote>

<footnote n="120">¹²⁰ RÖHRIG, *Pius Parsch und die biblisch-liturgische Erneuerung im historischen Kontext*, p. 21.</footnote>

<footnote n="121">¹²¹ It might well be that Parsch' intuitions about a “lived” liturgy were the result of a dissatisfaction with what was taught at the time in seminaries and universities. In any case, the similarities with what was promoted by the *nouvelle théologie* are striking.</footnote>

<footnote n="122">¹²² LAMBERTS, *Pius Parsch (1884-1954)*, p. 157.</footnote>

<footnote n="123">¹²³ PARSCH, *Die liturgische Aktion in Österreich*, p. 358-359.</footnote>

<footnote n="124">¹²⁴ PARSCH, *Die liturgische Aktion in Österreich*, p. 358.</footnote>

<footnote n="125">¹²⁵ RÖHRIG, *Pius Parsch und die biblisch-liturgische Erneuerung im historischen Kontext*, p. 21; see p. 24-25.</footnote>

<footnote n="126">¹²⁶ See PARSCH, *Die liturgische Aktion in Österreich*, p. 352. It should be said that Parsch in no way depreciated the Benedictine approach, although he was very much aware of the many differences; see the comparison on p. 357.</footnote>

<footnote n="127">¹²⁷ PARSCH, *Die liturgische Aktion in Österreich*, p. 356.</footnote>

<footnote n="128">¹²⁸ PARSCH, *Die liturgische Aktion in Österreich*, p. 353; with regard to the Christological and ecclesiological background of this conviction, see Boles J. KRAWCZYK, “Der neue Laientyp” – christologische und ekklesiologische Grundlagen der aktiven Teilnahme der Laien an der Liturgie nach Pius Parsch, in BACHLER, PACIK, REDTENBACHER (eds.), *Pius Parsch in der liturgiewissenschaftlichen Rezeption*, p. 140-163.</footnote>

<footnote n="129">¹²⁹ With regard to the initiatives as taken within this context, see PARSCH, *Die liturgische Aktion in Österreich*, p. 354-355; see also LAMBERTS, *Pius Parsch*, p. 154-155.</footnote>

<footnote n="130">¹³⁰ See PARSCH, *Die liturgische Aktion in Österreich*, p. 354-355.</footnote>

<footnote n="131">¹³¹ KRAWCZYK, “Der neue Laientyp”, p. 152-153.</footnote>

<footnote n="132">¹³² KRAWCZYK, “Der neue Laientyp”, p. 154-155.</footnote>
the faithful, even in case this results in a conflict with ecclesiastical norms. Already in 1922, he celebrated the so-called *Chormesse* at Klosterneuburg. For Parsch, it was the logical step from reflection to action.<fnref n="133" /> It was the first “volksliturgische” Eucharist in the German-speaking world. This “Gemeinschaftsmesse” was characterized by the following elements: it is a read mass in which the choir, a lector and eventually a prayer leader collaborate and in which people pray and sing those parts, meant for them. In 1925, he published his influential *Volksliturgisches Apostolat*. Parsch was a great promoter of a liturgy related to the concrete life of the community and based upon a biblically inspired liturgical spirituality.<fnref n="134" /> In the view of the Augustinian Canon, liturgy should be celebrated within the context of grace in stead of that of law. In liturgy, the faithful should experience a relation with a loving and forgiving God, much more than with a demanding and forbidding God. The community mass gradually became a *Betsingmesse*, a partly sung Eucharist, in which German songs were sung. In passing, it should be said that the idea of active participation in Austria had already found its way in the 18th century. At the time, it was a reaction against Gregorian chant, disapproving the idea that the celebration of the Eucharist reminded more the idea of a concert.<fnref n="135" /> The *Betsingmesse* became internationally known when on September 10, 1933, during the Vienna “Katholikentag” 200.000 people celebrated Mass under the direction of Pius Parsch. The then Cardinal of Vienna, Mgr. Innitzer ordered that this type of mass should be celebrated every month in every parish of his diocese. Soon other dioceses in Austria and Germany followed. The active participation mostly was on the level of the singing of the German *proprium* and the Latin *ordinarium* songs (Gloria, Creed, Sanctus and the like). For Parsch, Latin is a hindrance both for the understanding of the liturgy and even for these of the songs: “Der Lateinische Choral kann nur in gans beschränkten Masse unseren heutigen Katholiken zugemutet warden, er ist heute und auch in absehbarer Zukunft nicht der active Gesang des christlichen Volkes”. For that reason, Parsch was of the opinion that both the *missa cantata* (the High Mass) and the choir mass (*missa recitata*) were too difficult for the ordinary people and thus opted for the celebration of the High Mass in the form of the *Betsingmesse*, considering the *missa recitata* as appropriate for small, intellectually well developed circles.

Indeed, for Parsch and the many who would follow him, active participation of the faithful, the reading of prayers and lectures in the vernacular, they all contributed more to the celebration of the Eucharist than the Latin church music with its cerebral features. Although Parsch always maintained that his own approach was inspired by the liturgical movement —Parsch was thinking of the liturgical spirit, training and the study of the history of liturgy—one should admit that it is quite different in comparison to the Benedictine line. For the Benedictines the people have to ascend,

<footnote n="133">¹³³ PARSCH, *Die liturgische Aktion in Österreich*, p. 353-354.</footnote>

<footnote n="134">¹³⁴ See Norbert HÖSLINGER and Theodor MAAS-EWERD (eds.), 'Mit sanfter Zähigkeit'. Pius Parsch und die biblisch-liturgische Erneuerung, Klosterneuburg, 1979.</footnote>

<footnote n="135">¹³⁵ Barbara KRÄTSCHMER, *Die deutsche Singmesse der Aufklärung unter Berücksichtigung der Deutschen Hochämter von Johann Michael Haydn, in Singende Kirche*, 33 (1986), p. 11-17; for he Netherlands, where one finds a different approach, see VAN TONGEREN, *From Liturgical Movement to Liturgy on the Move*, p. 31-32.</footnote>
for Parsch, the liturgy has to descend.<fnref n="136" /> Parsch was well aware of the importance of subjective piety in the life of the faithful and thus stressed that it was important to work gradually. Parsch, more than the Benedictine line, was confronted with the hesitations of the bishops towards the movement and the indifferentism of the majority of the clergy.<fnref n="137" /> He also deplored that nuns were not really involved in the movement, for they could, according to Parsch play a role in the liturgical education of the faithful.<fnref n="138" />

In the 1930s, the liturgical movement was flourishing as an essential cornerstone of the pastoral movement. It was an element in the Roman Catholic Church's resistance against the Nazi repression of ecclesiastical associations and youth movements.<fnref n="139" /> As a result, there was a shift from the "Vereinsseelsorge" towards die "Pfarrseelsorge": since 1933, the liturgical renewal among the youth took place in the daily life of parishes.<fnref n="140" /> However, the resistance of both secular clergy and religious against this renewal, a resistance that was supported by the Nazi regime, should not be underestimated.<fnref n="141" /> The need for the use of the vernacular became more and more urgent. Already in 1939, the Diocese of Aachen obliged the clergy to use German for baptism, marriage, funerals, communion for the sick, the last sacraments, apostolic blessing and the prayers of the dying people. Also, elsewhere in Germany, bilingual rituals were used and the translation of Parsch was widely spread. However, several priests were of the opinion that the liturgy of the time was not really a great help for a true liturgical pastorate. Moreover, when the Nazis tried to roll back Christianity into church buildings, many attempted to make of the liturgy a replacer of Catholic Action. As a result, some criticized the liturgical movement.<fnref n="142" /> Guardini felt the need to react and protect the realisations of the movement and asked Bishop Albert Stohr of Mainz to discuss the problem within the German episcopate, a discussion that would ultimately result in the creation of a liturgical commission in 1940.<fnref n="143" />

At the end of the 1930s, the German liturgical movement was confronted with a crisis, for many, including Rome, were of the opinion that the liturgical

<footnote n="136">¹³⁶ This rather globalizing remark does not sufficiently do justice to what sometimes happened in concrete situations. In this regard, one may think of the Belgian-Dutch journal *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie* that, under the direction of the Benedictine A. Verheul, also paid attention to the "descending" line; see his *Ons standpunt*, p. 2-3.</footnote>

<footnote n="137">¹³⁷ See his complaints as early as 1930; PARSCH, *Die liturgische Aktion in Österreich*, p. 358-359.</footnote>

<footnote n="138">¹³⁸ PARSCH, *Die liturgische Aktion in Österreich*, p. 360-361.</footnote>

<footnote n="139">¹³⁹ With regard to the German bishops' reaction to this type of suppression, see Augustinus REINECKE, *Jugend zwischen Kreuz und Hakenkreuz. Erinnerungen und Erlebnisse, Ereignisse und Dokumente*, Paderborn, 1987, p. 259-262.</footnote>

<footnote n="140">¹⁴⁰ MAAS-EWERD, *Was wollte die Liturgische Bewegung?*, p. 240-241.</footnote>

<footnote n="141">¹⁴¹ MAAS-EWERD, *Was wollte die Liturgische Bewegung?*, p. 241 (with further literature); RÖHRIG, *Pius Parsch und die biblisch-liturgische Erneuerung im historischen Kontext*, p. 22-23.</footnote>

<footnote n="142">¹⁴² See J. LAMBERTS, *Een belangrijke verjaardag. 'Mediator Dei et hominum' verscheen 50 jaar geleden, in *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie*, 81 (1997), p. 413-430 (414) (with further literature); see also HAQUIN, *Le mouvement liturgique dans l'Église catholique (19e-20e s.)*, p. 29-30. For a detailed description of the crisis, see THEODOR MAAS-EWERD, *Die Krise der Liturgischen Bewegung. Studien zu den Auseinandersetzungen um die 'liturgische Frage' in Deutschland und Österreich von 1939 bis 1944*, Regensburg, 1979.</footnote>

<footnote n="143">¹⁴³ With regard to Guardini's interevention with Albert Stohr, see ROMANO GUARDINI, *Ein Wort zur liturgischen Frage*, Mainz, 1940.</footnote>
"innovators" were endangering the sound liturgical life. In the midst of the Second World War, Rome sent a letter to the Primate of the German Church, Cardinal Bertram, in which Rome made clear that it would intervene in case the liturgical problems in Germany would not find a solution. Guardini, being asked for advice, underlined that the faithful needed and deserved to be introduced into the liturgical life of the Church.<fnref n="144" />

On January 11, 1943, the German bishops were asked by Rome to write a report on the liturgical situation in "Great Germany". A week later, the Archbishop of Freiburg, Conrad Gröber, published a letter in which he criticized the new ecclesiology (the Church as *corpus Christi mysticum* in stead of *societas perfecta*)<fnref n="145" /> the common priesthood of the faithful, Eucharist as a meal of the faithful, the growing interest in the study of the Bible, the ecumenical movement, and the like.<fnref n="146" /> The majority of the German bishops did not share Gröber's ideas, which were not only a critique of the liturgical developments, but also of ecumenical openness, Christocentrism and the like. Moreover, the archbishop was not very pleased with the relativization of neo-scholasticism.<fnref n="147" /> Gröber's critique thus made clear that the liturgical movement could not be isolated from other developments in the Roman Catholic Church.

On April 10, 1943, Cardinal A. Bertram of Breslau sent, on behalf of the German episcopate, the report, asked for by Rome, to Rome. Moreover, he asked to reform the breviary and the Roman Ritual. He also asked some permissions, such as the *Gemeinschaftsmesse*, the *Betsingmesse* and the *Deutsches Hochamt*.

The encyclical *Mystici Corporis* of June 1943 can be read as a reaction concerning the ecclesiology. However, it also deals with topics, related to the liturgy, such as the common priesthood of all the faithful and the increase of the frequent communion. The encyclical explicitly recognizes that the community of the faithful has to play its role in the offering of Christ's sacrifice to the Father. At the same time, the encyclical makes clear that one should not reduce the priest's function to that of a representative of the community, in other words, according to the pope, one must respect the sacramental priesthood.<fnref n="148" /> The pope is also critical concerning those who so much stress the common prayer of the Church that they seem to neglect or underestimate the private pious practices: personal prayer remains important, the pope maintains.<fnref n="149" /> The day before Christmas, December 24, 1943, the German bishops received a letter from the secretary of state, Cardinal Maglione, in which the importance of the liturgical movement for the religious and pastoral life was recognized. The *Gemeinschaftsmesse* and the *Betsingmesse* received approval, while the *Deutsches Hochamt* "benignissime" was tolerated.<fnref n="150" /> The document also made clear that changes in liturgy on one's own authority and disobedience to the local

<footnote n="144">¹⁴⁴ LEEMANS, *Over Romano Guardini*, p. 217-218</footnote>

<footnote n="145">¹⁴⁵ An idea that was very much promoted during Vatican I.</footnote>

<footnote n="146">¹⁴⁶ See MAAS-EWERD, *Die Krise der Liturgischen Bewegung*, p. 540-560.</footnote>

<footnote n="147">¹⁴⁷ See QUISINSKY, *Das II. Vatikanum in der Pfarrgemeinde*, p. 168.</footnote>

<footnote n="148">¹⁴⁸ AAS, 35 (1943), p. 232-233.</footnote>

<footnote n="149">¹⁴⁹ AAS, 35 (1943), p. 235.</footnote>

<footnote n="150">¹⁵⁰ For the text, see *Ephemerides Liturgicae*, 62 (1948), p. 285-290.</footnote>
bishop were condemned. Moreover, every public debate about liturgical matters was forbidden. In passing, it should be said that on September 30, 1943, the encyclical *Divino Afflante Spiritu* was published, a document that will be considered as the charter for academic Bible study.<fnref n="151" /> The encyclical *Mystici Corporis* (1943) gave important impulses to the liturgical developments, especially when dealing with the common priesthood of the faithful and the promotion of frequent communion.<fnref n="152" />

After the Second World War, drastic migrations changed radically the composition of the German population. West Germany, heavily destroyed at the end of the war, was confronted with the arrival of 12 million refugees, coming from Poland, Hungary and the like. After the war, the theological ideas as developed at the abbey of Maria Laach found their way into France, the Netherlands and Francophone Belgium. The Eucharist was less and less the place where a doctrine was explained, and became more and more a place where the mystery was experienced. In this regard, it is interesting to see that while the missal these during decades was considered as an appropriate means for the promotion of an active participation of the faithful and as such belonged to the essentials of the liturgical movement, this means that in the 1950s it became considered as an hindrance for the community Eucharist, for it was considered to promote individualism. Germany can be described as the motor for the growing use of the vernacular in other countries. The German Ritual of 1950 became the model for other countries.

In this regard, one should mention the name of Joseph Jungmann (1889-1975), whose book *Missarum solennia* deeply influenced the theological reflection concerning the “ressourcement” and renewal of the liturgy. Meanwhile, Odo Casel had published his *Das Christliche Kultmysterium* (1932), in which he explained that the memory of Jesus’ life and death as mystery are present in language and signs (*verbum atque sacramentum*). In other words, the Eucharist is not a mere repetition of Jesus’ life, but a commemorating and celebrating of his salvific acts, so that they become actual salvation mysteries. In other words, they are an elaboration of God’s grace. In passing it should be said that the reception of the encyclical *Mediator Dei* was less positive in the region under discussion than in Belgium and the Netherlands. Parsch’s reaction was negative: he considered the encyclical as an attack against his liturgical work.<fnref n="153" />

<footnote n="151">¹⁵¹ It goes without saying that the two movements are closely connected to each other and that the challenges for one of the two in a sense also attach to the other; see CHARLIER, *Réforme liturgique et renouveau biblique*, p. 10-35.</footnote>

<footnote n="152">¹⁵² This idea was already developed by Jungmann as early as 1939; however, Msgr. Gröber, bishop of Freiburg, had been opposed to this idea; LAMBERTS, *L'évolution de la notion de "participation active"*, p. 103-104.</footnote>

<footnote n="153">¹⁵³ THEODOR MAAS-EWERD, *Zur Reaktion Pius Parschs auf die Enzyklika "Mediator Dei"*, in HÖSLINGER and MAAS-EWERD (eds.), Mit sanfter Zähigkeit, p. 199-214; see also Alberto GRILLO, *Der Liturgiebegriff bei Pius Parsch und seine Stellung im Rahmen der Liturgischen Bewegung des 20. Jahrhunderts. Die "unaktuelle" Aktualität einer pastoralen und "volkstümlichen" Perspektive*, in BACHLER, PACIK, REDTENBACHER (eds.), *Pius Parsch in der liturgiewissenschaftlichen Rezeption*, p. 200-203. In any case, recent literature has made clear that Parsch's critical attitude to the encyclical was well justified; for this literature, see p. 203-206, and esp. n. 17.</footnote>
Through the theological work of people like Jungmann, Hugo Rahner and Lucien Cerfaux, the interest in a theology of the community was stimulated, in which the place of the people of God and its role in the liturgy, a crucial issue of the liturgical movement, were rethought. An important role in the liturgical reflection in Germany was played by a liturgical institute founded at Trier. After the war, the institute developed contacts with the CPL at Paris. The contacts resulted in the organisation of yearly conferences, the first being held in 1951.<fnref n="154" /> Soon, under the impulse of the two institutes, the scope was broadened. In 1953, the conference was organized at Lugano. Here, the Archbishop of Bologna, Lercaro held a plea in favour of the use of the vernacular. Also for Germany, the many congresses played an important role in the promotion of a growing interest in liturgy, especially among the officials. These congresses were also important fruitful meeting places for the leading liturgists of the time.

Just before the opening of the Council, great promoters of the liturgical movement such as Professor Balthasar Fischer of the Liturgical Institute of Trier started to warn against too wild expectations about liturgical reforms. Fischer held a plea in favour of prudence and against liturgical chaos,<fnref n="155" /> a sign that the promoters of the liturgical movement were of the opinion that it had reached its final goal.

## THE NETHERLANDS

The liturgical movement in the Netherlands in some regards differed from that in Belgium.<fnref n="156" /> The protagonists were diocesan clerics and religious,<fnref n="157" /> active in parishes, deaneries or on the level of the diocese.<fnref n="158" /> The liturgical movement was more imbedded in daily church life than in Belgium, partly because it had its origin in the seminaries: future priests received their training here and their professors were often engaged in the diocesan liturgical associations.<fnref n="159" /> As a result, it had, especially before World War II, a more diversified character. In any case, in this period it was mostly a spiritual movement, lacking the needed academic background.<fnref n="160" /> The movement was considered to be an adequate means against the growth of socialism and

<footnote n="154">¹⁵⁴ For a survey, see Siegfried SCHMITT, *Die internationalen liturgischen Studientreffen 1951-1960. Zur Vorgeschichte der Liturgiekonstitution*, Trier, 1992.</footnote>

<footnote n="155">¹⁵⁵ See La Maison-Dieu, 2 (1962), p. 6-9 (April 16).</footnote>

<footnote n="156">¹⁵⁶ In this regard, the fact that the survey as presented by Petra VERSNEL-MERGAERTS, *Van rubriekenjager tot wetenschappelijk grensganger. Wordingsgeschiedenis van de liturgiewetenschap (1900-1967) aan de katholieke theologische opleidingen in Nederland in zes portretten*, Groningen, 2005 only offers the biography of one Benedictine, is revealing.</footnote>

<footnote n="157">¹⁵⁷ However, influential congregations such as the Redemptorists did not share the enthusiasm for the liturgical movement; see VERSNEL-MERGAERTS, *Van rubriekenjager tot wetenschappelijk grensganger*, p. 283-284.</footnote>

<footnote n="158">¹⁵⁸ Lucas BRINKHOFF, *Nederland, in Liturgisch Woordenboek*, Roermond, 1965-1968, Ke-Z, k. 1866-1879, col. 1874.</footnote>

<footnote n="159">¹⁵⁹ VERSNEL-MERGAERTS, *Van rubriekenjager tot wetenschappelijk grensganger*, p. 358.</footnote>

<footnote n="160">¹⁶⁰ Petra J. VERSNEL-MERGAERTS, *Tendensen in de Liturgische Beweging en de liturgiewetenschap van de twintigste eeuw*, in *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie*, 94 (2010), p. 234-250 (235-236; 240-241).</footnote>
secularisation in the country,<fnref n="161" /> and as a help in the Catholic emancipation process<fnref n="162" />
As early as 1910, one will find a series of names of people involved in the movement.
A name that regularly returns is that of F. van Beukering (1869-1938), for years dean
of the parish of Rotterdam.<fnref n="163" /> He was aware of the problems liturgy at the time was
confronted with: ignorance, Latin as a problem, lack of interest and the like. At the
same time, he was convinced that liturgy lay at the heart of the Christian matter.
Referring to early Christianity, he made clear that active participation and the use of
the vernacular were simply the rule in the early Church.<fnref n="164" /> As pastor he was able to
concretise his liturgical ideas when building a new church in Rotterdam (consecrated
in 1930), a church building which was an adequate translation of his liturgical ideas
and in which he, with the explicit permission of his bishop, was allowed to celebrate
mass with his face in the direction of the faithful, a practice already well known in
Maria Laach and at Rothenfels.<fnref n="165" /> He was of the opinion that the social problems of
his time could be solved through the promotion of the liturgy in the parishes.<fnref n="166" /> Van
Beukering was active as speaker at the Liturgical weeks, among others those organised
in Leuven; he wrote several articles for journals such as *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie*, held
conferences for the radio from 1925 on.<fnref n="167" /> Finally, he paid much attention to the
practical implementation of the liturgy.<fnref n="168" /> Other important promoters during the
inter-bellum period were the Dominican L. Verwilst (1879-1940),<fnref n="169" /> the Franciscan
E. Bruning (1892-1958),<fnref n="170" /> and the Jesuit O. Huf (1882-1950).<fnref n="171" /> At the seminaries
and the Faculty of Theology (Catholic University of the Nijmegen) there was a

<footnote n="161">161 VERSNEL-MERGAERTS, *Van rubriekenjager tot wetenschappelijk grensganger*, p. 84-85.</footnote>

<footnote n="162">162 VERSNEL-MERGAERTS, *Van rubriekenjager tot wetenschappelijk grensganger*, p. 82-83; 352-353 makes clear that there is an inner link between the liturgical movement and the creation of Catholic self-confidence in the Netherlands.</footnote>

<footnote n="163">163 E. MANDERS, Beukering, F.C. van, in *Liturgisch Woordenboek*, Roermond, 1958-1962, A-Ke, k. 258; Jozef LAMBERTS, Een pionier van de Liturgische Beweging: pastoor F.C. van Beukering (1869-1938), in *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie*, 72 (1988), p. 165-169; Richard BOT, Zingt allen mee. 65 jaar Liturgische en Kerkmuzikale Beweging in Nederland. Een liturgie-documentaire studie naar de ontwikkeling en het liturgisch functioneren van de rooms-katholieke kerkmuziek in Nederland van 1903 tot en met 1969 onder invloed van de idealen van de Liturgische Beweging, Tilburg, 2003, p. 435-451; VAN TONGEREN, *From Liturgical Movement to Liturgy on the Move*, p. 35-41.</footnote>

<footnote n="164">164 VAN TONGEREN, *From Liturgical Movement to Liturgy on the Move*, p. 36-37.</footnote>

<footnote n="165">165 VAN TONGEREN, *From Liturgical Movement to Liturgy on the Move*, p. 39-41.</footnote>

<footnote n="166">166 MANDERS, *Beukering*, k. 258.</footnote>

<footnote n="167">167 With regard to the structural collaboration between the Federation of Liturgical Associations and the Catholic Radio Station, see LAUWAERT, *Verslag over de methoden van Liturgische Actie in Nederland*, p. 264-265</footnote>

<footnote n="168">168 FEYS, *Liturgisch Tijdschrift – Tijdschrift voor Liturgie. Een liturgisch panorama 1910-1946*, p. 207-208. Given the limits in time and space, we cannot discuss all contributions to the liturgical movement in both the Netherlands and Belgium; for further details, see FEYS, p. 208-209.</footnote>

<footnote n="169">169 See VERSNEL-MERGAERTS, *Van rubriekenjager tot wetenschappelijk grensganger*, p. 174-178.</footnote>

<footnote n="170">170 Lucas BRINKHOFF, Bruning, *Eliseus*, in *Liturgisch Woordenboek*, Roermond, 1958-1962, k. 334-335; M. HOONDERT, *Eliseus Bruning (1892-1958): A Church Musicologist*, in L. VAN TONGEREN, M. BARNARD, P. POST & G. ROUWHORST (eds.), *Patterns and Persons. A Historiography of Liturgical Studies in the Netherlands in the Twentieth Century*, Leuven-Paris-Walpole, MA, 2010, p. 261-283.</footnote>

<footnote n="171">171 See VERSNEL-MERGAERTS, *Van rubriekenjager tot wetenschappelijk grensganger*, p. 82-88.</footnote>
growing (academic) interest in the study of liturgy.<fnref n="172" /> The liturgical movement was, from the very beginning well organised and, as mentioned above, already in 1915 there existed a federation of liturgical associations in the Netherlands (*Federatie van Liturgische Verenigingen in Nederland*).<fnref n="173" /> There was interaction with the Belgian liturgical movement, Keizersberg being a source of inspiration for the Dutch liturgical movement.<fnref n="174" /> Dutch liturgists participated in conferences, organised in Belgium, and in fact regularly took to the floor. In any case, up to the beginning of World War II, Belgium remained an important source of inspiration for the Dutch liturgical movement.<fnref n="175" />

From its very beginning, the movement cooperated in close relation with the official Episcopal organisations. The directives of bishops and pope were carefully followed,<fnref n="176" /> even although one got the impression that there was some discrepancy between the Episcopal praise of the liturgical work and the factual support of it.<fnref n="177" /> Liturgical congresses were organized such as the one at Breda (1911). More than 400 people were present and a Flemish participant wrote in his report that he was surprised that so many women (half of the audience) were present. He also mentioned the presence of the press,<fnref n="178" /> at least two indications that women and presence of press were absent at meetings of Belgian liturgists. In any case, in several dioceses existed local committees for liturgical action, often under the guidance of a chaplain in collaboration with lay people.<fnref n="179" /> The aims are very similar to what one can find in other countries: to offer a more appropriate liturgical training to the priests and religious; to stimulate growing awareness among the faithful of the importance of liturgy. Like elsewhere, the liturgical movement was confronted with resistance, both of the clergy and of the faithful, the first worrying about their primacy in liturgy, the second happy with their devotional practices and the use of the personal missal.<fnref n="180" />

Already in 1920, a commission for liturgical publications for the people was created, which in a sense centralized the many diocesan initiatives.<fnref n="181" /> The liturgical movement also made efforts in order to spread liturgical knowledge among non-Catholics. Under the impulses of the *St-Gregorius-vereniging* (the St. Gregory Association), special attention was paid to the promotion of Gregorian chant.<fnref n="182" /> At

<footnote n="172">¹⁷² See the survey of VERSNEL-MERGAERTS, *Van rubriekenjager tot wetenschappelijk grensganger*, a gold mine of information about the liturgical developments in the Netherlands.</footnote>

<footnote n="173">¹⁷³ BOT, *Zingt allen mee*, p. 320-327.</footnote>

<footnote n="174">¹⁷⁴ VAN TONGEREN, *From Liturgical Movement to Liturgy on the Move*, p. 33.</footnote>

<footnote n="175">¹⁷⁵ BRINKHOFF, *Nederland*, k. 1874.</footnote>

<footnote n="176">¹⁷⁶ LAUWAERT, *Verslag over de methoden van Liturgische Actie in Nederland*, p. 270-272. One should not forget that the Roman-Catholic hierarchy was only restored in the Netherlands in 1853. The commitment to both pope and bishops played an important role in the identity building of the Catholics in the Netherlands. VAN TONGEREN, *From Liturgical Movement to Liturgy on the Move*, p. 28-29.</footnote>

<footnote n="177">¹⁷⁷ BRINKHOFF, *Nederland*, col. 1875.</footnote>

<footnote n="178">¹⁷⁸ ZIE BOT, *Zingt allen mee*. p. 120.</footnote>

<footnote n="179">¹⁷⁹ LAUWAERT, *Verslag over de methoden van Liturgische Actie in Nederland*, p. 267-268.</footnote>

<footnote n="180">¹⁸⁰ See Lodewijk J. ROGIER, *In vrijheid herboren*, p. 656; 825.</footnote>

<footnote n="181">¹⁸¹ LAUWAERT, *Verslag over de methoden van Liturgische Actie in Nederland*, p. 264-265.</footnote>

<footnote n="182">¹⁸² LAUWAERT, *Verslag over de methoden van Liturgische Actie in Nederland*, p. 266-267.</footnote>
the same time, it should be said that this association was not really in favour of the use
of the vernacular for liturgical songs. It was only accepted in parishes where people
were not able to organize Gregorian masses.<fnref n="183" /> This is not to say that the association
was opposed to the active participation of the faithful in the liturgy, but it should
be done in Latin, as was requested by Pius XI.<fnref n="184" /> In this regard, one should be aware
of the fact that the initial promoters of Gregorian chant were the Benedictines of
Oosterhout, an abbey founded as refuge for the French monks who had to leave their
abbey in Wisques (France). Their approach was very much influenced by Solesmes.
The ideals as promoted by the St. Gregory Association with resistance from the St.
Cecilia school of Church music, the latter clearly a promoter of the vernacular in
Church music. As a result, what, at the beginning of the century was experienced as
something new (Gregorian chant), soon was considered as conservative, for not taking
into account the growing awareness of and sympathy for songs in the vernacular.<fnref n="185" />

An important impetus for the liturgical movement was the introduction of the Mass weeks, an idea developed in Flanders, and taken over in the Netherlands. Liturgical education was part of the religious instruction in Catholic schools, but did not immediately result in the promotion of active participation in the liturgy.<fnref n="186" />

The interest in liturgy was developed in discussion with what happened in Germany. The developments in Germany before World War II, especially with regard to the Gemeinschaftsmesse and the Betsingmesse were openly discussed in Catholic newspapers such as the Maasbode. The people in the Netherlands clearly did not share the enthusiasm of their German neighbours. In this regard, one should of course mention the role of the St. Gregory Association. Moreover, quite a number of conversions such as those of the author Hélène Nolthenius or the later bishop of Rotterdam, Philippe Bär, were partly the result of their admiration for the Roman Catholic liturgy and its beauty.<fnref n="187" /> This explains why, because of the implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium, many converts, disappointed, will leave the Roman Catholic Church, thus making clear that external elements more than a profound understanding of the Catholic liturgy had stimulated them, something one cannot say about Bär, for whom the discovery of Chevetogne, Belgium, not only meant a deep appreciation of the authentic Benedictine liturgical insight, but also resulted in a growing sensitivity for ecumenism.

As stated above, many initiatives were taken before World War II, but one
sometimes is looking in vain for some coherence. The *Dutch Federation of Liturgical Associations* in the Netherlands had started with its own journal. Soon, the Norbertines of Heeswijk started with the journal *The Sacrifice* (in fact the continuation of the *Tijdschrift van de Aartsbroederschap der H. Mis van Eerherstel*). The Fathers of the Holy

<footnote n="183">¹⁸³ BOT, *Zingt allen mee*, p. 120-121.</footnote>

<footnote n="184">¹⁸⁴ See *Divini cultus*, in AAS, 21 (1929), p. 33-41, p. 40; see also LAMBERTS, *L'évolution de la notion de "participation active"*, p. 99-100.</footnote>

<footnote n="185">¹⁸⁵ VAN TONGEREN, *From Liturgical Movement to Liturgy on the Move*, p. 38-39.</footnote>

<footnote n="186">¹⁸⁶ LAUWAERT, *Verslag over de methoden van Liturgische Actie in Nederland*, p. 269-270.</footnote>

<footnote n="187">¹⁸⁷ See Judith DE RAAT, *Naar een groter huis. Portret van Mgr. Philippe Bär*, in Marjet DERKS, Peter NISSEN and Judith DE RAAT (eds.), *Het licht gezien, bekeringen tot het katholicisme in de 20ste eeuw*, Hilversum, 2000.</footnote>
Sacrament of Brakkenstein (near Nijmegen) founded the journal SS. *Eucharistia*. In other words, in the Low Countries there were, at the time, too many journals and this explains that, also because of the problems of World War II, the Belgian *Liturgisch Tijdschrift* really came into trouble.

During the Second World War, an attempt was made to coordinate the liturgical initiatives, but it partly failed.<fnref n="188" /> In 1946, an international liturgical conference was organised at Maastricht.<fnref n="189" /> It was an initiative of great liturgists such as Brinkhoff and the Jesuit Schmidt (1912-1982). 500 people participated. The conference made clear that the two lines of the liturgical movement still existed: pleas in favour of a liturgy in the vernacular were squared to interventions emphasizing more professionalisation with regard to the (Gregorian) Church chant.<fnref n="190" /> However, the conference became the start of a growing collaboration. Proposals such as that about better coordination of activities related to liturgy and church music were made. Several liturgical journals decided to collaborate: the Dutch *Ons Liturgisch Tijdschrift* decided to join the *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie*. The conference contributed to better collaboration between secular priests and religious en among the religious themselves. In any case, this conference would be the starting point of a more scientific and a better pastoral and organisational underpinning of the liturgical life and celebration. Only the St. Gregory-Association refused.<fnref n="191" /> During the conference, pleas were held in favour of bringing the liturgy closer to the faithful, or as one of the speakers said: "Le problème de la Liturgie populaire, de la Liturgie tout court, me semble donc l'un des très graves problèmes de l'heure." "Notre Liturgie non dans sa substance certes, mais dans certaines de ses formes extrinsèques est morte. Elle est morte dans sa langue". "Si donc le movement liturgique se limitait à certaines classes intellectuelles et sociales, il trahirait sa mission".

It had become clear that there was a gap between liturgy and the faithful. Also, it became clear that the speakers were in favour of the idea that the liturgy had to come to the people not the other way around. At the same time, the conference made clear that there were still people who were of the opinion that the laity only had a marginal role to play in the Eucharistic celebration, something which, in comparison to Belgium and Germany, at least after World War II, is a bit surprising. However, one of the other great Dutch liturgists, explicitly referring to Pius XI's *Divini cultus*, stressed that the role of the people in the liturgical celebration was essential. Bruning, the one I am referring to, made clear that the singing by the congregation belonged to the essence of the liturgical celebration.

The creation of an Interdiocesan Liturgical Secretariat in 1952 resulted in better collaboration with Belgium. It was also an important step of the liturgical movement before Vatican II. The *Society for Liturgical Studies*, founded by G. Laudy and A. Verheul, stimulated the study of the liturgy and really contributed to the deepening

<footnote n="188">¹⁸⁸ Lucas BRINKHOFF, *Dom Dr. Ambroos Verheul en Tijdschrift voor Liturgie*, p. 14-15.</footnote>

<footnote n="189">¹⁸⁹ *Verslagboek van het internationaal liturgisch congres gehouden te Maastricht van 27 juli tot 2 augustus 1946, Maastricht-Vroenhoven, not dated.*</footnote>

<footnote n="190">¹⁹⁰ *Bot, Zingt allen mee*, p. 122-123 (with further literature).</footnote>

<footnote n="191">¹⁹¹ *FEYS, *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie. Een liturgisch panorama 1947-1985*, p. 476-481.</footnote>
of the liturgical life.<fnref n="192" /> It also became a means for the development of contacts with colleagues at home and abroad.<fnref n="193" /> Research was promoted. Liturgy became more and more a discipline in its own right, certainly still dominated by the historical approaches, but with a growing awareness of the importance of liturgical practice based on biblical, theological and daily life perspectives.<fnref n="194" /> The yearly conferences were an ideal opportunity for exchange and reflection. In 1956, the dioceses of Utrecht, Groningen and Breda started with the Dutch Community Mass, in fact a copy of the German Gemeinschaftsmesse.

In the Netherlands, earlier than in the other countries under consideration, the number of parish councils was growing. In these councils, not only were financial questions discussed, but also elements such as the appropriate time for liturgical celebrations and ecclesiastical exercises. It goes without saying that this active involvement in parish life also resulted in a growing awareness that training of lay people (also intellectually trained lay people) was needed.<fnref n="195" /> Like in Belgium, people were of the opinion that, without a good theological training, lay people cannot fill in in an adequate way their responsibilities as Christians in the places they have to work. Insight in faith and the living of the faith request adequate formation. Without theological training a layperson is not able to discover the right relation between science and faith, world and Church. In this context, an interesting initiative of the Norbertines of Berne-Heeswijk should be mentioned. Here, some fathers started in 1948 with liturgical study days for teachers. Topics such as liturgy, Eucharist, the ecclesiastical year, baptism, Bible and liturgy, active participation and Eucharist and the youth were discussed.<fnref n="196" /> The aim was clear: developing a liturgical sensitivity among those who were expected to introduce the youth into Christian life and mystery. In any case, there was a growing insight that all are members of the Church, all give the Church its image, not only the hierarchy and the clergy. In other words, the laity is also responsible for the Church.<fnref n="197" /> Further, new developments such as the approved alternative Easter celebration of 1951 were extremely well received in the Netherlands: about 65% of the parishes made use of it.

The Netherlands, just like Belgium, was really a country of missionaries. It goes without saying that this link also played a role in the development of universal liturgical sensitivities. This became clear during a conference on Mission in Nijmegen-

<footnote n="192">¹⁹² See L. VAN TONGEREN, *Fifty Years of the Dutch Study Group 'The Society for Liturgical Studies'*, in *Questions liturgiques*, 87 (2006), p. 161-178.</footnote>

<footnote n="193">¹⁹³ VERSNEL-MERGAERTS, *Tendensen in de Liturgische Beweging en de liturgiewetenschap van de twintigste eeuw*, p. 245-246.</footnote>

<footnote n="194">¹⁹⁴ VAN TONGEREN, *From Liturgical Movement to Liturgy on the Move*, p. 47. With regard to the important role of Jan Prein in the development of liturgical scholarschip, see Petra VERSNEL-MERGAERTS, *Jan Prein (1901-1957). A Pioneer of Liturgical Scholarship*, in VAN TONGEREN, BARNARD, POST, and ROUWHORST (eds.), *Patterns and Persons*, p. 313-337.</footnote>

<footnote n="195">¹⁹⁵ See, e.g., *Ons standpunt*, p. 5-7.</footnote>

<footnote n="196">¹⁹⁶ FEYS, *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie. Een liturgisch panorama 1947-1985*, p. 500.</footnote>

<footnote n="197">¹⁹⁷ Bernard DELFGAAUW, *Theologische week te Nijmegen*, in *De Maand*, 1 (1958), p. 64-65.</footnote>
Uden (the Netherlands).<fnref n="198" /> Missionaries not only asked for the use of the vernacular but also held a plea in favour of a complete reformation of the mass. Universality necessarily implied diversity; maybe more important than such pleas was the fact that people like Cardinal Gracias of India, so influential during the Council, were present and took the floor, at a meeting that rightly can be described as an emancipating one: Third World Church leaders took the floor and held pleas in favour of a development of an “indigenous” theology, for this receiving not only the full support of first world theologians, but often also the ammunition: an “European” Christendom became more and more a universal Christendom.<fnref n="199" />

## ROMAN SURVEILLANCE

All these things happened under the surveillance of Rome, a surveillance which was often supportive, sometimes critical, but always inspired by the conviction that it is Rome that must take the lead when it comes to decisions. Moreover, the list of decisions of Pius XII with regard to liturgy is impressive and revealing. In 1950, he ratified the new German ritual and that of several other countries.<fnref n="200" /> Bilingual rituals were already approved in 1941, especially in Africa and India. The encyclical *Mediator Dei* (1947) was interpreted as an approval of the liturgical movement and is today described as an important step towards the constitution *Sacrosanctum Concilium*. Mentors of the liturgical movement qualified it at the time as their *Magna Charta*.<fnref n="201" /> However, a careful reading of this encyclical reveals that the pope both praises and admonishes, clearly hinting at the crisis in the German liturgical movement. Moreover, the encyclical also makes explicitly clear that in the Roman Catholic Church, it is Rome that decides what is good, acceptable, permissible or deserves disapproval. After World War II, the power of decision was, more than before, the right and responsibility of the hierarchy, as becomes clear in the many initiatives of Pius XII.<fnref n="202" /> Logical as it might be, it is precisely this tension between what people experience at the grass roots level and what is approved by Rome that will result in the difficult and complicated implementation of *Sacrosanctum Concilium*.<fnref n="203" /> The encyclical emphasizes the importance of active participation in

<footnote n="198">¹⁹⁸ For the acts, see *Missions et liturgie*. That both in Asia and Africa a concern for the adaptation of the liturgy to the local culture existed, is made clear in, among others, Paul PULLIKKAN and Mathijs LAMBERIGTS, *The Vota of the Indian Bishops and their Participation in the Liturgy Debate during the Second Vatican Council*, in *Questions liturgiques*, 78 (1997), p. 61-79; A. NJOKU-M. LAMBERIGTS, *Vatican II. The Vota of the Anglophone West African Bishops concerning the Sacred Liturgy*, in *Questions Liturgiques*, 81 (2000), p. 89-121. Already in 1947, the author of *Ons standpunt*, p. 5 emphasized that the Western liturgy was quite foreign to the human experiences of Christian in e.g. China and Japan.</footnote>

<footnote n="199">¹⁹⁹ See Gilles ROUTHIER, *La liturgie aux prises avec un monde et une Église en mutation*, in *La Maison-Dieu, 260* (2009), p. 153-181, see p. 156-158.</footnote>

<footnote n="200">²⁰⁰ Johannes Andreas JUNGMANN, *Liturgie vivante*, in *Paroisse et Liturgie*, 3 (1956), p. 175; thematic issue *Assise-Rome of La Maison-Dieu*, nrs. 47/48, 1956 (both for France and Italy).</footnote>

<footnote n="201">²⁰¹ Ambroos VERHEUL, *De Magna Charta der liturgische beweging*, in *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie*, 32 (1948), p. 4-16.</footnote>

<footnote n="202">²⁰² ROUTHIER, *La liturgie aux prises*, p. 154-155.</footnote>

<footnote n="203">²⁰³ Mathijs LAMBERIGTS, *The Liturgy Debate*, in ALBERIGO and KOMONCHAK (eds.), *History of Vatican II. Vol. II: The Formation of the Council's Identity. First Period and Intersession (October 1962-September 1963)*,</footnote>
the liturgy, while at the same time appreciating the idea that liturgy is also a form of
meditation and devotional practices, thus reconciling new insights and issues, going
back to a previous period, and then disapproved by the promoters of the liturgical
movement. The encyclical remains rather vague about the common priesthood of
the faithful and its relation to the participation in the sacrifice. In other words, the
theology of the common priesthood of the faithful has not yet found its way in Rome.
The encyclical also deals with the missal as a help to follow the Mass, invites the
bishops to order properly the liturgical action, expresses the wish that in every diocese
a liturgical commission will be created in order to promote the liturgical apostolate.
The encyclical clearly emphasises that Latin as language must be used for it is a clear
and remarkable sign of unity. The pope does not deny that the use of the vernacular
might be useful with regard to some rites, but explicitly states that a decision about
this matter only can be taken by the Holy See.<fnref n="204" /> In other words, the permission to
use the vernacular is the right of the Holy See. More important is that it is the pope
who puts this issue on the agenda.

At the same time, it should be stressed that what a pope writes and decides are not
always coincidental. Indeed, one week after the publication of *Mediator Dei*, Rome
approved the Latin-French ritual.<fnref n="205" /> In 1950, Germany received the approval of its
*Collectio Rituum*, an important step in the use of the vernacular. In 1951, Pius XII
restored the Easter Saturday Vigil. Many other papal decisions could be mentioned,
e.g. the simplification of the rubrics of the breviary and the missal in 1955, the revision
of the celebration of the Holy Week in the same year,<fnref n="206" /> the encyclical *Musicae Sacrae
Disciplina* (again 1955), a document dealing with the essence and the design of Church
Music.<fnref n="207" /> In the same period the English-Latin *Collectio* was introduced. The Trier-
Paris connection, resulting in the Lugano conference of 1953, offered the Diocese of
Lugano the joy to be the first diocese that received the approval of a Latin-Italian
ritual in 1956. In other words, important as the region I discussed might have been,
everywhere, many things were underway in the 1950s. The list of the participants
in the liturgical Congress of Assisi (1956), rightly described as a first pinnacle of the
liturgical movement,<fnref n="208" /> makes this clear. However, it should also be reminded that
the famous Congress of Assisi ended with a speech of Pius XII in Rome, in which he
both insisted on the duty to use Latin in the liturgy and expressed critical reservations

<footnote>p. 107-166.</footnote>

<footnote n="204">²⁰⁴DE CLERCK, *Actieve deelname*, p. 27-30.</footnote>

<footnote n="205">²⁰⁵Bilingual rituals had already been approved for Africa and Asia in 1941, a proof that Rome was aware of the problems the Latin liturgy caused in non-European contexts.</footnote>

<footnote n="206">²⁰⁶J. LOEW, *Bemerkingen bij de “Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae Instauratus”*, in *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie*, 40 (1956), p. 18-28.</footnote>

<footnote n="207">²⁰⁷See, e.g., E. BRUNING, *Musicae Sacrae Disciplina. Beschouwingen over de nieuwe encycliek van Paus Pius XII over de kerkmuziek*, in *Tijdschrift voor Liturgie*, 40 (1956), p. 70-77.</footnote>

<footnote n="208">²⁰⁸It is interesting to see that giants of the liturgical movement such as J.A. Jungmann, B. Capelle, O. Rousseau and cardinal Bologna took the floor at this conference, at which about 1400 people participated; see *Témoignage Chrétien*, October 5, 1956. See also JUNGMANN, *Liturgie vivante*, p. 175. Worth to be consulted is the thematic issue of *La Maison-Dieu*, nrs. 47/48 about the Assisi-Rome meeting.</footnote>
with regard to concelebration.<fnref n="209" /> Both aspects seem to be supported by later decisions such the instruction of the Congregation of the Rites (September 3, 1958) and the apostolic constitution of February 24, 1962, the latter stressing again the irreplaceable role of Latin.<fnref n="210" /> It goes without saying that precisely these topics will be subject to debate at the Council.<fnref n="211" />

The Roman decisions as taken between 1947 and 1958 seem to support the Benedictine line of the liturgical movement, neglecting or at least not sufficiently understanding that the pastoral liturgical movement was becoming more and more important. In fact, not every parish was able to meet the standards as requested for the Gregorian sung high mass. Moreover, the existing official rubrics were experienced as a hindrance for a truly liturgical development. It also should be said that at the time the Benedictine line only seemed to reach a small elite, able to understand Latin and familiar with the liturgical language and its symbolic power. Most of the people were not able to really participate in such “high level” liturgy. Of course, people referred to the missal, but, given the developments in liturgical reflection, what was once a help, now turned out to be a hindrance.

At the same time, it should be said that people probably overestimated what could be done in the Council. Already in 1961, the German liturgist Balthasar Fischer (1912-2001) warned one of his students of unrealistic expectations and private initiatives that could result in relativism with regard to the liturgy of the time.<fnref n="212" /> In his diary, Romano Guardini wrote on May 26, 1953: “Die liturgische Bewegung hat zuerst die restaurative Phase durchlaufen (Solesmes); dann die akademische (Maria Laach, Beuron, Akademikerverband); dann die realistische (Rothenfels, Leipzig er Oratorium, Klosterneuburg)”.<fnref n="213" /> It might well be that what once was a minimum programme, at the eve of the Council was to be the maximum.<fnref n="214" />

Mathijs LAMBERIGTS
K.U.Leuven

<footnote n="209">²⁰⁹ Pius XII's speech was not only a support for the liturgical movement; it was also a speech full of warnings and appeals to respect the hierarchical order in liturgicis. DE CLERCK, *Actieve deelname*, p. 33-34.</footnote>

<footnote n="210">²¹⁰ FOUILLOUX, 'Mouvements théologico-spirituels' et concile (1959-1962), p. 195-196.</footnote>

<footnote n="211">²¹¹ LAMBERIGTS, *The Liturgy Debate*, p. 107-166</footnote>

<footnote n="212">²¹² See Balthasar FISCHER, *Que faut-il attendre du concile? Lettre à un jeune curé*, in *La Maison-Dieu*, 66 (1961), p. 6-9.</footnote>

<footnote n="213">²¹³ Quoted in GRILLO, *Der Liturgiebegriff bei Pius Parsch*, p. 191.</footnote>

<footnote n="214">²¹⁴ GRILLO, *Der Liturgiebegriff bei Pius Parsch*, p. 195.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
# THE CONCILIAR SCHEMA DE DEPOSITO FIDEI ON “DOC-TRINAL PROGRESS”

## AN ANALYSIS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF PRECONCILIAR THEORIES OF DOGMATIC DEVELOPMENT

### INTRODUCTION

The problem of dogmatic development led to one of the most obvious trials of strength that have taken place between neo-scholasticism and a new theological approach, from the end of the 1930s onwards.<fnref n="1" /> As the fact of dogmatic development raised the question of history and contingency in the domain of theology, it heavily discomfited a-historical Neo-Scholasticism and its logical theories of dogmatic development. No logical device was able to cover the facts that history brought to light.<fnref n="2" /> In contrast, the fact of dogmatic development opened up possibilities for ‘new’ —or ‘anti-intellectualist’— theologians to revise standard Neo-Scholastic conceptions of revelation, faith, tradition, the Church or theological epistemology and methodology as to offer more plausible accounts of concrete cases of dogmatic development (especially in the field of mariology).<fnref n="3" /> As the problem of dogmatic development was thus the sore point of Neo-Scholastic theology in its struggle against new approaches to theology in the 1940s and 1950s, it is interesting to find out how it was dealt with in the ante-preparatory and preparatory phase of the Second Vatican Council, taking into consideration the mainly Neo-Scholastic mould of the texts produced in this period.

In what follows, we will start with a discussion of two outstanding examples of the ‘new’ approaches to dogmatic development. Firstly, this begins with the theory of Louis Charlier, which caused a major shock among Neo-Scholastic theologians at the end of the 1930s. He was condemned in 1942, and continued to arouse vehement opposition in the 1950s and early 1960s. Secondly, the theory of Henri de Lubac is discussed as one of the most thorough expressions of the new theological approach to dogmatic development and as a criterion to assess to what extent these new approaches had been taken into account in the discussions on dogmatic development in the ante-preparatory and preparatory phases of the Council. Next, the teaching of Pius XII on dogmatic development is analyzed on the basis of the encyclical *Humanis generis* and the bull *Munificentissimus Deus*. It will be argued that this teaching is

<footnote n="1">¹ Ted Mark SCHOOF, *A Survey of Catholic Theology 1800-1970*, Eugene, 2008, p. 159.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Jan WALGRAVE, *Unfolding Revelation. The Nature of Doctrinal Development* (Theological Resources, 4), London, 1972, p. 334.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ See for instance the plausible defense of the definability of the Assumption by Henri Rondet, a Jesuit from the school of Fourvière: Henri RONDET, *La définibilité de l'Assumption*, in *Études Mariales. Bulletin de la Société Française d'Études Mariales*, 6 (1948), p. 59-95.</footnote>
the principal source for the doctrine on dogmatic development in *De Deposito Fidei*. Finally, we will trace the theme of dogmatic development in the ante-preparatory and preparatory documents of the Second Vatican Council; this is from the *vota* of the Council down to chapter V (*De progressu Doctrinae*) of schema II of *De Deposito Fidei pure custodiendo*. In the conclusion, we will try to assess the continuity and discontinuity between the doctrine on dogmatic development in the ante-preparatory and preparatory documents of the Second Vatican Council on the one hand, and the preconciliar approaches (*Nouvelle théologie*, Neo-Scholastic theology, and teaching of Pius XII) on the other.

## ‘NEW’ APPROACHES TO DOGMATIC DEVELOPMENT

### THE THEORIES OF LOUIS CHARLIER O.P. AND HENRI DE LUBAC S.J.
AND THE SURROUNDING CONTROVERSIES

In 1951, the Gregorian University organized a “theological week” on the question of the progress of Catholic doctrine.<fnref n="4" /> This question had become the focal point of theological interest due to two recent magisterial documents: *Humani generis* and *Munificentissimus Deus*. In *Humani generis*, the dogmatic relativism of new theological approaches was reproved, but at the same time a continuous progress of doctrine was acknowledged. The definition of the Bodily Assumption of the Mother of God, defined as dogma in the bull *Munificentissimus Deus*, was a manifest and instructive example of such a dogmatic development. In his opening lecture at the conference, Maurizio Flick, a professor at the Gregorian University, offered a *status quaestionis* on the problem of dogmatic development in contemporaneous theology.<fnref n="5" /> Dogmatic development is indeed a problem, so Flick explained, because one has to determine in what way the fullness of apostolic times or the objective close of revelation with the death of the last apostle can be reconciled with the gradual development of Christian dogma, the undeniable reality of which was again proved by the recent dogmatization of the Assumption. With regard to the ways to explain this development, Flick distinguished two divergent tendencies in modern theology: the one ‘intellectualist’ and the other ‘anti-intellectualist’. In reference to Bartholomé Xiberta,<fnref n="6" /> the later redactor of chapter five (*De progressu Doctrinae*) of *De Deposito Fidei*, Flick asserted that the fundamental difference between ‘intellectualist’ and ‘anti-intellectualist’ theologians regards the notion of revelation.<fnref n="7" /> ‘Intellectualist’ theologians conceive revelation as the communication of a doctrine by God. As a consequence, dogmatic development is to be understood as a progress in the knowledge of this doctrine, a progress that can never lead to the formulation of new dogmas that do not have a

<footnote n="4">⁴ Lo sviluppo del dogma secondo la dottrina cattolica. Relazioni lette nella seconda Settimana teologica 24-28 Settembre 1951, Rome, 1953.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Maurizio FLICK, *Il problema dello sviluppo del dogma nella Teologia contemporanea*, in Lo sviluppo del dogma secondo la dottrina cattolica. Relazioni lette nella seconda Settimana teologica 24-28 Settembre 1951, Roma, 1953, p. 5-23.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ On Xiberta, see *infra*.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ Maurizio FLICK, *Il problema*, p. 9-10.</footnote>
(logical) bond with what was known explicitly from the beginning. According to Flick, this ‘intellectualist’ tendency was still common and dominant among Catholic theologians at the beginning of the 1950s.

In contrast, the revelation theology of ‘anti-intellectualist’ theologians is marked by the emphasis on the ontological reality of the new life that has been given to the Church in Christ. Consequently, dogmatic progress takes place independent of the growth of this life in the Church, and it is expressed in formulations that do not have a logical relation with each other. All these formulations refer to the same reality, which is ever more perfectly experienced and assimilated in the history of the Church. As representatives of this “anti-intellectualist doctrine”, Flick discussed the theories of Charlier and de Lubac.<fnref n="8" />

To translate the distinction of Flick into a more generally accepted terminology today, one could say that Charlier and de Lubac elaborated so-called ‘theo-logical’ —instead of ‘anti-intellectualist’— theories of dogmatic development as opposed to ‘logical’ theories.<fnref n="9" /> Although theological theories have their early origins in the ideas of 19th and early 20th century theologians like Johann Adam Möhler, John Henry Newman and Maurice Blondel, it is only at the end of the 1930s that the controversies that would lead to a definitive break-through in the ‘theological’ solution began. They were stirred up by Louis Charlier’s *Essai sur le problème théologique* (1938).<fnref n="10" />

One of the main goals of Charlier in writing his *Essai* was precisely to provide a satisfying solution to the problem of dogmatic development, as the logical approach of Neo-Scholastic theology was highly deficient. Scholasticism was, by its very nature, unable to accept a real development of dogma. Charlier realized that a revised theology of revelation was indispensable to a more fruitful approach towards the problem. He urged to abandon the exclusive conceptualistic approach of revelation as the communication of a number of truths for the benefit of a notion of revelation as the reality of the self-giving God in Christ, present in the Church. Revelation is then completed when the Church is founded, because revelation is nothing else than God giving himself to us in Christ in the mystery of the Incarnation, of which the mystery of the Church is a continuation. This means that the reality of divine revelation — God revealed in Christ— came to us by means of the Church. The revealed given is in the Church, in its life and preaching (and not in the sources of revelation). Our divine faith directs itself to the revealed that is actually present in the Church and is expressed infallibly by the magisterium.<fnref n="11" />

Given the inextricable bond between revelation and Church, dogmatic development has to be understood against the background of the process of growth in the life of the Church, which is nothing less than a development of the reality of

<footnote n="8">⁸ FLICK, *Il problema*, p. 18-20.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ The distinction between ‘logical’ and ‘theological’ theories of dogmatic development was introduced by the Louvain theologian René Draguet (1896-1980) in *L’évolution des dogmes*, in Maurice BRILLANT and M. NÉDONCELLE (ed.), *Apologétique. Nos raisons de croire. Réponses aux objections*, Paris, 1937, p. 1166-1192.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ WALGRAVE, *Unfolding Revelation*, p. 338.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ Louis CHARLIER, *Essai sur le problème théologique* (Bibliothèque Orientations. Section scientifique, 1), Thuillies, 1938, p. 66-70.</footnote>
revelation in the Church.<fnref n="12" /> With this growth of the “donné-révélé-réalité” corresponds a growth of the “donné-révélé-connaissance”. The development of knowledge is thus possible because the Church in its living faith not only reaches the extrinsic formulation, but through this formulation touches upon the reality of God’s gift itself. The Church possesses the *sensus Christi*. It is the mission of the magisterium of the Church to define the inner growth of revelation in precise, but always analogous terms. Thus, the Church’s preaching is the expression of the Church’s faith that exists in a continuous intuitive contact with the revealed.<fnref n="13" /> In other words, the process of dogmatic development is not to be conceived as a process of conceptual deduction, but as an inductive process: the knowledge of the Church grows through its mystical perception or intuition of the revealed reality with its proper life and mysterious law of development.

It is obvious that from a traditional viewpoint on dogmatic development, the views of Charlier were very disturbing for two main reasons. Firstly, although Charlier acknowledged that, following the death of the Apostles, there could be no further public revelation, he refused to restrict development of doctrine to an increase in subjective appropriation —the crucial tenet of Neo-Scholastic theologians. Instead, for Charlier, there was a mysterious development and growth of the revealed deposit in the Church.<fnref n="14" /> Secondly, this progress is determined by the divine logic of the reality of revelation itself, which is wrapped in mystery and which only becomes clear to human knowledge in so far as God himself plays a part in the processes of human thought. Ultimately, then, the development of dogma cannot be registered either by deductive thought or by strictly historical research, but only by the Church’s consciousness of faith.<fnref n="15" /> For these two reasons, Charlier was strongly opposed by Neo-Scholastic theologians accusing him of continuing revelation, irrationalism and mysticism.

In his commentary on the formal condemnation of the *Essai sur le problème théologique* by the Holy Office,<fnref n="16" /> Pietro Parente<fnref n="17" /> denounced Charlier’s refusal to restrict dogmatic development to a progress in knowledge, by linking it to the modernist idea of continuous revelation, as condemned in the encyclical *Pascendi Dominici Gregis*.<fnref n="18" /> The other controversial thesis of Charlier —human logic cannot

<footnote n="12">¹² “Toute la réalité divine grandit, en tant que donnée, en tant qu’assimilée, en tant qu’il y a croissance du Christ dans son Église, dans la mesure où celle-ci s’identifie à Lui”. CHARLIER, *Essai*, p. 70.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ CHARLIER, *Essai*, p. 71.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ Hans BOERSMA, *Nouvelle Théologie and Sacramental Ontology. A Return to Mystery*, Oxford, 2009, p. 218.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ SCHOOF, *A Survey*, p. 203.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ On 6 February 1942, the *Essai sur le problème théologique* was put on the Index. See *Decretum. Proscriptio librorum* in AAS, 34 (1942), p. 37.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ At that time, Pietro Parente (1891-1986) was *consultor* of the H. Office. In 1959 he was appointed as *Assessor*. As such he wrote the *propositum* of the H. Office for the Council.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ “Tenent [Chenu and Charlier] enim a Deo revelata inconstantia esse et mutabilia ac perpetuo augeri, non solum in mente christifidelium qui ea apprehendunt, sed etiam in seipsis. [...] Quod sane idem est ac si dicatur haberi mutationem et progressum non solum in mente hominum revelationem accipientum, sed in ipsis doctrinis revelatis, quam certe sententiam in modernistis reprobavit Encyclica *Pascendi*. Pietro PARENTE, *Annotationes*, in *Periodica de re morali, canonica, liturgica*, 31 (1942), p. 184-188 (187).</footnote>
always interrelate ‘new’ dogmas with earlier tenets— was most vehemently attacked by Charles Boyer. Between 1940 and 1957, he wrote several articles to defend the idea that the logical method of development<fnref n="19" /> alone preserves the immutability of dogma, thereby denouncing the dangerous association of Charlier with anti-intellectualism and mysticism.<fnref n="20" />

In reaction to the criticism on Charlier, de Lubac, for his part, exposed the flaws of the Neo-Scholastic approach to dogmatic development. At the same time, he opened up some fruitful perspectives to tackle the problem. In *Le problème du développement du dogme*,<fnref n="21" /> De Lubac completely undermines the two fundamental tenets of the Neo-Scholastic approach to dogmatic development. These are, firstly, the conception of dogmatic development as a progress of our knowledge about the revealed given, and secondly, the presupposition of a logical bond between the new dogma and the original revelation. De Lubac will show that these tenets are both based on a deficient conception of revelation.

With regard to the conception of dogmatic development as a progress in knowledge, de Lubac demonstrates the indefensibility of the crucial argument of Neo-Scholastic theologians that the truth of a new dogma is not new in itself (quoad se), as it was contained in the original deposit. Therefore they maintain that the new truth is only new in relation to us (quoad nos). It is not the dogma itself that has progressed, only the knowledge we have of it. For De Lubac though, the idea of a truth that is at once revealed, but nevertheless subsists independent of the knowledge of the one to whom it was communicated, has no real sense. Therefore a theory of dogmatic development has to give an account of the *aporia* that the *knowledge* of revelation is unchangeable, and yet it is also liable to development. Neo-Scholastic theologians fail to do so, as they conceive dogmatic development as a progress within explicit knowledge. They reduce revelation to a certain number of explicitly known formulas, playing before the mind the role of major premises leading to explicitly known conclusions. But these conclusions are decidedly new, and therefore, their definition as dogmas leads to a progress in revelation.

De Lubac points out that the *aporia* can be overcome by revising the conception of revelation. Revelation was not first of all a series of propositions, but a Person, Jesus Christ, the incredible rich object of revelation, “le Tout du dogme”.<fnref n="22" /> This whole of

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ Boyer defines doctrinal development as a logical operation by which a certain truth appears to be contained in another truth that was already held with certainty. “Insomma, lo sviluppo della doctrina si riduce, attraverso diverse occasioni e vari influssi, ad un’operazione logica per cui una verità determinata appare contenuta in un’altra, che già si teneva con certezza”. Charles BOYER, *Lo sviluppo del dogma*, in *Problemi e orientamenti di teologia dommatica*, Vol. 1, Milan, 1957, p. 357-386 (357). For a discussion of Boyer’s theory on dogmatic development, see John GALVIN, *A Critical Survey of Modern Conceptions of Doctrinal Development*, in *Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Catholic Theological Society of America*, Washington, 1950, p. 45-63 (58-59).</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰ See especially Charles BOYER, *Qu'est-ce que la théologie? Réflexions sur une controverse*, in *Gregorianum* 21 (1940), p. 255-266.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹ Henri DE LUBAC, *Le problème du développement du dogme*, in *Recherches de science religieuse*, 35 (1948), p. 130-160. For an English translation, see Henri DE LUBAC, *The Problem of the Development of Dogma*, in Henri DE LUBAC, *Theology in History*, San Francisco CA, 1996, p. 248-280.</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²² DE LUBAC, *Le problème*, p. 157.</footnote>
dogma is not susceptible to any increase. The first Christians had a concrete and living perception of Christ; they had a grasp of all of dogma, as they knew it *per modum unius* in Christ. In Christ, all has been given and revealed to us in one stroke. All later particular dogmas are abstractions separated from the total revelation; they are coins constituting more distinct parts of a treasure already possessed in its entirety. So, there is a development from an implicit, global intuition to explicit knowledge of faith. But this development is never a pure and simple progress: "Let us acknowledge that development is not only progress, but is always and at the same time decay".<fnref n="23" /> The revealed truth surpasses us; each light acquired with respect to it is the cause of a new and more profound obscurity. The *development* of dogma has a totally different nature than the *progress* that is accomplished in the human sciences.<fnref n="24" /> For this reason, de Lubac dislikes the use of the word *progress* to refer to dogmatic development.

With regard to the logical bond, de Lubac points to the fact that the phenomenon of development is far more complex than the problem of theological conclusions, logically linked to original revelation. Given the intrinsically supernatural and mysterious character of revealed truth, it is impossible to transpose the whole dogmatic fact of development onto the plane of the logical process proper to the human mind. The laws of human logic ought not to be applied universally, without precautions and without correctives, to a mystery. Our concepts must be revised and adapted to the revealed truth, which is the norm.<fnref n="25" />

In an article in 1951,<fnref n="26" /> de Lubac again touched upon the issue of the concepts of faith, which was at the heart of the controversy surrounding the *nouvelle théologie*. As revelation is first and foremost the manifestation of a Person,<fnref n="27" /> the Catholic truth will always go beyond its conceptual expression.<fnref n="28" /> "Without doubt", so de Lubac argued, "the Catholic knows well that the formulas themselves that the Church proposes to him are very inadequate with respect to their object —which means that they are imperfect but not that they are inaccurate—for he is himself on the way, not at the end".<fnref n="29" /> Indeed, "the mystery shatters all the rational frameworks [...] in which we seek

<footnote n="23">²³ "Sachons reconnaître que le développement n'est pas seulement progrès, mais qu'il est toujours et en même temps décadence" Henri DE LUBAC, *Corpus Mysticum. L'eucharistie et l'Église au Moyen Âge. Étude historique*, Parijs, 1944, p. 270.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴ DE LUBAC, *The Problem*, p. 264-265.</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵ GALVIN, *A Critical Survey*, p. 56.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶ Henri DE LUBAC, *La doctrine du Père Lebreton sur la Révélation et le dogme d'après ses écrits antimodernistes*, in Henri DE LUBAC, *Théologie dans l'Histoire. II. Questions disputées et résistance au nazisme* (Théologie), Paris, 1990, p. 108-156. English translation: Henri DE LUBAC, *The Doctrine of Father Lebreton on Revelation and Dogma According to His Anti-Modernist Writings*, in Henri DE LUBAC, *Theology in History*, San Francisco, 1996, p. 317-365.</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷ "The person of Jesus is not revealed uniquely by means of formulas, that he himself taught to his apostles. Once again, very far from it! It is that, in his very being, he is Word, Logos, Verbum. 'He is the substantial revelation'". DE LUBAC, *The Doctrine of Father Lebreton*, p. 327.</footnote>

<footnote n="28">²⁸ SCHOOF, *A Survey*, p. 205.</footnote>

<footnote n="29">²⁹ DE LUBAC, *The Doctrine of Father Lebreton*, p. 323. De Lubac supports this tenet with a quote from Léonce de Grandmaison, SJ: "Words are important here only to the degree in which their meaning, actually received, expresses sufficiently a truth that precedes them, surpasses them and will always transcend them".</footnote>
to enclose it”.<fnref n="30" /> For Neo-Scholastic theologians though, the concepts of faith had absolute validity, as the revelation in Christ was only communicated to us in human concepts, and the relationship of those concepts with the reality of salvation was guaranteed by God’s authority.<fnref n="31" /> Only one year before de Lubac wrote his article, the encyclical *Humani generis* (1950) had taught the immutable value of some, “adequately true” concepts of faith, sanctioned by the ecumenical councils.<fnref n="32" /> The idea that the mysteries of faith can only be expressed by means of “approximately true” and always mutable concepts was brought in connection with dogmatic relativism.<fnref n="33" /> De Lubac’s article was censured by the Jesuit censors in Rome (among them, Eduard Dhanis)<fnref n="34" /> declaring that its doctrine was false, Modernist, contrary to the Vatican Council and to the encyclical *Humani generis*. The censors in question forbade the publication of the text<fnref n="35" />.

To summarize, the Neo-Scholastic detractors of Charlier and de Lubac reproved the ‘theo-logical’ approach to dogmatic development for three main raisons. First of all, as this approach refused to conceive dogmatic development as a “progress” of the understanding of revelation (‘subjective’ development of dogma), it seemed to undermine the homogeneity or substantial immutability of dogma, thus allowing for objective development or continuing revelation. Secondly, in the eyes of Neo-Scholastic theologians, the ‘new’ approach appeared to be an abdication of human reason, leaving the development of doctrine to the vague mystical experience of the Church. Finally, the emphasis on the inadequacy of the human concepts to express the object of faith was linked to dogmatic relativism, as denounced in *Humani generis*.

<footnote n="30">³⁰ DE LUBAC, *The Doctrine of Father Lebreton*, p. 350.</footnote>

<footnote n="31">³¹ SCHOOF, *A Survey*, p. 206.</footnote>

<footnote n="32">³² “[..] sed ea quae communi consensu a catholicis doctoribus composita per plura saecula fuere ad aliquam dogmatis intellegentiam attingendam, tam caduco fundamento procul dubio non nituntur. Nituntur enim principiis ac notionibus ex vera rerum creatarum cognitione deductis; in quibus quidem deducendis cognitionibus humanae menti veritas divinitus revelata, quasi stella, per Ecclesiam illuxit. Quare mirum non est aliquas huiusmodi notiones a Conciliis Oecumenicis non solum adhibitas, sed etiam sanctitas esse, ita ut ab eis discedere nefas sit”. *Humani Generis*, in AAS, 42 (1950), p. 566-567.</footnote>

<footnote n="33">³³ “Quod idcirco etiam fieri posse ac debere audaciores quidam affirmant, quia fidei mysteria numquam notionibus adaequate veris significari posse contendunt, sed tantum notionibus “approximativis”, ut aiunt, ac semper mutabilibus, quibus veritas aliquatenus quidem indicetur, sed necessario quoque deformetur. [...] Patet autem ex iis, quae diximus, huiusmodi molimina non tantum ducere ad ‘relativismum’ dogmaticum, quem vocant, sed illum iam reapse continere; cui quidem despectus doctrinae communiter traditae eorumque *vocabulorum*, quibus eadem significatur, satis superque favet”. *Humani Generis*, p. 566.</footnote>

<footnote n="34">³⁴ At the time of the ante-preparatory period of the Second Vatican Council, Eduard Dhanis would write a *votum* on doctrinal progress on behalf of the Gregorian University. De Lubac was convinced that this *votum* was directed against the views he had expounded in his article of 1951. See Henri DE LUBAC, *Carnets du Concile*, Vol. 1., Paris, 2007, p. 51: “J’ai recopié, à la Grégorienne, les deux *Vota* rédigés par le P. Dhanis, préfet des études, pour la commission théologique pré-conciliaire. Ce sont les *Vota* n° 3 et 4: «De declaranda indole revelationis» et «De immutabilitate veritatis et progressu dogmatico». [...] Ces deux *Vota* sont dirigés directement contre le P. Lebreton, le P. de Grandmaison et moi-même; bien entendu, ils déforment totalement notre pensée; ils reproduisent exactement les censures rédigées par le P. Dhanis contre mon étude sur le P. Lebreton”.</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵ DE LUBAC, *The Doctrine of Father Lebreton*, p. 317.</footnote>
THE TEACHING OF PIUS XII ON DOGMATIC DEVELOPMENT

At the First Vatican Council, the doctrinal value of the authority of the magisterium was reinforced at the expense of theology. In the decennia after Vatican I, the claim of the magisterium to govern (*jurisdictio*) the doctrinal side of life of the Church was enforced.<fnref n="36" /> The theology of the magisterium underpinning this turn of events was elaborated by theologians of the 'Roman School' at the Jesuit's Gregorian University.<fnref n="37" /> One of their most distinguished members, Louis Billot, wrote, circa 1900, that the means of knowing what is to be believed is the authority of the living magisterium, defining this magisterium as the "power of authentically proposing and defining revealed truth".<fnref n="38" />

This line of thought reached its apex in 1950 with the encyclical of Pius XII, *Humani generis*. The doctrinal authority is exclusively granted to the "living magisterium":

> Along with these sacred sources [Scripture and Tradition] God has given his church the living magisterium, too, in order to illustrate and develop those truths which are contained only obscurely and, as it were, implicitly, in the deposit of faith. Moreover the divine redeemer has entrusted this deposit for its authentic interpretation, not to each of the faithful, nor even to theologians, but only to the magisterium of the Church.<fnref n="39" />

For the first time the expression "magisterium vivum" is used here in a magisterial document. The living magisterium of the Church is a re-expression and development of a revelation that was given once and for all, in apostolic times. This living magisterium is also described in *Humani generis* as "*norma proxima fidei*;" it is to be given precedence with regard to knowledge about revelation, which was only entrusted to the magisterium of the Church for its authentic interpretation. It is taken for granted that the correct understanding of revealed truth depends more upon the special charism or supernatural light promised by the Divine Saviour only to his lawful representatives than upon the human endowments of mental capacity, culture and study.<fnref n="40" /> Without the guidance of the magisterium, theology is unable to cope with the incommensurable Majesty of the revealed truth.<fnref n="41" /> This implies that in dogmatic development, the role of the magisterium is all-decisive. It is the exclusive mission of the magisterium to illustrate and develop those truths which are contained implicitly in the deposit of faith.

Then what is the role of theology in dogmatic development? It is twofold: preparing the definition and justifying it afterwards. Before a definition, the results

<footnote n="36">³⁶ Guiseppe ALBERIGO, *The Authority of the Church in the Documents of Vatican I and Vatican II*, in Piet F. FRANSEN (ed.), *Authority in the Church*, Leuven, 1983, p. 119-145.</footnote>

<footnote n="37">³⁷ Especially J.B. Franzelin, D. Palmieri, C. Mazella, L. Billot and T. Zapelena. For an overview of their theology of the magisterium see T. Howland SANKS, *Authority in the Church. A Study in Changing Paradigms* (Dissertation Series, 2), Missoula, 1974.</footnote>

<footnote n="38">³⁸ Quoted in SANKS, *Authority*, p. 79-80;</footnote>

<footnote n="39">³⁹ *Humani generis*, in AAS, 42 (1950), p. 569. The English translation is taken from Luigi CIAPPI, *Magisterium of the Church and Sacred Theology*, in Anthony D. LEE (ed.), *Vatican II. The Theological Dimension*, Washington, 1963, p. 196-210, there p. 200.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ CIAPPI, *Magisterium of the Church*, p. 200.</footnote>

<footnote n="41">⁴¹ MAX SECKLER, *Die Theologie als kirchliche Wissenschaft nach Pius XII und Paul VI*, in *Theologische Quartalschrift*, 149 (1969), p. 232.</footnote>
of theological research are of great use and advantage for the magisterium. For Pius XII, the goal of theology consisted in preparing new definitions, while the ideal of the magisterium consisted in defining.<fnref n="42" /> Yet the magisterium was not considered as being bound by the results of theology, but as making its own independent decisions under the assistance of the Holy Spirit.<fnref n="43" /> After the close of the process of dogmatic development, it is the task of theology to show how a doctrine is contained in the sources of revelation in the sense in which it has been defined by the magisterium of the Church.

Two days after the publication of *Humani generis* (12 August 1950), Pius XII announced his intention to define the Assumption. The teaching of *Humani generis* on the nature of the magisterium in relation to theology made the definition possible. In *Munificentissimus Deus* the encyclical's theology of the magisterium is confirmed and applied. In the bull, written by Giuseppe Filograssi, SJ,<fnref n="44" /> the revealed character of the Assumption is demonstrated on the basis of the unanimous consensus of the actual ordinary magisterium of the Church and not on theological arguments.<fnref n="45" /> The new truth is the result of the progressive manifestation of the content of revelation by the infallible *magisterium*, seeing ever more clearly and completely the content of scripture and oral tradition.

## THE DOCTRINE OF DOGMATIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE ANTE-PREPARATORY AND PREPARATORY DOCUMENTS OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL

### THE ANTEPREPARATORY DOCUMENTS: THE PRECONCILIAR VOTA

Considering the close links between the Holy Office and the Theological Commission in general and the subcommission *De Deposito Fidei* in particular, it is appropriate to start with the proposal (*propositum*) of the Holy Office dating from March 1960, a document that was explicitly offered as a future doctrinal draft.<fnref n="46" /> It is interesting to note that the *propositum* was written by Pietro Parente,<fnref n="47" /> who

<footnote n="42">⁴² Il semblait sous Pie XII que le but de la théologie fût de préparer des 'définitions' et que l'idéal du magistère fût de définir». Yves CONGAR, *Église et papauté* (Cogitatio fidei, 184), Paris, p. 309.</footnote>

<footnote n="43">⁴³ SECKLER, *Die Theologie*, p. 229.</footnote>

<footnote n="44">⁴⁴ Filograssi was professor exegesis at the Gregorian University.</footnote>

<footnote n="45">⁴⁵ "Itaque ex ordinarii Ecclesiae Magisterii universali consensu certum ac firmum sumitur argumentum, quo comprobatur corpoream Beatae Mariae Virginis in Caelum Assumptionem —quam quidem, quoad caelestem ipsam 'glorificationem' virginalis corporis almae Dei Matris, nulla humanae mentis facultas naturalibus suis viribus cognoscere poterat— veritatem esse a Deo revelatam [...]". *Munificentissimus Deus*, in AAS, 42 (1950), p. 756-757. Cf. Carlo COLOMBO, *La costituzione dogmatica 'Munificentissimus Deus' et la teologia*, in La Scuola Cattolica, 79 (1951), p. 77.</footnote>

<footnote n="46">⁴⁶ Étienne FOUILLOUX, *The Antepreparatory Phase. The Slow Emergence from Inertia* (January, 1959 – October, 1962), in Giuseppe ALBERIGO and Joseph A. KOMONCHAK (eds.), *History of Vatican II*, Vol. 1: Announcing and Preparing Vatican Council II. Toward a New Era in Catholicism, Maryknoll – Leuven, 1995, p. 151. For the propositum see Acta et documenta Concilio oecumenico Vaticano II apparando; Series prima (antepraeparatoria), Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1960-1961, Vol. III: *Proposta et monita ss. Congregationum Curae Romanae*, 1960, p. 3-17. (Henceforth: ADA, III).</footnote>

<footnote n="47">⁴⁷ As said earlier, Parente had been appointed to Assessor of the H. Office in 1959.</footnote>
had proven himself in the preceding years as the unremitting opponent of Charlier's approach to dogmatic development.<fnref n="48" />

In Parente's *propositum*, the first chapter deals with fundamental questions. The four questions that are mentioned will more or less make up the first four chapters of the later schema *De Deposito Fidei*.<fnref n="49" /> In the question on revelation, the Holy Office asks that an accurate notion of revelation be confirmed against modernist theories. No mention is made here of dogmatic development, found in chapter five of *De Deposito Fidei*. Yet, the question of dogmatic development is brought up further on in the proposal, in the context of an incisive attack on the new theology, reproved by *Humani generis*. In chapter three (*De potestate ecclesiae discriminatim*) in the first subsection (*De magisterio*), a paragraph is devoted to the relationship between theology and magisterium. In *Humani generis*, the subordination of theology to the magisterium was explicitly prescribed. Consequently, contempt of scholastic theology ran counter to directives of the magisterium and thus disagreed with the requested subordination.<fnref n="50" /> Therefore we read in the *propositum*: “Revindicatio theologiae scholasticae contra insidias Theologiae novae (*Humani generis*)”.<fnref n="51" /> This demand is immediately followed by the suggestion to deal with dogmatic evolution and the value of dogmatic formulae.<fnref n="52" /> So, what is particularly striking in this *propositum* is that the problem of dogmatic development is brought up, firstly, in an ecclesiological section on the magisterium (instead of in the fundamental-theological section on revelation), and secondly, in the context of a polemic struggle against the *nouvelle théologie*.

The discussion of dogmatic development in the synopsis of the *Vota* of the bishops (July 1960) is almost identical to that of the *propositum* of the Holy Office.<fnref n="53" /> This is hardly surprising, knowing that this synopsis was also drawn up within the Holy Office by Michel Leclercq.<fnref n="54" />

<footnote n="48">48 Parente wrote the officious comment on the condemnation of Charlier's *Essai sur le problème théologique* in 1942. Even in a article of 1954, Parente attacked the views of Charlier. See Pietro PARENTE, *La giustificazione teologica della definizione dogmatica dell'Assunzione*, in Carlo BALIC (ed.), *Echi e commenti della proclamazione del domma dell'Assunzione*, Roma, 1954, p. 9-25. See especially p. 16.</footnote>

<footnote n="49">49 These four questions are: *De Veritate, De Deo, De Deo Creante et Elevante* and *De Divina Revelatione*.</footnote>

<footnote n="50">50 See *Humani generis*, in AAS, 42 (1950), p. 567: "Utique, proh dolor, rerum novarum studiosi a scholasticae theologiae contemptu ad neglegendum, ac vel etiam ad despiciendum facile transeunt ipsum Magisterium Ecclesiae, quod theologiam illam sua auctoritate tantopere comprobat".</footnote>

<footnote n="51">51 ADA, III, p. 9</footnote>

<footnote n="52">52 “De evolutione dogmatum (obiectiva, subiectiva); de valore formulae dogmaticae”. ADA, III, p. 9</footnote>

<footnote n="53">53 See section D (“De Apostolatu Ecclesiae”), subsection 1 (“De Verbo Divino praedicando et de S. Magisterio”): “De S. Theologia (de Fide et Ratione, de evolutione Dogmatum); damnandi errores relativismi, modernismi. Synopsis eorum quae circa materiam fidei et morum in episcoporum votis inveniuntur”. Centre for the Study of Vatican II (henceforth CSVII), *Archives conciliaires de Gérard Philips*, 51, Synopsis eorum quae circa materiam fidei et morum in Episcoporum votis invenitur, s.d.</footnote>

<footnote n="54">54 Joseph A. KOMONCHAK, *The Struggle for the Council During the Preparation of Vatican II (1960-1962)*, in Guiseppe ALBERIGO and Joseph A. KOMONCHAK (ed.), *History of Vatican II, Vol. 1: Announcing and Preparing Vatican Council II. Toward a New Era in Catholicism*, Maryknoll - Leuven, 1995, p. 229. See also Riccardo BURIGANA, *Progetto dogmatic del Vaticano II. La commissione teologica preparatoria (1960-1962)*, in Guiseppe ALBERIGO and Alberto MELLONI (eds.), *Verso il Concilio Vaticano II (1960-1962). Passagi e problem della preparazione conciliare*, Genova, 1993, p. 163: “Per struttura e contenuto dipendeva fortemente dal voto del S. Ufficio, dal quale riprendeva letteralmente alcune frasi”.</footnote>
In the *Analyticus conspectus* of the *Vota* of bishops and prelates (February 1961) ample attention is given to the problem of dogmatic development, all in the subsections of chapter six of *De Ecclesia*. As in the *propositum* of the Holy Office and the Synopsis of the *Vota* of the bishops, dogmatic evolution is first of all mentioned in the context of a subsection on the magisterium.<fnref n="55" /> Somewhat remarkably, it is requested here that, next to the mission of the magisterium, also the mission of the *sensus fidei* should be made known, since it is through this *sensus fidei*, by the hierarchy and the faithful together, that the revealed deposit is guarded. It is added that in this way the progress of dogma could be explained more aptly.<fnref n="56" /> So we notice here a reaction against an overly unilateral emphasis on the role of the magisterium in dogmatic development.

The next subsection is devoted entirely to “dogmatic evolution”<fnref n="57" /> and contains six items. Four of them are requests for further investigation and clarification with regard to the doctrine of dogmatic evolution in general,<fnref n="58" /> the value and interpretation of dogmatic formulas,<fnref n="59" /> the homogeneity of dogmatic evolution<fnref n="60" /> and the relation between modern philosophical concepts and dogmas.<fnref n="61" /> The last two items are requests to reiterate former teaching on the absolute value of the sense of dogmas<fnref n="62" /> and on the value of dogmatic definitions.<fnref n="63" />

It is interesting to note the contradictory tendency of subsections 16 and 17, both still relating to the theme of dogmatic development. Subsection 16 is titled *De novis definitionibus dogmaticis*, combining five *vota* and requesting further dogmatic definitions of, for instance, the principal chapters of the encyclicals *Pascendi* and *Humani generis*.<fnref n="64" /> Subsection 17, on the other hand, is titled *De inopportunitate novarum definitionum dogmaticarum*, combining no less than ten *vota*. Here, the dangers of new dogmatic definitions are indicated, for instance, with regard to the

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵ Namely, subsection 14: *De Magisterio Ecclesiae*.</footnote>

<footnote n="56">⁵⁶ “Praeter munus Magisterii pandatur etiam munus ‘sensus fidei’, per quem a S. Hierarchia et a fidelibus coniunctim depositum revelatum custoditur. Ita aptius explicare potest dogmatis progressus”. *Acta et documenta Concilio oecumenico Vaticano II apparando; Series prima (antepraeparatoria)*, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1960-1961, Appendix Voluminis II: *Analyticus conspectus consiliorum et votorum quae ab episcopis et praelatis data sunt*, 1, 1961, p. 61. (Henceforth: ADA, II/1).</footnote>

<footnote n="57">⁵⁷ This is subsection 15, titled *De evolutione Dogmatum*.</footnote>

<footnote n="58">⁵⁸ “Pressius examinetur doctrina de evolutione dogmatum”. ADA, II/1, p. 61.</footnote>

<footnote n="59">⁵⁹ “Agatur de valore et interpretatione formularum dogmaticarum”. ADA, II/1, p. 61.</footnote>

<footnote n="60">⁶⁰ “De homogenea evolutione dogmatica tractando, opportunum esset explicare quomodo sub infallibili assistentia Spiritus Sancti fiat successiva fidelis explanatio veritatis divinitus revelatae et reapse immutabilis, ne quis acatholicorum talem evolutionem interpretari adhuc valeat ad modum intolerabilis innovationis”. ADA, II/1, p. 61-62.</footnote>

<footnote n="61">⁶¹ “Uberius investigetur utrum aliqua possibilitas satis fundata appareat adumbrandi conceptus et expressiones philosophicas tum dogmatibus explicandis sufficienter aptas, tum sic dictae scientiae modernae satis acceptas”. ADA, II/1, p. 62.</footnote>

<footnote n="62">⁶² “Concilium iterum declaret sensum dogmatum habere valorem absolutum infinite transcendentem symbolicam veritatum moralium”. ADA, II/1, p. 62.</footnote>

<footnote n="63">⁶³ “Urgeatur valor definitionum dogmaticarum, perfectibilium quidem at irreformabilium, nec de uno sensu in alium sese evolventium”. ADA, II/1, p. 62.</footnote>

<footnote n="64">⁶⁴ See ADA, II/1, p. 62-63.</footnote>
relation with separated churches.<fnref n="65" /> One *votum* also points to the negative effect of new dogmatic definitions *within* the Catholic world, as after a definition, doctrinal progress goes forth in a unique and partial sense, while other aspects of a dogma are neglected or overlooked.<fnref n="66" />

Finally, the theme of dogmatic development is dealt with in the *vota* of the Gregorian University. The fourth *votum* is titled “De immutabilitate veritatis revelatae et progressu dogmatico”<fnref n="67" /> and is written by Eduard Dhanis. This rather extensive *votum* is composed of two parts, corresponding to the characteristic nature of the fundamental problem of dogmatic development —that is, the holding together of the immutability of dogma and its development. The first part of the *votum* deals with the immutability of dogma. Here, Dhanis defends in particular the immutability of the concepts of faith on the basis of scholastic conceptualism against what was designated by *Humani generis* as “dogmatic relativism” or the questioning of the value of some traditional concepts of faith to voice actual Christian experience. Dhanis calls to mind that the human intellect, with its accommodated concepts, can represent for itself certain things about God and the divine mysteries that are simply true (“simpliciter vera”), and therefore, they always need further correction; nor are these concepts, after the mentioned accommodation, to be assumed as approximations, partly in concord with divine objects and partly contradicting them.<fnref n="68" /> The underlying assumption is that of an unbreakable bond between the taught doctrine and the concepts by which this doctrine is expressed. Some of these concepts were confirmed to such a degree that is not allowed to dissociate oneself from them. In other words, Dhanis repeats the doctrine of *Humani generis* with regard to the objective value of the concepts of faith.

So, on the one hand, one should hold on to the immutability of the concepts of faith. On the other hand though —and this is the second part of the *votum*—, the Council should declare that there is a progress of the revealed truth in the Church. Dhanis distinguishes two kinds of progress. Firstly, there are many things that are contained *implicitly* in the revealed deposit (Tradition and Scripture) that in the course of time are more and more explicitly taught by the living magisterium of the

<footnote n="65">⁶⁵ “Ne afferantur novae definitiones dogmaticae in Concilio, utpote unioni cum fratribus separatis periculosae” and “Ne nova dogmata proponantur nisi antea caute perspecta sit eorum praesens utilitas et necessitas atque eorum effectus in nostris relationibus cum fratribus separatis”. ADA, II/1, p. 63-64.</footnote>

<footnote n="66">⁶⁶ ADA, II/1, p. 65. Cf. Henri DE LUBAC, *Catholicism. A Study of Dogma in Relation to the Corporate Destiny of Mankind*, London, 1950, p. 164-165: “For if, as the whole history of the Church shows and as the doctors, from the first centuries onwards, are fond of pointing out, heresy is an occasion of progress for orthodox doctrine, there follows in its train the danger that this progress may be onesided and the occasion in its turn —history proves this as well— of further error. [...] A reinforced sector of the walls is not the whole city won!”.</footnote>

<footnote n="67">⁶⁷ Acta et documenta Concilio oecumenico Vaticano II apparando. Series prima (antepraeparatoria), Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1960-1961, Vol. IV: *Studia et vota universitatum et facultatum ecclesiasticarum et catholicarum*, I-1, 1961, p. 12-13. (Henceforth: ADA, IV/I-1).</footnote>

<footnote n="68">⁶⁸ “Humanus intellectus suis notionibus debite accommodatis (per viam negationis et excellentiae) sibi repraesentare potest quaedam, eaque determinata, de Deo divinisque mysteriis quae sint simpliciter vera, quaeque proinde neque indigeant ulteriore semper correctione, nec post praefatam accommodationem adhuc assumenda sint ut approximationes partim concordes cum divinis obiectis partimque contradicentes eis”. ADA, IV/I-1, p. 12.</footnote>
Church.<fnref n="69" /> Secondly, various things in the revealed deposit are only signified by representations and expressions that are to a certain point *confused*; afterwards they are more distinctly proposed as to be believed by the same living magisterium.<fnref n="70" /> Here again, Dhanis’s proposal echoes faithfully the doctrine of *Humani generis* on doctrinal progress.<fnref n="71" /> He suggests that this doctrine can be prudently ratified by the authority of the Council.<fnref n="72" />

To conclude, the analysis of the theme of dogmatic development in the *vota* results in three major findings. Firstly, doctrinal development is mostly brought up in sections, compiling requests regarding the magisterium of the Church. In documents drafted by members of the Holy Office, dogmatic development is mentioned in a polemic context of struggle between scholastic theology and *nouvelle théologie*. The new approach to theology is associated with dogmatic relevatism and insubordination to the teaching of the magisterium. Secondly, and closely connected, by associating dogmatic development with the authority of the (living) magisterium, the *vota* on doctrinal progress joined together with the doctrine of *Humani generis*. Finally, there is also a clear concern and wish that the council would take a clear positive doctrinal stand with regard to the question of dogmatic development.

## THE PREPARATORY DOCUMENTS

After analyzing the theme of dogmatic development in the *vota*, we can now focus on the preparation of a text on this issue in the Theological Commission. By July 13, 1960, the secretary of the commission, Sebastian Tromp, SJ, a professor at the Gregorian University and *consultor* to the Holy Office, had prepared outlines for three schemata, one of which was the precursor of the schema *De Deposito Fidei*.<fnref n="73" /> This first draft of Tromp consists of three parts: the *Proemium*, the *Quaestiones generales* and the *Quaestiones particulares*.<fnref n="74" /> The general questions are nine in number, of which the last one concerns dogmatic development: “Nulla revelatio novarum veritatum post clausum depositum fidei”.<fnref n="75" /> This is more or less the opposite of the proposition that revelation was not completed with the Apostles, condemned by the

<footnote n="69">⁶⁹ “Primo enim complura, quae in revelationis deposito —apostolica Traditione et Scriptura— latebant implicita, per saecula magis magisque explicite docentur a vivo Magisterio Ecclesiae, quod suum munus custodis et interpretis totius veritatis revelatae exercet, Spiritu Sancto Ecclesiam dirigente in plenam illius veritatis possessionem”. ADA, IV/I-1, p. 13.</footnote>

<footnote n="70">⁷⁰ “Praeterea varia quae in revelato deposito nonnisi per repraesentationes expressionesque quadantenus confusa significabantur, postea ab eodem vivo Magisterio distinctius credenda proposita sunt”. ADA, IV/I-1, p. 13.</footnote>

<footnote n="71">⁷¹ See *Humani generis*, in AAS, 42 (1950), p. 569: “Una enim cum sacris eiusmodi fontibus Deus Ecclesiae suae Magisterium vivum dedit, ad ea quoque illustranda et enucleanda, quae in fidei deposito nonnisi obscure ac velut implicite continentur”.</footnote>

<footnote n="72">⁷² “Notio progressus, quo implicite revelata fiunt explicita, iam habetur in Encyclica *Humani generis*; potest prudenter etiam a Concilii auctoritate sanciri”. ADA, IV/I-1, p. 13.</footnote>

<footnote n="73">⁷³ Brendan J. CAHILL, *The Renewal of Revelation Theology (1960-1962). The Development and Responses to the Fourth Chapter of the Preparatory Schema 'De Deposito fidei'*, Rome, 1999, p. 22.</footnote>

<footnote n="74">⁷⁴ See Sebastian TROMP, *Konzilstagebuch mit Erläuterungen und Akten aus der Arbeit der Theologischen Kommission*, ed. Alexandra VON TEUFFENBACH, Band I/2 (1960-1962), Rome, 2006, p. 821.</footnote>

<footnote n="75">⁷⁵ TROMP, *Konzilstagebuch*.</footnote>
Decree *Lamentabili* as ‘modernist’.<fnref n="76" /> Yet, this negative, polemic approach of dogmatic development is deemed insufficient by Tromp himself. At the meeting of the prior subcommission, the *commissio praevia*, on July 21, 1960, he asked that the concept of true Catholic dogmatic progress be described more accurately.<fnref n="77" /> But as Tromp was of the opinion that *De Deposito* would present those salvific truths that were being neglected or distorted today,<fnref n="78" /> he assumed that the positive doctrine on dogmatic development would get a place within the schema *De Fontibus*,<fnref n="79" /> but in reality, this schema was elaborated as a text on exegesis.

During the meeting of the *commissio praevia*, the Dominican father, Luigi Ciappi, Master of the Sacred Palace, was assigned to prepare the outline of the schema *De Deposito Fidei*—i.e. the schema *compendiosum* for the first plenary session of the Theological Commission that was held on October 27, 1960. Ciappi's outline followed closely the outline that had been prepared by Tromp in July. This means he also adopted Tromp's nine general topics, of which the ninth one stated there is no revelation at all of new truths after the close of the deposit of faith. Ciappi added that this is a certain doctrine of faith. The deposit is objectively closed, but open to interpretation and explication or dogmatic progress.<fnref n="80" />

After the first session, the work of developing the outlines into schemata was entrusted to different subcommissions for each schema. The subcommission for the schema *De Deposito Fidei* was further divided into eleven subcommissions, each one treating a specific topic.<fnref n="81" />

In the spring of 1961, the first redactions of what is now chapter four (on revelation and faith) and chapter five (on dogmatic progress) of *De Deposito Fidei* were presented by respectively Edouard Dhanis and Bartholomeus Xiberta.<fnref n="82" /> Closely engaged in the redaction of chapter five were also Tromp, Ciappi—the president of the subcommission *De Deposito Fidei*—, and Edouard Dhanis. Between April 22, 1961 and June 10, 1961, four sessions of the subcommission *De Deposito Fidei* were devoted to the subsequent revisions of Xiberta's draft. The sixth redaction of *De progressu Doctrinae* was inserted as chapter five in the schema *De Deposito Fidei pure custodiendo*, printed in July 1961.

<footnote n="76">⁷⁶ This is proposition 21: “Revelatio, obiectum fidei catholicae constituens, non fuit cum Apostolis completa”. *Lamentabili*, in ASS 40 (1907), p. 473.</footnote>

<footnote n="77">⁷⁷ See the protocol of this meeting: “Rogatum fuit, ut accuratius discreberetur conceptus verus catholicus progressus dogmatici”. Sebastian TROMP, *Konzilstagebuch*, p. 826.</footnote>

<footnote n="78">⁷⁸ KOMONCHAK, *The Struggle*, p. 231.</footnote>

<footnote n="79">⁷⁹ “Quod ad schema de fontibus spectat, iure putat [L. Cerfaux] latius dicendum esse de traditione et de evolutione dogmatum. Non intellego quomodo ultimum punctum omissum sit in Schemate de Fontibus. Nam die 21 Julii post schemata discussa, ego ipse dixi addi debere quuestionem de evolutione dogmatica”. Sebastian TROMP, *Konzilstagebuch mit Erläuterungen und Akten aus der Arbeit der Theologischen Kommission*, Alexandra VON TEUFFENBACH (ed.), Band I/1 (1960-1962), Rome, 2006, p. 93.</footnote>

<footnote n="80">⁸⁰ CSVII, *Archives conciliaires de Gérard Philips*, 50, Prot. 4/60 Pontificia Commissio Theologica pro Concilio Oecumenico Vaticano II (4 schemata compendiosa: *De Ecclesia, De Fontibus, De Deposito, De Ordine morali*), s.d.</footnote>

<footnote n="81">⁸¹ CAHILL, *The Renewal*, p. 28.</footnote>

<footnote n="82">⁸² Bartholomeus Xiberta (1897-1967) was a Carmelite and former professor dogmatic theology in Madrid and Rome. In his capacity of professor dogmatic theology, Xiberta published in 1949 an introduction to theology (*Introductio in sacram theologiam*, Matriti, 1949). From 1957 onwards he was assistant general of the Carmelite Order. In July 1960 he was appointed as *consultor* to the Preparatory Theological Commission.</footnote>
and subsequently sent to the members of the Theological Commission for discussion at the third plenary session of the Theological Commission in September 1961.<fnref n="83" />

Before analyzing the fifth chapter on doctrinal progress, it is worthwhile to focus our attention first on the previous chapter on revelation and faith ("De Revelatione et Fide") written by Dhanis.<fnref n="84" /> This chapter opens with the definition of revelation as "locutio Dei attestantis". The emphasis is on revelation as doctrine which has been handed on to the Church. With regard to dogmatic development, paragraph 22 is of special interest, warning against a recent form of relativism that questions the adequacy and permanence of traditional doctrinal concepts: "They dangerously depart from the truth who think that the propositions and concepts by which revealed truths are communicated are incapable of declaring the divine realities in a simply true way, although assuredly incompletely and imperfectly, and indeed that they must be considered as approximations always mutable and always needing to be corrected anew, just as either a certain higher sense of the mystery which is believed or the rising of a new form of human thinking demands".<fnref n="85" /> What is hinted at is, of course, the fundamental discussion about the concepts of faith, in which the whole of the 'new' theology was involved.<fnref n="86" /> A footnote explains that this form of dogmatic and theological relativism has been reproved by Pius XII in *Humani generis*.<fnref n="87" /> As mentioned earlier, Dhanis had already brought up this point in the first part of his *votum* on "The immutability of the revealed truth and dogmatic progress". According to de Lubac, paragraph 22 was conceived by Dhanis so that the Council would condemn him.<fnref n="88" /> Anyway, it is worthwhile noting that this fundamental issue of the late 1940s on the concepts of faith and dogmatic relativism, referred to by Dhanis in his *votum* on dogmatic development, was not taken up in chapter five on doctrinal progress, but was included in the chapter on revelation written by Dhanis.

The title of chapter five, *De progressu Doctrinae*, is already revealing. The chosen terminology to address dogmatic development manifests a certain conception of revelation and of the nature of its unfolding in history. It is clear that the notion of revelation as a doctrine, as expounded in chapter four, is further developed here. Revelation is the doctrine of faith that is handed on to the Church as a precious deposit, the human understanding of which progresses throughout the ages. Talking about the "progress of doctrine" tends to narrow the scope to an intellectual process, a

<footnote n="83">⁸³ CSVII, *Archives conciliaires de Gérard Philips*, 308, Constitutio De Deposito Fidei pure custodiendo, C.T. 7/61:56, 1961.</footnote>

<footnote n="84">⁸⁴ CSVII, *Archives conciliaires de Gérard Philips*, 308, p. 13-20.</footnote>

<footnote n="85">⁸⁵ Periculose etiam a vero discedunt qui sentient enuntiationes et conceptus quibus veritates revelatae communicantur, impares esse ad res significandas modo simpliciter vero, etsi utique incompleto et imperfecto; sed habendos esse ut approximationes semper mutabiles semperque denuo corrigendas prout postulet sive altior quidam sensus mysterii quod creditor, sive ortus novae formae humanae cogitationis". CSVII, *Archives conciliaires de Gérard Philips*, 308, p. 14-15. The English translation is based on Cahill's translation of paragraph 22 in schema I of *De Deposito Fidei*. See CAHILL, *The Renewal*, p. 273.</footnote>

<footnote n="86">⁸⁶ SCHOOF, *A Survey*, p. 203.</footnote>

<footnote n="87">⁸⁷ "Ea est relativismi dogmatici et theologici forma quae reprobatur a Pio XII in Encycl. *Humani generis*. Constitutio, p. 20.</footnote>

<footnote n="88">⁸⁸ DE LUBAC, *Carnets*, p. 37; 50-51. Cf. Yves CONGAR, *Mon journal du concile*, Vol. 1, Paris, 2002, p. 77-78.</footnote>
purely subjective progress in human understanding of the revealed doctrine, whereas “development of tradition” or even “development of dogma” can have a broader meaning. To compare: Chapter two of *Dei Verbum*, treating the issue of dogmatic development, is titled: “The transmission of divine revelation”.<fnref n="89" />

Already, the title of the chapter on dogmatic development thus indicates that no account is taken of the ‘new’ theological perspective that not only the ‘doctrine’ but also the ‘reality’ of revelation continues to live in the Church:<fnref n="90" /> that the whole life of the Church, that the whole tradition develops (theory of Charlier), nor that knowledge of revelation is first intuitive, concrete and encompassing, before it is expressed into doctrine, to the effect that every new doctrinal formulation is not only progress, but at the same time also decay (theory of de Lubac).

The text of *De progressu Doctrinae* is divided into four sections. In the first section (“Thesaurus veritatis a Christo accipiendus est”), the objective completion of revelation with the Apostles is stressed. Obviously there is a reference to proposition 21 of *Lamentabili*,<fnref n="91" /> the only magisterial text that officially attests the doctrine on the close of the revelation with the Apostles. Here, the text reads that “the treasure of truth [...] completed by the Apostles [...] cannot grow further, but is to be preserved faithfully by the Church as a precious deposit”.<fnref n="92" />

The second section (“Custodiendi thesauri fidei ratio”) elaborates on the nature of this preservation. It is said that that treasure of faith cannot be preserved effectively and fruitfully by merely conserving books and repeating words, but by the living magisterium (“viventi magisterio”), by which the Church truly directs faith and morals. Next, four reasons of this more than sterile conversation of the deposit by the magisterium are summed up: two positive ones (a genuine intelligence of the revealed things and the piety of the Christians leading to a deeper investigation of the riches of Christ) and two negative or defensive ones (first of all the impugnation of errors and secondly the necessities and newly arisen questions of the times). “For this reason, the council teaches that a persistent, pious and sober investigation is demanded by the nature itself of the sacred magisterium”.<fnref n="93" /> The “sedulam et piam atque sobriam inquisitio” of course refers back to chapter four of *Dei Filius*, where the possibilities and limits of speculative theology are described.<fnref n="94" /> In the last paragraph

<footnote n="89">⁸⁹ See SACROSANCTUM OECUMENICUM CONCILIUM VATICANUM II, *Constitutiones. Decreta. Declarationes*, Typis polyglottis Vaticanis, 1966, p. 428.</footnote>

<footnote n="90">⁹⁰ Edward SCHILLEBEECKX, *Revelation and Theology*, London-Melbourne, 1967, p. 82.</footnote>

<footnote n="91">⁹¹ “Revelatio, obiectum fidei catholicae constituens, non fuit cum Apostolis completa”.</footnote>

<footnote n="92">⁹² “[...] thesaurum veritatis [...], postquam per Apostolos [...] completus fuit, augeri amplius non possit, sed tamquam pretiosum depositum ab Ecclesia fideliter custodiendus sit. *Constitutio*, p. 21.</footnote>

<footnote n="93">⁹³ “idcirco Sancta Synodus docet ipsa natura sacri magisterii postulari sedulam et piam atque sobriam inquisitionem”. *Constitutio*, p. 21. In the final redaction of *De progressu Doctrinae*, the necessity of theological investigation for the magisterium to fulfill its mission, is toned down: “Quamobrem docet Sancta Synodus ipsam naturam sacri magisterii *secum ferre* et investigationem revelationis fontium, et sedulam ac piam sobriamque ipsorum fidei mysteriorum perscrutationem”. CSVII, *Conciliar Documents TPV-collection*, Schemata constitutionum et decretorum de quibus disceptabitur in Concilii sessionibus. Series Prima, 1962, p. 45.</footnote>

<footnote n="94">⁹⁴ “Ac ratio quidem, fide illustrata, cum sedulo, pie et sobrie quaerit, aliquam, Deo Dante, mysteriorum intelligentiam eamque fructuosissimam assequitur, tum ex eorum, quae naturaliter cognoscit, analogia,</footnote>
of this second section, it is pointed out that this investigation is limited to scrutinizing and explicating the latent riches in revelation.<fnref n="95" />

The third section (“Progressus doctrinalis affirmatio”) truly deals with the problem of dogmatic development. “For the reasons mentioned in the earlier section, the Sacred Synod acknowledges and professes that a true progress of doctrine is accomplished in the Church of Christ, so much so that even new definitions of truth would be worth to be held; but declares only this progress legitimate, that results from an increase of human knowledge about revelation, in this way that every doctrine delivered by the Church, is upheld by the authority of Jesus Christ”.<fnref n="96" /> So, dogmatic development is limited to progress in human knowledge about revelation; it is merely a development *quoad nos*. It is significant that the possibility of proceeding with new solemn definitions is left open, although —as we have seen earlier—<fnref n="97" /> there were strong requests to exclude the exercise of this authority.<fnref n="98" />

The fourth section deals with the value of private revelations (“Privatarum revelationum valor”). But this section does not fit in well here, and later on, in the second schema of De Deposito Fidei, the paragraph on private revelations will be elaborated into a separate chapter (chapter six).

If we have a look at the references used to underpin the text, we find that most of them originate from the magisterial documents promulgated by Pius XII: *Human generis, Mystici Corporis and Munificentissimus Deus*, followed by the Constitution Dei Filius of the First Vatican Council and magisterial texts issued by Pius X (Pascendi, Lamentabili) and Pius IX (Syllabus errorum, Eximiam tuam (against Günther), and Ineffabilis Deus). Two references date back to Christian Antiquity: the letter Licet inter varias of Gelasius I and the letter Quantum presbyterorum of St. Simplicius.<fnref n="99" />

As already mentioned, this redaction of *De progressu Doctrinae* was discussed during the third plenary session of the Theological Commission (September 25, 1961). Two *animadversiones* are worthwhile mentioning. Firstly, the Spanish Jesuit, Joaquin Salaverri, complained that what is said in this chapter seems to restrict doctrinal progress to evolutions coming about by the transition from implicit to explicit, while it is necessary to convey something about the progress obtained by

<footnote>tum e mysteriorum ipsorum nexu inter se et cum fine hominis ultimo”. *Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta*, ed. Giuseppe ALBERIGO, *et al.*, Rome, 1962, p. 784.</footnote>

<footnote n="95">⁹⁵ “Quae inquisitio mentes a divina revelatione nullatenus avellit; nam eo non tendit ut divinitus tradita humanis inventis transformet et substituat, sed ut divitias in ipsa revelatione scrutetur atque declarat, iis sane viis quae connexionem cum revelatis adamussim servent”. *Constitutio*, p. 21.</footnote>

<footnote n="96">⁹⁶ “Quapropter Sancta Synodus agnoscit et profitetur in Ecclesia Christi verum doctrinae progressum peragi, adeo ut etiam novae definitiones veritatis haberi valeant; sed illum tantum legitimum declarat, qui incrementum humanae de revelatis cognitionis ita sequatur, ut omnis doctrina ab Ecclesia tradita Christi Iesu, [...], auctoritate fulciatur”. *Constitutio*, p. 21.</footnote>

<footnote n="97">⁹⁷ See our discussion of subsection 17 (“De inopportunitate novarum definitionum dogmaticarum”) of the *Analyticus conspectus*.</footnote>

<footnote n="98">⁹⁸ Antonino INDELICATO, *Lo schema 'De deposito fidei pure custodiendo' e la preparazione del Vaticano II*, in *Cristianesimo nella storia*, 11 (1990), p. 309-355, there p. 316.</footnote>

<footnote n="99">⁹⁹ *Constitutio De Deposito*, p. 22-23.</footnote>
deduction of theological conclusions.<fnref n="100" /> This objection draws attention to the fact that the typical Neo-Scholastic model used to explain dogmatic development —i.e. by means of theological conclusions (the virtually revealed) logically inferred from a revealed premise (the formally revealed) with the help of a premise of reason— is completely absent.<fnref n="101" /> It is true that one can discern in the text, a certain preference for speculative theology as the privileged instrument of the magisterium to fulfill its mission of investigating the riches of revelation, but the Neo-Scholastic terminology to describe the role of speculative theology in dogmatic development, is completely omitted. In this regard, it is also interesting to mention, secondly, the objection of Eduard Dhanis to the text. Dhanis precisely criticizes the too unilateral emphasis on speculative theology, pointing to the fact that the nature of the magisterium also demands an investigation of the sources of revelation. Therefore he suggests to insert “investigationem revelationis fontium” before “sedulam et piam atque sobriam inquisitionem”.<fnref n="102" />

In October 1961, Tromp and Ciappi revised the text in the light of the amendments accepted by the subcommission and approved by the plenary. This text, Schema I, was then sent to the Central Preparatory Commission.<fnref n="103" /> Chapter five of Schema I is almost identical to the text approved by the Theological Commission on September 25, 1961. The only addition concerns the remark of Dhanis, giving more weight to positive theology in the process of dogmatic development.

Chapters four and five were discussed together in the Central Preparatory Commission on January 22, 1962. The official statement by Cardinal Ottaviani, President of the Theological Commission, is rather instructive in order to grasp the tendency of chapter five, *De progressu doctrinae*, that it is of a rather ambiguous nature. Ottaviani explains that with this chapter, the Theological Commission asks the Fathers of the Council to confirm, firstly, the things proclaimed by the First Vatican Council on the part of reason in developing supernatural truth, and secondly, the things proclaimed by *Humani generis* on the tight connection between magisterium and theology.<fnref n="104" /> Indeed, as in *Humani generis*, the primordial role in

<footnote n="100">¹⁰⁰“Ea quae in hoc capite dicuntur de progressu doctrinae videntur restringi ad eos gressus qui fiunt per transitum ab implicite ad explicitum. Oportet etiam aliquid insinuare de progressu qui obtinetur per deductionem conclusionum theologicarum”. CSVII, *Archives conciliaires de Gérard Philips*, 314, C.T. 7/61: 62 *Animadversiones in Constitutionem de Deposito Fidei pure custodiendo*, s.d.</footnote>

<footnote n="101">¹⁰¹ The most famous example of this kind of ‘logical’ or ‘dialectical’ theories is the standard work of de Spanish Dominican Francisco Marin Sola on dogmatic evolution: Francisco MARÍN SOLA, *L’Évolution homogène du dogme catholique*, Fribourg, 1924.</footnote>

<footnote n="102">¹⁰² “Idcirco Sancta Synodus…”. Haec verba cum voce “sobria”, cum allusione ad textum Concilii Vaticani I, cum contextu sequenti, videntur applicari *soli theologiae speculativae*. Quod fuerit nimis unilateralis; namque natura Magisterii postulat etiam *indagationem fontium revelationis*, Propteria propono ut scribatur: “Idcirco Sancta Synodus docet ipsa natura sacri magisterii postulari tum investigationem revelationis fontium, tum ipsorum mysteriorum sedulam et piam atque sobriam inquisitionem”. *Animadversiones*.</footnote>

<footnote n="103">¹⁰³ KOMONCHAK, *The Struggle*, p. 242.</footnote>

<footnote n="104">¹⁰⁴ “Commissio Theologica hoc altero capite Constitutionis humiliter petit a Patribus Conc. Vatic. II ut confirmentur ea quae Conc. Vatic. I perpulchre edixit de rationis parte in excolenda veritate supernaturali; insuper quae leguntur in Litt. Encycl. *Humani generis* de necessitudine inter Sacrum Magisterium et theologiam”. *Acta et documenta Concilio oecumenico Vaticano II apparando; Series*</footnote>
dogmatic development is granted here to the living magisterium, making use of
theology as a kind of auxiliary science. Theology is done under the authority and
guidance of the magisterium, and in a certain way, theology makes itself beholden to
the magisterium.<fnref n="105" />

Next, Ottaviani explains the standard problem of dogmatic development: on the
one hand, the deposit of the doctrine of faith is completed with the Apostles and
cannot increase anymore. Octaviani stresses, with good reason, that the objective
close of revelation is asserted in all three paragraphs (29, 30 and 31) on doctrinal
progress in chapter five.<fnref n="106" /> At the same time, it is solemnly affirmed in the text that
doctrinal and theological progress, not only dogmatic, is to be fostered.<fnref n="107" /> Therefore,
only progress in intelligence of dogmas is admitted.<fnref n="108" /> Doctrinal development is
[thus] principally obtained by the acts of the magisterium of the Church, to which
theologians add to by labor, either by positive theology or speculative theology, either
previously, concomitantly or consequently.<fnref n="109" /> In other words, Ottaviani perfectly
formulates the conception of dogmatic development in the teaching of Pius XII.

In the ensuing *animadversiones*, no fundamental criticism is uttered. According
to Cardinal Ruffini, the distinction between objective and subjective progress is
not clear enough in the text,<fnref n="110" /> and is thereby supported by five other members of
the commission.<fnref n="111" /> Cardinal Alfrink makes this objection more concrete: instead
of talking about “verum doctrinae progressum”, he suggests to write “in doctrinae
revelatae *cognitione* verum progressum peragi”.<fnref n="112" /> The wording “novae definitiones
veritatis revelatae” also arouses critique. Three members, including Cardinal Léger
(the others are Cardinal Richaud and Cardinal Larraona), want an explicit reminder
that new definitions are not new revelations nor newly revealed truths. Cardinal König
advises not to speak about “novae definitiones veritates”, but about “novi aspecti” that

<footnote>secunda (*praeparatoria*), Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1964-1995, Vol. II: *Acta Pontificiae commissionis centralis praeparatoriae concilii oecumenici Vaticani II*, 2, 1967, p. 332. (Henceforth: ADP, II/2).</footnote>

<footnote n="105">¹⁰⁵ Theology is done *ex delegatione* by the magisterium. See SECKLER, *Die Theologie*, p. 227.</footnote>

<footnote n="106">¹⁰⁶ “Proinde, in par. 29, 30 et 31, asseritur depositum doctrinae fidei seu thesaurum veritatis revelatae, a Christo ipso Apostolis communicatum et ab ipsis completum ac Ecclesiae sive verbo sive scripto traditum, amplius in seipso augeri non posse”. *Animadversiones*.</footnote>

<footnote n="107">¹⁰⁷ At simul rite affirmatur progressum doctrinalem, cum dogmaticum tum proprie theologicum,fovendum
esse sive quoad veritates credendas sive quoad veritates etiam in praxi deducendas”. *Animadversiones*.</footnote>

<footnote n="108">¹⁰⁸ Quapropter unice tantum admittitur progressus in intelligentia dogmatum et in vita christiana
veritatibus fidei magis ac magis conformanda”. *Animadversiones*.</footnote>

<footnote n="109">¹⁰⁹ “Doctrinalis autem progressus maxime obtinetur per acta Magisterii Ecclesiae, cui adlaborant, sive praevie, sive concomitanter sive consequenter, viri catholici, qui sunt cultores theologiae quae vel positiva vel speculative seu scholastica nuncupatur”. *Animadversiones*.</footnote>

<footnote n="110">¹¹⁰ “Bene et clare distinguendum esse existimo *inter progressum obiectivum et progressum subiectivum*: progressus obiectivus ullus non datur, *subiectivus vero satis multus et frequens habetur*. *Animadversiones*, p. 333. Instead of “augeri amplius non possit” Ruffini suggests: “augeri *obiective* nec amplius possit”. See *Acta et documenta Concilio oecumenico Vaticano II apparando; Series secunda (praeparatoria)*, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1964-1995, Vol. IV: *Acta subcommissionum commissionis centralis praeparatoriae*, III/1, 1994, p. 365. (Henceforth ADP, IV/III/1).</footnote>

<footnote n="111">¹¹¹ Namely Cardinals Pla y Deniel, Richaud, Traglia, Larraona and Archbishop Silva Santiago.</footnote>

<footnote n="112">¹¹² ADP, II/2, p. 344.</footnote>
are implicitly contained and not well known before,<fnref n="113" /> a wording that brings to mind de Lubac's thinking on dogmatic development.

All these remarks and critiques are related to the problem of objective and subjective development. This finding is a bit odd because the text on doctrinal progress arose precisely from the concern to clarify the distinction between objective and subjective development (i.e. the concern of Parente). A second major critique concerns the ambiguity of the text. Alfrink, for instance, demands that the crucial paragraph 31 on doctrinal progress would be conceived more clearly, as he admits not to understand the second part of the paragraph.<fnref n="114" /> Archbishop Viktor Bazin qualifies this article as being unclear, giving room to ambiguity.<fnref n="115" />

Chapters four (*De Revelatione et Fide*) and five (*De progressu Doctrinae*) were put to a vote, which was overwhelmingly positive: 44 members voted *Placet*, 18 voted *Placet iuxta modum*, and only one voted *Non placet*.<fnref n="116" />

According to the regulations of the Central Preparatory Commission, Tromp and two other theologians prepared a Response to the Observations made in the Central Preparatory Commission. On March 23, Tromp submitted the Response of the Theological Commission to the Observations made concerning the *Prooemium* and chapters 1-5 to the Subcommission on Amendments. To meet the fundamental request to assert more clearly that objective increase ("augmentum obiectivum") is excluded, the Theological Commission proposes to add "in seipso" before "augeri amplius non possit".<fnref n="117" /> To compare: in 1942, Parente had phrased Charlier's views by saying that "revelata [...] perpetuo augeri, [...] etiam in seipsis". In other words, with regard to the question of objective/subjective dogmatic development, the doctrine of *De Progressu Doctrinae* manifests itself as the exact opposite of the condemned doctrine of Charlier. The wording "verum doctrinae progressum" in paragraph 31 is changed into "verum in doctrina fidei intellegenda et proponenda progressum". The last sentence of this paragraph is strongly revised to pronounce even stronger the immutability of the deposit in itself, in which every newly proposed truth has to be contained at least implicitly.<fnref n="118" /> To conclude, the inserted changes are far from substantially transforming the text, as they only give a clearer expression to what had always been the fundamental tendency of the text since the beginning, being the distinction between objective and subjective development, of which only the latter is acknowledged as legitimate. At the same time, the rather controversial wording that "etiam novae definitiones veritatum revelatarum haberi valeant" is maintained.

<footnote n="113">¹¹³ "Pag. 17, lin. 1. Sermo est "novae definitiones veritatis", cur non etiam "novi aspectus" qui implicite continentur et antea non tam bene cognoscebantur?". ADP, II/2, p. 341.</footnote>

<footnote n="114">¹¹⁴ "Num. 31 (de progressu doctrinali) clarius videtur concipiendus. Fateri debeo me secundam partem huius paragraphi non intelligere". ADP, II/2, p. 343.</footnote>

<footnote n="115">¹¹⁵ "Hic numerus non est clarus et locum dat ambiguitati". ADP, II/2, p. 346.</footnote>

<footnote n="116">¹¹⁶ CAHILL, *The Renewal*, p. 81.</footnote>

<footnote n="117">¹¹⁷ ADP, IV/III/1, p. 383.</footnote>

<footnote n="118">¹¹⁸ "... qui in incremento humanae dumtaxat cognitionis de revelatione consistit, non verum in ipsius depositi augmento. Illud enim in seipso immutatum permanent, cum quaelibet veritas noviter proposita, saltem implicite ibidem continetur, ideoque auctoritate divina fulciatur". ADP, IV/III/1, p. 384.</footnote>
In April 1962, the Subcommission on amendments decided to accept the Response of the Theological Commission and required no further amendments. In July 1962, the final schema of *De Deposito Fidei*, Schema II, was sent to the Council Fathers.

## CONCLUSIONS

The problem of dogmatic development was an issue of intense theological debates, especially in the 1940s, in the context of the controversy surrounding the *nouvelle théologie* and the imminent dogmatization of the Assumption. Charlier and de Lubac, both of whom criticized the rationalism of Neo-Scholastic 'logical' theories as narrowing down the complexity of revelation and dogmatic development, advanced the most controversial new approaches to dogmatic development. Furthermore, they both in their own way undermined the traditional solution for the crucial problem of dogmatic development: the holding together of the substantial immutability of dogma with its undeniable development. This solution consisted of limiting dogmatic development to a progress in our human understanding of revelation (development *quoad nos*), while revelation in itself had to be conceived as an immutable deposit (immutability *quoad se*). Charlier refused to conceive of revelation as an object contained in the sources of revelation, the study of which would enable us to increase our knowledge of revelation. For Charlier, development was also objective, since the knowledge of revelation increased together with the reality of revelation within the Church. De Lubac, for his part, rejected the distinction between objective and subjective revelation because of the objectivity of the subjective order and because the objective order is in close correlation with the subjective order, thus making the distinction between *revelatio quoad se* and *quoad nos* meaningless.

With regard to this issue of objective and subjective development, the redaction history of chapter five, *De Progressu Doctrinae*, of the schema *De Deposito Fidei pure custodiendo* manifests a great continuity, from the *propositum* written by Parente in March 1960 down to the final schema sent to the Fathers in July 1962. Ever since 1942 (the condemnation of the *Essai sur le problème théologique*), Parente had accused Charlier on several occasions of teaching continuous revelation. This previous history can possibly explain why Parente in his *propositum* brought up the issue of dogmatic development in a polemic context (the struggle against the *nouvelle théologie*), urging a focus on the distinction between objective and subjective evolution. Tromp takes up this problem, giving it a negative formulation in his first draft, of which the ninth point reads that there is no revelation after the close of the deposit of faith. Ciappi in his turn adopts it in the *schema compendiosum*, adding only that, although the deposit is objectively closed, it is also open to interpretation and explication or dogmatic progress. In the redaction of Xiberta, the objective close of revelation is stressed in all three paragraphs, and doctrinal progress is explicitly limited to an increase in human understanding of revelation. The somewhat controversial expression “novae definitiones veritates” caused several Fathers in the Central Preparatory Commission to urge for an even more explicit acknowledgment of the objective close of revelation. In the final schema, the emphasis on this doctrine is the most striking feature of the text.
The other conspicuous feature of *De progressu Doctrinae* is the role granted to the “living magisterium” in dogmatic development: dogmatic development is presented as the exclusive domain of the living magisterium, while theology as a subservient auxiliary science takes part in the mission of the magisterium to scrutinize and declare the revealed deposit. Although it was made discretely clear in earlier drafts that for this mission the magisterium relied especially on speculative theology — instead of on positive theology—, the text is nonetheless far from adopting the strict Neo-Scholastic approach to dogmatic development. The typical terminology of Neo-Scholastic ‘logical’ theories on dogmatic development is totally absent: no mention of development by means of theological conclusions, not a word about the ‘formally’ and the ‘virtually’ revealed, nor of the ‘logical’ bond between ‘new’ definitions and earlier tenets of faith. The major theological source for the doctrine on dogmatic development in *De Deposito Fidei* is definitely the theology of the ‘Roman School’ on the doctrinal authority of the magisterium, which was also at the basis of *Humani generis* and *Munificentissimus Deus*. At the same time, the general tendency of the *vota*, the produced texts, and the ensuing discussions with regard to dogmatic development during the ante-preparatory and preparatory phase of the Council is that of a clear opposition against the ‘new’ theological approaches to the problem.

Ward DE PRIL
K.U.Leuven
# VERS UN CONCILE PASTORAL ?

## LA RÉCEPTION (OU NON-RÉCEPTION) DE LA THÉOLOGIE DE CHENU ET DE CONGAR AU COURS DE LA PHASE PRÉPARATOIRE DU CONCILE

### INTRODUCTION

Dans un rapport en vue du futur concile, rédigé au mois d'août 1959 pour Mgr Jean-Julien Weber, archevêque-évêque de Strasbourg, le dominicain Yves Congar, « exilé » dans la capitale alsacienne, écrit :

> Le soussigné, prêtre en 1930, a dû étudier très sérieusement, en 1935, les réponses à une enquête menée pendant 3 ans par la *Vie intellectuelle* sur les causes de l'incroyance moderne. Une conclusion s'est imposée à lui, dès ce moment : pour autant que nous sommes pour quelque chose dans l'incroyance moderne, le fond de la question est *ecclésiologique*. Il faut remonter, à travers des siècles où l'Église a pris, dans la société et à ses yeux, des formes juridiques d'autorité et de prestige, des attitudes 'paternalistes', il faut, disons-nous, remonter au sens ecclésial des Pères et du Nouveau Testament<fnref n="1" />.

Le texte continue en évoquant le parcours théologique de Congar depuis les années 1930, faisant ainsi le lien entre les mouvements préconciliaires et Vatican II. C'est le même lien que Congar établit encore le 24 septembre 1960 dans la lettre qu'il envoie aux membres de la Commission Théologique (CT) dont il est devenu consulteur<fnref n="2" />. Dans ce document, Congar résume la théologie qu'il a élaborée dans les

<footnote n="1">¹ Paris, Archives dominicaines de la province de France (désormais ADPF), *Fonds conciliaire Congar*, YC 0404, Yves CONGAR, *Rapport sur ce qui semble souhaiter d'envisager dans le Concile*, 4-6/8//1959, p. 5 —je remercie le fr. Michel Albaric OP, archiviste de la province de France, pour son soutien précieux. Dans son article *Réponse à l'enquête sur le Concile*, dans *Esprit*, (décembre 1961), p. 691-700 (695), Congar exprime les mêmes idées publiquement. Charles MOELLER, *Die Entstehung der Konstitution, ideengeschichtlich betrachtet*, dans Guilherme BARAÚNA (dir.), *De Ecclesia. Beiträge zur Konstitution «Über die Kirche» des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils*, Freiburg, 1966, p. 71-105, 75, situe les paragraphes concernés de cet article dans l'histoire de l'évolution de la pensée ecclésiologique. Sur «l'incroyance moderne» que Congar considère comme un problème *ecclésiologique*, voir désormais Dorothea WELTECKE, «*Der Narr spricht: es ist kein Gott.*» *Atheismus, Unglauben und Glaubenszweifel* vom 12. Jahrhundert bis zur Neuzeit, Frankfurt am Main, 2010. La dimension historico-théologique évoquée dans le rapport de 1959 et dans l'article de 1961 détermine en fait le travail ecclésiologique de Congar tel qu'il est conçu dès les années 1930 avec ses confrères du Saulchoir Marie-Dominique Chenu et Henri-Marie Féret dans le cadre d'un projet d'écrire une «histoire de la théologie», voir Michael QUISINSKY, *Geschichtlicher Glaube in einer geschichtlichen Welt. Der Beitrag von M.-D. Chenu, Y. Congar und H.-M. Féret zum II. Vaticanum*, Münster, 2007, p. 45-171. Voir aussi QUISINSKY, *Geschichtlicher Glaube*, p. 254-263 pour les attentes de Congar et Chenu exprimées avant Vatican II concernant le concile.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² «De Ecclesia. Les études poursuivies surtout depuis plus de trente ans permettent une déclaration plus intégrale de la doctrine ‘De Ecclesia’» (ADPF, *Fonds conciliaire Congar*, YC 0059, Yves CONGAR, *Conformément à l’invitation qui m’en a été faite...*, 24/9/1960, p. 4). S’ensuit un résumé très dense</footnote>
décennies passées et en tire des conclusions en vue du concile. Si pour Congar, le fond de la question de l'incroyance et *mutatis mutandis* de la foi dans le monde moderne est ecclésiologique, son horizon de réponse est tout sauf une spécialisation technique. Au contraire, dans le cadre d'un programme de travail avec Marie-Dominique Chenu et Henri-Marie Féret établi au début des années 1930, il veut « penser l'Église 'à partir des hommes et pour les hommes'<fnref n="3" /> », percevant l'Église comme une « realitas complexa<fnref n="4" /> », c.-à-d. une réalité divino-humaine dans une histoire du salut qui se concrétise dans les histoires innombrables des vies humaines. Cette intuition profonde, qui d'ailleurs ne mène pas immédiatement à une ecclésiologie systématique, s'inspire dans ses différents étapes et apprentissages —certes non exclusivement — d'une théologie de l'Incarnation qui permet de penser le divin et l'humain de manière chalcédonienne, à la fois comme unis et distincts. Chenu s'efforce dès 1936/37, dans son manifeste *Une école de théologie : le Saulchoir*, de discerner et interpréter des signes des temps qu'il appelle à l'époque « 'lieux' théologiques en actes, pour la doctrine de la grâce, de l'incarnation, de la rédemption<fnref n="5" /> ». Suite à Chenu, Congar met en œuvre une ecclésiologie qui est une expression de la théologie pratiquée au Saulchoir, théologie conçue comme intelligence de la foi dans toutes ses dimensions. S'il y a une réception de cette théologie à Vatican II et après le concile, l'intérêt principal de réceptions pareilles réside dans le fait qu'ainsi, l'Église se met au service de la foi, relation vivante, dans la grâce, entre Dieu et les hommes.

Une éventuelle réception ou non-réception de la théologie de Congar et de Chenu dans la période préparatoire est beaucoup plus difficile à saisir que pendant la période conciliaire. Si l'on compare le contenu des nombreux articles publiés et conférences tenues entre 1959 et 1962 par les deux théologiens avec le contenu des schematas préparés<fnref n="6" />, on peut croire que cette réception n'existe que de manière accidentelle¹²⁵.

<footnote n="3">³ Joseph FAMERÉE, Gilles ROUTHIER, Yves Congar, Paris, 2008, p. 198.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ FAMERÉE et ROUTHIER, Yves Congar, p. 184.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5 Marie-Dominique CHENU, Une école de théologie. Le Saulchoir. Avec les études de Giuseppe Alberigo, Etienne Fouilloux, Jean Ladrière et Jean-Pierre Jossua, Paris, 1985, p. 142. Pour la notion de signes des temps, voir CHENU, Les signes des temps – Réflexion théologique, dans Yves CONGAR, Michel PEUCHEMAUR (dir.), L'Église dans le monde de ce temps. Constitution pastorale «Gaudium et spes», T. 2: Commentaires, Paris, 1967, p. 205-225. Après Vatican II, Chenu dira que ce n'est pas seulement le concile, mais le monde contemporain qu'il faut comprendre à partir des années 1930, plus exactement à partir de la crise économique de 1929. Cf. Un théologien en liberté. Jacques Duquesne interroge le Père Chenu, Paris, 1975, p. 66.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ À titre d'exemple, qu'il suffise de mentionner le premier tome de Yves CONGAR, La Tradition et les traditions. Essai historique, Paris, 1960 ou les articles repris plus tard dans Yves CONGAR, Sainte Église.</footnote>
Chenu regrette dans ses remarques *Sur la rédaction des deux premiers schematas* que ceux-ci « ne répercutent aucunement, ni en doctrine, ni en accent, l'éveil missionnaire qui depuis vingt ans surtout fait retrouver à l'Église sa nature profonde, selon la mission du Christ<fnref n="8" /> ». Suite à la lecture des remarques de Chenu sur les schematas préparés, Congar écrit juste avant le concile :

> Dans beaucoup de cas, les critiques que vous et moi pouvons faire avaient été faites dans les travaux de la Comm. théol.; les rédacteurs en avaient un peu tenu compte, mais peu. La Com th était sous le signe du 'Nec nominetur in vobis'. La Com. centrale a dû déjà demander des corrections, car sur plusieurs points, les textes sont assez changés par rapport au dernier état que j'en ai connu dans la Commission. Il y aura, au Concile, une opposition entre l'esprit de la Curie et l'esprit de l'Église du grand large. Mais, maintenant, la parole est à l'ecclesia (...) A bientôt, à Rome... : drôle de rencontre..... !<fnref n="9" />.

En ce qui concerne son propre rôle, Congar affirme le 4 novembre 1962 être « étonné maintenant de n'avoir pas été plus critique sur les textes de la commission centrale, alors que je les estimais médiocres et, sur certains points, mauvais<fnref n="10" /> ». Congar juge sévèrement les résultats de ces travaux préparatoires qui font défaut d'une réception de la théologie du renouveau en phase avec les mouvements : « Les schémas préparés sont superficiels, scolaires, trop philosophiques, trop négatifs : c'est comme

*Études et approches ecclésiologiques* (Unam Sanctam, 41), Paris, 1963; *Pour une Église servante et pauvre*, Paris, 1963. Voir aussi le jugement exprimé dans CONGAR, *Mon journal du Concile*, 1/4 (juillet 1960). En ce qui concerne Chenu, ses recueils de 1964 contiennent également des articles significatifs de l'époque préconciliaire: Marie-Dominique CHENU, *La parole de Dieu*, T. 1: *La foi dans l'intelligence* et T. 2, *L'Évangile dans le temps*, Paris, 1964.

<footnote n="7">7 Voir p. ex. une remarque de René Laurentin: «(...) il me paraît important que l'on se manifeste là-dessus, ne serait-ce que pour les Acta» (ADPF, *Fonds conciliaire Congar*, YC 0170 et 0171, lettre de Laurentin à Congar, 17/2/1962).</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8 Marie-Dominique CHENU, *Sur la rédaction des deux premiers Schemata*, cit. d'après ID., *Notes quotidiennes au Concile. Journal de Vatican II (1962-1963)*. Édition critique et introduction par Alberto Melloni, Paris, p. 60s n. 3.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">9 ADPF, *Fonds Chenu*, s.n., lettre Congar à Chenu, 4/9/1962 en réponse à une lettre de Chenu du 2 septembre 1962 (copie dans ADPF, *Fonds Chenu*) dans laquelle il compare le rapport de Congar de 1960 aux schematas. Le fonds Chenu est en cours d'inventarisation, c'est pourquoi je ne mentionne pas de numéro des documents. Au moment de ma consultation, les documents relatifs au concile se trouvent dans des boîtes intitulées Vatican II et Schema XIII.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">10 CONGAR, *Mon journal du Concile*, I/181 (4 novembre 1962). Ce jour, après avoir participé au *Domus Mariae* à une réunion entre théologiens du Concile, le dominicain, entre-temps nommé *peritus*, revient sur le travail de la commission théologique préparatoire dont il était consulteur. Il évoque cinq raisons qui pourraient expliquer son bilan négatif: son idée que les textes soumis aux consulteurs étaient quasi-définitifs et qu'on ne pouvait plus changer que des détails; la différence qu'il établit entre ces textes et la «pensée vivante», plus importante que les documents; le rôle très peu influent des consulteurs, réduits à l'état de «figurants»; en revanche, le rôle très puissant de Sebastiaan Tromp; le climat général, marqué par le «Saint-Office» et la théologie romaine. Si ma contribution doit se concentrer sur la perspective de Congar, on verra, pour la perspective de Tromp, VON TEUFFENBACH (dir.), *Konzilstagebuch Sebastian Tromp*, p. 11-65. Les jugements et réactions souvent unilatéraux et parfois même brutaux de Congar envers Tromp dans son *Journal du Concile* expriment un malaise profond dans la mesure où, dans les yeux de Congar, Tromp incarne le «système» face auquel il se sent impuissant. Les mises en gardes de von Teuffenbach rapellent à juste titre de ne pas sous-estimer la dimension émotionnelle des discussions théologiques.</footnote>
s'il n'y avait pas eu quarante ans de travail biblique, théologique et liturgique<fnref n="11" /> ». Ces remarques contrastent avec le bilan de Congar à la fin du concile quand il affirme qu'il a « beaucoup fait pour préparer le concile, élaborer, rayonner les idées que le concile a consacrées », et quand il donne une liste impressionnante de documents conciliaires auxquels il a collaboré<fnref n="12" /> . De son côté, Chenu, après le concile, exprime sa joie de constater que *Lumen gentium* inscrive l'Église dans une vision dynamique de l'histoire du salut et de l'histoire concrète, et que, en plus, *Gaudium et spes* soit une sorte de deuxième constitution sur l'Église qui permette, grâce à son approche à la fois dogmatique et pastorale, de vivre et de penser la foi chrétienne en phase avec le monde moderne qui ne cesse de changer<fnref n="13" /> .

En comparant ces évaluations de 1962 et 1965, peut-on conclure que la phase préparatoire est marquée par une non-réception et la période proprement conciliaire par une réception de la théologie de Congar et de Chenu ? Pareil résumé, si justifié qu'il puisse paraître à première vue, reste trop superficiel. Dans la mesure où l'on peut établir un lien entre la « 'marque' de Congar sur le Concile Vatican II<fnref n="14" /> » et son œuvre préconciliaire, le cas de la réception ou non-réception de sa théologie est un exemple privilégié pour saisir quelques enjeux de la réception des développements préconciliaires, tout en contribuant ainsi à clarifier l'identité propre de la période préparatoire. Car même si Congar, avant le concile, « était témoin de l'élaboration de projets qui n'allaitaient pas faire aboutir ce à quoi il avait consacré sa vie au cours des vingt dernières années<fnref n="15" /> », il a pousuivi à travers des articles, conférences et participations aux colloques son travail « d'éveilleur<fnref n="16" /> » qui ne restait pas sans effets à Vatican II.<fnref n="17" /> Cela est aussi le cas de Chenu, mais sa situation marginalisée fait que

<footnote n="11">¹¹ CONGAR, *Mon journal du Concile*, I/181 (4 novembre 1962); de même, I/233s. (17 novembre 1962).</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² CONGAR, *Mon journal du Concile*, II/510 (7 décembre 1965).</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ Parmi ses nombreuses publications sur Vatican II, voir surtout Marie-Dominique CHENU, *Un peuple messianique. Constitution de l'Église, chap. 2, no. 9*, dans NRT, 89 (1967), p. 164-182; ID., *Une constitution pastorale de l'Église*, dans ID, *Peuple de Dieu dans le monde*, Paris, 1966, p. 11-34 (à l'origine une conférence tenue lors de l'élaboration de Gaudium et spes*); ID., *De commercio inter Ecclesiam et mundum secundum constitutionem «Gaudium et spes» n. 44*, dans *Acta congressus internationalis de theologia Concilii Vaticani II, Romae 26 septembris – 11 octobris*, Rome, 1968, p. 648-651.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ Joseph FAMERÉE, *L'ecclésiologie d'Yves Congar avant Vatican II. Histoire et Église. Analyse et reprise critique*, Leuven, 1992, p. 400.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ FAMERÉE et ROUTHIER, *Yves Congar*, p. 42.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ FAMERÉE et ROUTHIER, *Yves Congar*, p. 42. Ce terme est également appliqué à Chenu par Joseph DORÉ, *Un itinéraire-témoin, Marie-Dominique Chenu, dans Pierre COLIN (dir.)*, *Les catholiques français et l'héritage de 1789. D'un centenaire à l'autre (1889-1989)*, Paris, 1989, p. 313-339, 338. Pour une illustration de ce rôle de Congar voir p. ex. l'article Préparez le Concile dans votre paroisse avec le Père Congar, o.p., dans la brochure publicitaire *EDITIONS DU CERF, Lettre de Jéricho*, 4 (juin 1960), p. 15.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ Dès l'annonce du concile, Congar publiait, le 15 février 1959, dans les *Informations catholiques internationales*, son article *Les conciles dans la vie de l'Église*, repris dans CONGAR, *Sainte Église*, p. 303-325. Parmi d'autres titres, voir p. ex. Yves CONGAR, *Une, sainte, catholique et apostolique*, dans *Un concile pour notre temps. Journées d'études des Informations catholiques internationales*, Paris, 1962, p. 225-252) ou encore son article *La signification théologique du concile*, dans *Le Monde*, (6 septembre 1962), mis en contexte par Philippe CHENAUX, *Les intellectuels français face au Concile*, dans *Étienne FOUILLOUX (dir.)*, *Vatican II commence... Approches francophones*, Leuven, 1993, p. 275-287, 2795. Dans un échange de lettres avec Hans Urs von Balthasar, chargé par le conseil scientifique du Johann-Adam-Möhler-Institut de préparer un ouvrage collectif sur la dimension cœcuménique du concile,</footnote>
l'auteur d'Une école de théologie : le Saulchoir a plutôt le rôle d'un inspirateur d'arrière-
plan que celui d'un acteur de premier plan<fnref n="18" />.

Si Congar dit au début de son journal conciliaire qu'il croit « aux personnes, à l'initiative personnelle<fnref n="19" /> » — tout en voyant la nécessité de structurer le travail résultant de ces initiatives —, le concile sera aussi largement marqué par des pensées théologiques et par des structures institutionnelles. Personne ne saurait mieux le rappeler que Chenu, proche de l'école des Annales qui favorisait une histoire des mentalités et des conjonctures sociales.<fnref n="20" /> Ne voulant pas interpréter le concile à partir de la seule théologie de Chenu et de Congar, notre examen minutieux de la réception ou non-réception de leur théologie a pour but de dégager quelques caractéristiques et enjeux herméneutiques et théologiques de la période préparatoire. Ainsi, cette étude de cas ne peut apporter que quelques morceaux de mosaïque, qui peuvent sensibiliser à des enjeux théologiques et procéduraux de la période préparatoire. Pour cela, il est utile dans un premier temps de « glisser de la théologie aux théologiens<fnref n="21" /> », tout en continuant dans un deuxième temps en glissant de nouveau du théologien à la théologie telle qu'elle est conditionnée idéellement et structurellement. Si ce procédé, situé plus au niveau des soubassements du travail préparatoire qu'au niveau de la surface, semble trouver sa légitimation dans le caractère même de la participation de Congar au concile, il risque de laisser et les historiens et les théologiens sur leur faim<fnref n="22" />. Il trouve sa justification dans le caractère historico-théologique non seulement de l'œuvre de Chenu et de Congar, mais de la notion même de réception, tant par le concile que du concile.

DE LA THÉOLOGIE AUX THÉOLOGIENS

DES RÉCEPTIONS DE LA THÉOLOGIE CONGARIENNE PAR LA CT ?

Avant de glisser aux théologiens, il convient de saisir de manière exemplaire la portée de la réception ou la non-réception d'une proposition par une commission préconciliaire.

Congar — seul auteur francophone prévu dans la liste de Balthasar qui se lit comme un Who is who des œcuménistes allemands — évoque en avril 1959 les différentes initiatives prises dès l'annonce du concile [dont l'article des I.C.I et ses projets pour le colloque de Chevetogne (voir ci-bas)] (ADPF, Fonds conciliaire Congar, YC 399-402).

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ Dans une lettre à Chenu du 7 septembre 1962 (ADPF, *Fonds Chenu*), Mgr Garrone retient la proximité des remarques de Chenu et de Congar sur le concile et affirme que les deux rejoignent les intentions de beaucoup de théologiens et d'évêques. D'autres évêques français expriment leur accord général avec Chenu et l'invitent à envoyer des notes (p. ex. Mgr Marty, 6 septembre 1962, Mgr Villot, 10 septembre 1962).</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ CONGAR, *Mon journal du Concile*, I/1, p. 11 (juillet 1960) (c'est moi qui souligne).</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰ Pour le concile, voir notamment CHENU, *Vie conciliaire de l'Église*, p. 371-383.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹ Étienne FOUILLOUX, *Les théologiens romains à la veille de Vatican II*, dans Jean-Dominique DURAND (dir.), *Histoire et théologie. Actes de la Journée d'études de l'Association française d'histoire religieuse contemporaine*, Paris, 1994, p. 137-160, 137.</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²² Pour les regards croisés d'historiens et d'ecclésiologues, voir Hervé LEGRAND, *Relecture et évaluation de l'Histoire du Concile Vatican II d'un point de vue ecclésiologique*, dans Christoph THEOBALD (dir.), *Vatican II sous le regard des historiens. Colloque du 23 septembre 2005 Centre Sèvres – Facultés jésuites de Paris*, Paris, 2006, p. 49-82.</footnote>
Un premier exemple: pendant les vives discussions autour du chapitre *de membris* lors de la session de la CT au mois de septembre 1961, la proposition de Congar est acceptée d'ajouter dans le titre l'adjectif *militantis* à *Ecclesiae* pour préciser que le schema parle dans ce chapitre disputé de l'Église comme réalité historique et concrète<fnref n="23" />. En effet, cette précision —pour Congar lourde de sens<fnref n="24" />— peut servir de base pour une clarification de certaines questions disputées à la suite de *Mystici Corporis*. Cet ajout peut également ouvrir une brèche dans une ecclésiologie rationaliste et juridique, ainsi qu'inaugurer une réception des expériences des mouvements préconciliaires, car il permet, p. ex. à partir de la théologie du laïcat développée par Congar, mais aussi par une discussion du terme même, d'exploiter les enjeux de ce caractère « militant » d'une manière prospective<fnref n="25" />. Certes, un mot ajouté ou tracé peut changer le sens d'un texte. D'ailleurs, Congar admira l'« art inouï » de Gérard Philips d'insérer une idée importante « par l'adjonction d'un mot<fnref n="26" /> », et d'une certaine manière, lui-même a réussi à introduire ainsi, avec Chenu et Mgr Marty, la notion du peuple « messianique » dans *Lumen gentium* 9²⁷. Mais chaque ajout n'ayant pas la même densité et n'influençant l'interprétation du texte que selon son contexte, on ne saurait ni surestimer une seule expression ni limiter à quelques expressions la notion de « réception ».

Un deuxième exemple: pour la réunion de la CT du 15 au 23 novembre 1961, Congar est invité à préparer un *votum de oecumenismo* qui retient l'attention de Johannes Witte, rédacteur du chapitre en question<fnref n="28" />. Cependant, une réception de la théologie de Congar est loin d'être assurée<fnref n="29" />. Même si l'on peut alors trouver des traces

<footnote n="23">23 Relatio Secretarii de consessu plenario tertio com. theologicae Romae habito, diebus 18-30 Septembris a.D. 1961 (29 septembre) (Leuven, Centre for the Study of the Second Vatican Council Archives [désormais CSVII], *Fonds Philips*, 0074), p. 20 —je remercie le Dr. Karim SCHELKENS pour son aide précieuse dans les archives du Centre for the Study of the Second Vatican Council de la K.U.Leuven. Au sujet mentionné dans le document que je viens de citer, voir aussi Stefano ALBERTO, «Corpus Suum mystice constituit» (LG 7). La Chiesa Corpo Mistico di Cristo nel Primo Capitolo della «Lumen Gentium». *Storia del Testo dalla «Mystici Corporis» al Vaticano II con riferimento alla attività conciliare del P. Sebastiaan Tromp S.J.* (Eichstätter Studien, NF, 37), Regensburg 1996, p. 1428. Et VON TEUFFENBACH (dir.) *Konzilstagebuch Sebastian Tromp*, I/2, p. 719. Voir aussi ADPF, *Fonds conciliaire Congar*, YC 0249, Animadversiones membrorum et consultorum in constitutionem De Ecclesia, 13/8/1961 pour des remarques de Congar concernant la réception de ce chapitre par les non-catholiques (ibid., 1), la justification de la nécessité de l'Église par Eph 4,4-6, le rôle du Saint-Esprit (p. 3), la prise en considération de l'ecclésiologie orthodoxe (p. 4 et 5).</footnote>

<footnote n="24">24 Voir p. ex. Yves CONGAR, *Jalons pour une théologie du laïcat*, Paris, 1953, p. 550.</footnote>

<footnote n="25">25 Dans ses observations pour la réunion de la Commission centrale du 8 mai 1962 (AD II/2,3, 986-1115), le Cfr Frings proposera de remplacer l'expression *Ecclesia militantis* par *Ecclesia in via constituta* ou *Ecclesia in terris ambulans*, alors que les cardinaux Döpfner, Bea et Alfrink suggèrent l'expression *Ecclesia peregrinans* (mis en contexte par Stefano ALBERTO, «Corpus Suum mystice constituit», p. 179). *Lumen gentium* 14 gardera ce dernier terme. On retiendra aussi l'intervention du Mgr Hurley, insistant sur la dimension de «la vie» (AD II/2,3, 1018).</footnote>

<footnote n="26">26 Yves CONGAR, *Mon journal du Concile*, I/398.</footnote>

<footnote n="27">27 Michael QUISINSKY, *Les PP. Chenu, Congar et Féret engagés dans Vatican II. Du Saulchoir à l'Église du concile*, dans *Mémoire dominicaine*, n° 25, Paris, 2010, p. 141-174, 162-165.</footnote>

<footnote n="28">28 ADPF, *Fonds conciliaire Congar*, YC 0190, Yves CONGAR, *Votum R. P. Congar «De oecumenismo», 18/10/1961 (YC 0304 pour la version ronéotypée par la Commission théologique).*</footnote>

<footnote n="29">29 Ainsi, Tromp reproche à Witte d'avoir dépassé ses compétences en invitant Congar (*Konzilstagebuch Sebastian Tromp*, p. 303 (13 octobre 1961)). En plus, Tromp dit que Congar pourrait alors bien assister aux réunions concernant des questions oecuméniques, mais pas aux autres réunions, dont il nie ainsi</footnote>
de la théologie œcuménique congarienne dans les textes discutés lors de cette session de la CT³°, Congar n'y verrait guère une réception communément acceptée par les membres de cette commission de son intuition profonde, à savoir de situer l'Église dans l'histoire afin de pouvoir aborder, à la fois historiquement et dogmatiquement, des questions œcuméniques dans un vaste horizon eschatologique<fnref n="31" />.

Un troisième exemple : Congar, depuis longtemps attentif à la théologie et à l'ecclésiologie orientales, fait la connaissance de Mgr Maksym Hermanjuk<fnref n="32" /> lors des travaux de la phase préparatoire<fnref n="33" />. Le 28 septembre 1961, Hermanjuk prend la parole en faveur d'un gouvernement plus collégial de l'Église et se réjouit du soutien de Congar<fnref n="34" />. De ces rencontres naît une collaboration entre Congar et Hermanjuk : le 6 mars 1962, Congar « rédige quelque chose dans le sens qu'il (Hermaniuk) désire<fnref n="35" /> ». Non sans difficultés, et appuyé par la critique exprimée dans la Commission centrale par le patriarche Maximos IV Sayegh<fnref n="36" /> d'un schema qui « ne peut pas être proposé au

la dimension œcuménique tout en réduisant celle-ci à une question subordonnée et séparée: «Dixi Patrem Congar, si scribat votum de oecumenismo, sessionibus de oecumenismo assistere posse: non amplius». De son côté, après avoir reçu le votum de Congar, Gagnebet se voit «autorisé à vous inviter» pour une session d'études au mois de novembre où Congar peut «mettre à profit (sa) connaissance de ce problème difficile» (ADPF, *Fonds conciliaire Congar*, YC 0178, lettre de Gagnebet à Congar, 21/10/1961).

<footnote n="30">30 Riccardo BURIGANA, Maria PAIANO, Giovanni TURBANTI, Mauro VELATI, *La messa a punto dei testi. Le commissioni nella fase preparatoria del Vaticano II*, dans FOUILLOUX (dir.), *Vatican II commence*, p. 28-53, 37.</footnote>

<footnote n="31">31 Exposées dans une lettre de Congar à Witte, 5 décembre 1961 —je remercie le P. Jared Wicks d'avoir attiré mon attention sur cette lettre. On la trouve aussi dans ADPF, *Fonds conciliaire Congar*, YC 0311. Des remarques semblables se trouvent dans CONGAR, *Mon journal du Concile*, I/81 (22 novembre 1961).</footnote>

<footnote n="32">32 Voir Karim SCHELKENS et Jaroslav SKIRA (dir.), *Council diaries of Metropolitan Maxim Hermaniuk* (Eastern Christian Studies), Leuven, 2011.</footnote>

<footnote n="33">33 Vu l'éloignement géographique, le métropolite de l'éparchie de rite ukrainien de Winnipeg (Canada) a plutôt fait une lente entrée dans les travaux préparatoires. Le 18 septembre 1961, le dominicain français est le premier qui figure sur la liste fort intéressante des théologiens rencontrés par Hermanjuk lors de la session de la commission (SCHELKENS et SKIRA (eds.), *Council diaries Hermaniuk*, 18 septembre 1961).</footnote>

<footnote n="34">34 «Fr. Tromp (...) was very much against this idea; supporting me: Fr. Häring, Fr. Congar, and other experts present.» (SCHELKENS et SKIRA (dir.), *Council diaries Hermaniuk*, 28 septembre 1961).</footnote>

<footnote n="35">35 «Constitution de Magisterio (Colombo). Piolanti (...) voudrait que les évêques assemblés en concile dépendent du pape *fontaliter* (...) Par contre, Mgr Hermaniuk propose (...) une vue des choses dont il pense très justement qu'elle tendrait la main à certains Orthodoxes» (CONGAR, *Mon journal du Concile*, I/91, 6 mars 1962); cf. aussi CSVII, *Council diaries Hermaniuk*, 6 mars 1962: «The Leuven delegates and the Germans supported this proposal immediately. The French —Fr. Gagnebet O.P.— was opposed, but for example Fr. Congar— was in support.» Voir aussi Umberto BETTI, *La dottrina sull'episcopato del concilio Vaticano II. Il capitolo III della Costituzione dommatica Lumen gentium* (Spicilegium Pontificii Athenaei Antoniani, 25), Rome, 1984, p. 46s.</footnote>

<footnote n="36">36 Trois jours plus tard, Congar éprouve une «immense joie», car la proposition de Hermanjuk, situant l'infaillibilité pontificale dans une vision collégiale de l'épiscopat, «a été admise» par la sous-commission (CONGAR, *Mon journal du Concile*, I/96 (9 mars 1962)). Dans une lettre à Carlo Colombo (ADPF, *Fonds conciliaire Congar*, YC 0089, 27/4/1962), Congar constate que son votum «rédigé hâtivement(...) le lendemain de l'intervention si intéressante de Mgr Hermaniuk» et «remis au P. Gagnebet» n'a été communiqué à personne. Dans le même sens, il écrit à Maximos IV Sayegh le même jour (ADPF, *Fonds conciliaire Congar*, YC 0419, lettre de Congar à Maximos, 27/4/1962) en réponse à YC 0420, lettre de Maximos à Congar, 20/4/1962, lettre dans laquelle le patriarche réagit vivement contre la «théorie, à notre sens inadmissible, du 'Pape source dernière unique de tout pouvoir dans</footnote>
Concile<fnref n="37" /> », la notion de collégialité fait ici timidement son chemin. Elle implique une ouverture possible sur le plan œcuménique et dans des sujets à la fois dogmatiques et pastoraux tels que celui des Églises locales. En cela, on peut voir émerger une manière, certes très prudente, de compléter, grâce à l'aide discrète de la théologie de Congar, l'enseignement de Vatican I.

Si importants qu'ils puissent être, ces trois exemples d'une « réception » démontrent les limites de cette méthode de recherches, à savoir de chercher des ajouts introduits à l'initiative de Congar dans les schemata, ces « textes de compromis<fnref n="38" /> ». Sans prendre en considération le contexte institutionnel et personnel de la commission et le sous-bassement théologique des enjeux, l'identification de l'auteur d'une expression ne suffit pas pour mesurer la portée d'une réception ou d'une non-réception<fnref n="39" />. Ceci vaut a fortiori quand il s'agit d'une commission au sein de laquelle plusieurs ecclésiologies sont présentes, ou mieux: juxtaposées<fnref n="40" />. Car selon le point de vue, on peut alors constater soit que le schema de Ecclesia élaboré par la CT ne montre pas de trace d'une réception du renouveau préconciliaire<fnref n="41" />, soit que le concile n'est qu'une sorte de réception des travaux préparatoires<fnref n="42" />. Pour éviter ce genre d'impasses, il semble utile de faire maintenant un pas en arrière en « glissant aux théologiens », pour saisir, à travers eux, les enjeux théologiques et procéduraux de la réception.

## QUELQUES ENJEUX THÉOLOGIQUES D'UNE RÉCEPTION À LA LUMIÈRE DE LEURS ACTEURS

Ne pouvant pas, en réalité, comparer entre eux tous les théologiens ayant participé au concile, je me limiterai à une comparaison exemplaire des positions de Congar et de quelques théologiens importants. Leurs contacts lors de la période préparatoire révèlent les enjeux théologiques en question.

l'Église¹ et —« connaissant votre compétence en la matière »—demande le soutien de Congar à ce sujet. Ce contact entre Maximos IV et Congar, marqué par une convergence des positions, est mis en contexte par Joseph A. KOMONCHAK, *The initial debate about the Church*, dans FOUILLOUX (dir.), *Vatican II commence*, p. 329-352, 337.

<footnote n="37">³⁷ Mot conclusif de son intervention fulgurante le 8 mai 1962 dans la Commission centrale (AD II/3, p. 1059-1066, 1066).</footnote>

<footnote n="38">³⁸ Pour cette dimension des textes préparatoires, voir Karim SCHELKENS, *Catholic Theology of Revelation on the Eve of Vatican II. A Redaction History of the Schema De fontibus revelationis (1960-1962)*, Leiden, 2010, p. 255.</footnote>

<footnote n="39">³⁹ Ceci dit, il existe une différence entre l'ajout d'une expression qui introduit un aspect nouveau d'un côté et, de l'autre côté, le remplacement d'un terme par un autre dans le but de préciser un énoncé ou de laisser ouverte la possibilité d'une discussion ultérieure.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ Alberto MELLONI, *Ecclesiologie al Vaticano II (autunno 1962-estate 1963)*, dans Mathijs LAMBERIGTS, Claude SOETENS, Jan GROOTAERS (dir.), *Les commissions conciliaires à Vatican II* (Instrumenta theologica, 18), Leuven, 1996, p. 91-179, 95.</footnote>

<footnote n="41">⁴¹ MELLONI, *Ecclesiologie al Vaticano II*, p. 99.</footnote>

<footnote n="42">⁴² Alexandra VON TEUFFENBACH, *Die Bedeutung des subsistit in (LG 8)*. Zum Selbstverständnis der katholischen Kirche, München, 2002, p. 394.</footnote>
Congar et les théologiens de la CT

Sebastian Tromp : une réception du renouveau à l'épreuve de Mystici Corporis

Le jésuite néerlandais Sebastian Tromp fait partie des nombreux théologiens qui, dans les années 1920 et 1930, se consacrent au motif de l'Église Corps du Christ43. Congar, dans sa recension du livre Corpus Christi quod est Ecclesia44, reconnaît que celui-ci est extrêmement riche, mais il croit pouvoir ramener à une proposition le sens du livre: « L'Église, réalité spirituelle à qui l'Esprit du Christ donne l'être, est une seule chose avec l'Église hiérarchique visible, laquelle est le Corps mystique lui-même, organisé ». La recension de Congar est loin d'être négative45, mais quelques remarques désignent finement des lignes de convergence et de divergence entre son œuvre et celle de Tromp. Puisque ce sont les mêmes lignes qu'on peut discerner pendant la période préparatoire de Vatican II, cela montre que les enjeux théologiques de cette période remontent aux années 1930 et au-delà. Le point de clivage entre les ecclésiologies de Tromp et de Congar est la manière de concevoir le lien entre l'Église visible et invisible, qui détermine, en outre, la conception de la papauté et de la hiérarchie, la définition des membres de l'Église, les possibilités de l'ecuménisme et le statut epistémologique d'autres lieux théologiques que celui du magistère. Parmi les remarques critiques de Congar, retenons-en deux qui renvoient à de futurs enjeux de Vatican II. D'abord, on retient sa mise en valeur de l'eschatologie, et en rapport avec elle, son plaidoyer pour un ressourcement ecclésiologique qui intègre les acquis récents de l'exégèse et des recherches sur les Pères. Cela permettrait aussi de mieux saisir le mystère de l'Incarnation et de la Croix, ainsi que le rapport de cette dernière avec l'Église dont ce mystère est l'origine46. Dans la période préparatoire, les différences théologiques entre Tromp et Congar se manifestent à la fois dans le style et dans le contenu de leur théologie47. Quant au contenu, Congar ne cesse de se plaindre que Tromp « ramène tout à sa thèse unique : Ecclesia catholica est sola Ecclesia ; est Corpus

<footnote n="43">43 Sebastian TROMP, *Corpus Christi quod est Ecclesia*, T. 1: *Introductio generalis*, Rome, 1937. Pour l'ecclésiologie de Tromp, voir Stefano ALBERTO, «Corpus Suum mystice constituit», p. 49-54. Voir les p. 42-49 pour une vue d'ensemble de la théologie du Corps mystique.</footnote>

<footnote n="44">44 Yves CONGAR, *Bulletin d'ecclésiologie* [1937], dans CONGAR, *Sainte Église*, p. 502. Voir Sebastian TROMP, *Corpus Christi quod est Ecclesia*, T. 1: *Introductio generalis*, Rome 1937. En 1953, Congar revient à la deuxième édition de ce livre: «Dans la perspective traditionnelle ancienne, il ne suffit pas de dire, avec le P. Tromp (Corpus Christi quod est Ecclesia, Rome, 2ᵉ éd., 1946, p. 102 s, 122 s., 127, 167 s): 'Viatoribus, Corpus Christi mysticum est Ecclesia Romana', mais il faut dire: 'Viatoribus post Christum et Apostolos, Corpus Christi mysticum est Ecclesia Romana'.» Là encore, l'enjeu est de taille, comme en témoignent les remarques de Congar sur l'histoire de l'ecclésiologie (Congar évoque l'évolution ecclésiologique depuis Bellarmin et Canisius jusqu'au pontificat de Pie XII et son encyclique Mystici Corporis).</footnote>

<footnote n="45">45 Ainsi il salue, d'un côté, «une restauration de la métaphore en la valeur théologique qu'un saint Thomas n'avait pas manqué de lui reconnaître (Iª, 1, 9): toutes ces notions d'Épouse, Temple spirituel, voire de Corps mystique, sont de l'authentique donné théologique qui, pour n'être pas entièrement réductible à des catégories claires et rigoureuses, n'en est pas moins d'une inépuisable et irremplaçable richesse» (CONGAR, *Bulletin d'ecclésiologie*, p. 503).</footnote>

<footnote n="46">46 CONGAR, *Bulletin d'ecclésiologie*, p. 503.</footnote>

<footnote n="47">47 Congar commente le style trompien après un entretien avec le secrétaire de la Commission théologique, voir CONGAR, *Mon journal du Concile*, I/41 (16 novembre 1960).</footnote>
Christi mysticum<fnref n="48" /> ». Cela renvoie à l'encyclique Mystici Corporis de 1943, rédigé sous l'influence de Tromp<fnref n="49" />. Selon Congar, l'encyclique propose « une synthèse très ample et très fortement charpentée, sans qu'on puisse dire, évidemment, qu'elle ait assumé tous les aspects du mystère<fnref n="50" /> ». P. ex., elle reste une expression latine de ce mystère, n'intégrant pas la tradition orientale. Dans l'histoire du catholicisme du 20ᵉs., l'encyclique est elle-même une certaine réception de l'émergence du motif du Corps mystique dans le contexte d'un renouveau ecclésial et ecclésiologique dès les années 1920, et elle conditionne dorénavant toutes les possibilités éventuelles d'une réception de ce renouveau<fnref n="51" />. Pour Congar, elle est le point de départ de ce qu'il appellera plus tard une « re-réception<fnref n="52" /> ». Pour la direction que les travaux préparatoires pouvaient prendre, le positionnement des acteurs conciliaires face à Mystici Corporis s'avère crucial. Si pour Congar, l'encyclique est une étape intermédiaire dans un processus de réception du renouveau dogmatique et pastoral, pour Tromp, au contraire, elle est

<footnote n="48">⁴⁸ CONGAR, *Mon journal du Concile*, I/81 (21 novembre 1961). Pour ses reproches, voir p. ex. son commentaire sur plusieurs enjeux théologiques et herméneutiques:voir aussi I/82 (22 novembre 1961).</footnote>

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹ Congar salue que Pie XII insiste sur l'aspect visible et juridique de l'Église pour éviter le danger d'aboutir à une surestimation de l'Église invisible (Yves CONGAR, *Peut-on définir l'Église? Destin et valeur de quatre notions qui s'offrent à le faire* (1961), dans ID., *Sainte Église*, p. 21-44, 28). Ne pouvant pas dresser le bilan de la réception de Mystici Corporis par Congar, je me contente de renvoyer à ce texte représentatif.</footnote>

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰ CONGAR, *Peut-on définir l'Église?*, p. 30.</footnote>

<footnote n="51">⁵¹ Dans un tout autre contexte, cette double dimension de Mystici Corporis comme réception d'un mouvement par un document papal et réception d'un document papal par un mouvement caractériser l'œuvre symptomatique pour l'interférence entre dogme et pastorale de Constantin Noppel SJ, voir Michael QUISINSKY, *Die Pfarrei zwischen Kirche und Gesellschaft. Historische und theologische Perspektiven auf das Werk von Constantin Noppel SJ (1883-1945)*, dans *Freiburger Diözesan-Archiv*, 126 (2006), p. 163-193.</footnote>

<footnote n="52">⁵² Yves CONGAR, *Les théologiens, Vatican II et la théologie*, dans CONGAR, *Le Concile de Vatican II. Son Église Peuple de Dieu et Corps du Christ. Préface de René Rémond*, Paris, 1984, p. 79-90, 83. Dans un rapport pour la CT, Congar exprime son avis que «c'est de ce concept qu'il faut partir: Corpus Christi mysticum réalité surnaturelle, supposant les relations mystiques avec le Christ comme Chef et le Saint-Esprit comme âme, mais assumant la valeur imprescriptible de 'Société', en même temps que les valeurs de 'Peuple de Dieu' et de 'Communion'.» (CONGAR, *Conformément à l'invitation qui m'a été faite*, 6). Voir aussi Olivier ROUSSEAU, *Die Konstitution im Rahmen der Erneuerungsbewegungen in Theologie und Seelsorge während der letzten Jahrzehnte*, dans Guilherme BARAÚNA (dir.), *De Ecclesia. Beiträge zur Konstitution «Über die Kirche» des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils*, T. 1, Freiburg, 1966, p. 25-44, 258.; Jérôme HAMER, *L'Église est une communion*, Paris, Cerf, 1962; J. Eileen SCULLY, *The Theology of the Mystical Body of Christ in French Language Theology 1930-1950 — a review and assessment*, dans Irish Theological Quarterly, 58 (1992), p. 58-74; Antonino INDELICATO, *Difendere la dottrina o annunciare l'evangelo. Il dibattito nella Commissione centrale preparatoria del Vaticano II (Testi e ricerche di scienze religiose, NS, 8)*, Gênes, 1992, p. 242ss.(Indelicato, p. 243 n. 54 renvoie au rôle des recensions congariennes pour une prise en considération des évolutions ecclésiologiques de la période en question). Parmi les contributions préconciliaires de Congar sur la notion de peuple de Dieu, voir p. ex. CONGAR, *Peut-on définir l'Église?*, p. 22-26 (voir aussi p. 37-40 pour la notion de *communion*). À la fin du concile, voir ID., *L'Église comme peuple de Dieu*, dans Concilium, 1 (1965), p. 15-32. Aussi, il propose de compléter la doctrine de l'encyclique par une exposition du sens donné au motif du Corps du Christ dans l'œuvre paulinienne (ADPF, *Fonds conciliaire Congar*, YC 0324, Yves CONGAR, *Animadversiones in Cap. de Ecclesiae Natura, 2/3/1962, 7*). Selon Congar, ceci inclut les aspects anthropologiques et sotériologiques. Surtout, le motif du Corps du Christ serait ainsi moins considéré en lui-même, mais dans son rapport vital au Christ.</footnote>
plutôt un point d’arrivée qu’un point de départ<fnref n="53" />. Par conséquent, pour le jésuite,
une réception de la théologie du renouveau au-delà de ce qui est dit dans l’encyclique
n’est peut-être pas exclue d’avance, mais peu nécessaire. Le dominicain, de son côté,
tout en tirant profit de la réception de cet enseignement papal —qui pour lui n’est
pas à confondre avec la théologie de Tromp<fnref n="54" />—, voit et la nécessité de nouveaux
apprentissages ecclésiologiques à la fois pastoraux et dogmatiques, et celle d’intégrer
ces apprentissages dans un ressourcement de l’ecclésiologie dans la Tradition au-delà
de l’héritage de Vatican I<fnref n="55" />.

Si Congar ne peut pas accepter la thèse trompienne dans la mesure où elle ne
permet guère de réception positive de l'ecclésiologie sous-jacente aux « mouvements »
et enrichie par eux, il soutient, lors des travaux préparatoires, une proposition de
Tromp concernant l'ordre des schemata qu'il juge la meilleure des propositions
faites<fnref n="56" />. Cette proposition exprime l'unité des différents articles dont il faut traiter
et permet de penser la dimension « dynamique » de l'Église, dimension que Congar
dit tout de suite ne pas vouloir surestimer, mais qu'il voit fondée dans la Révélation et
dans la volonté salvifique de Dieu. Certes, la vue d'ensemble que Congar souhaite est
différente de celle imaginée par Tromp<fnref n="57" />.

<footnote n="53">53 BURIGANA, *Progetto dogmatico*, p. 171s.</footnote>

<footnote n="54">54 Voir p. ex. sa conversation avec Labourdette le 28 septembre 1961 (CONGAR, *Mon journal du Concile*, I/77).</footnote>

<footnote n="55">55 Dans son rapport du 24 septembre 1960, Congar inscrit Mystici Corporis non seulement dans l'histoire des mouvements à partir de 1925, mais il considère aussi l'encyclique comme un complément pour Vatican I, apogée dans un développement vers exclusivité des pouvoirs hiérarchiques commencé au 14ᵉ s. et renforcé depuis la Réforme et les Lumières. «Ce fut au point que le premier schema 'De Ecclesia' proposé au Concile du Vatican en 1870, et rédigé par Schrader, qui commençait par 'Ecclesia est Corpus Christi mysticum', fut très mal accueilli par les Pères (...) L'Encyclique Mystici Corporis du 29 juin 1943 a été, dans ces conjonctures, un document décisif. Pie XII y assumait toute la substance du traité De Gratia Capitis, toute la substance d'une considération christologique eturne du mystère. Mais il identifiait le concept de Corpus Christi Mysticum et celui de l'Église comme société visible, organisée et hiérarchique. L'objection des Pères du Concile de 1870 recevait une réponse» (Yves CONGAR, *Conformément à l'invitation qui m'a été faite*, p. 5s.).</footnote>

<footnote n="56">56 ADPF, *Fonds conciliaire Congar*, YC 0131, Yves CONGAR, Animadversiones de Systemate quo ordinanda sunt ea quae fuerunt Commissioni Theologicae subjecta seu De ordine servando, 13/12/1960.</footnote>

<footnote n="57">57 En renvoyant à une prise de position de Philips lors de la session du 26 novembre 1960, Congar profite de l'occasion de ses animadversiones pour s'adresser contre «alicujus 'Positivismi ecclesiologici'» (Yves CONGAR, Animadversiones de Systemate, p. 2) et pour plaider au contraire pour une ecclésiologie intégrant la dimension missionnaire, eschatologique et —sans utiliser le terme— messianique. Dans le cas de cette dernière dimension, enracinée dans une vision englobante de l'économie du salut centrée dans le Christ, son plaidoyer préfigure les futures activités conciliaires de lui-même et de Chenu. «Inter causes cur homines a religione vel Ecclesia discesserunt, haec mihi summa videtur: saepius doctrinam necnon obligationes cultus morumve proposuimus seorsum a spe Regni Dei consummationisque eschatologicae. Eodem tempore, e contre, doctrinae philosophicae seu sociales modernae (e.g. Hegelianismus, Marxismus) hominibus eschatologiam quasi laicizatam et mere humano-cosmicam praedicabant, ab eaque majorem suam vim recipiebant. Homines magis vivunt de spe quam de dogmate puro, vel, ut melius dicam, de fide vivant quae sit simul et spes... Sequitur quod debemus integrum Dei Propositum evolvere a Genesi usque ad Apocalypsem, a creatione usque ad eschatologicam consummationem, aplectens factum centrale Christi sese per Ecclesiam et in Ecclesia principium vitae pro mundo constituentem» (3 s.). Pour la dimension messianique, voir Yves CONGAR, *Un peuple messianique. Salut et libération* (Cogitatio Fidei, 85), Paris, 1975, et les titres mentionnés dans n. 13.</footnote>
Rosaire-Marie Gagnebet : une réception du renouveau théologique et pastoral
dans le cadre d'une réception du magistère

Après sa nomination comme consulteur de la CT, Congar se voit, avec Henri de Lubac<fnref n="58" />, comme des « hapax dans un texte dont le contexte me semble si orienté dans le sens conservateur!<fnref n="59" />» Si ceci en dit long sur l'influence qu'il attribue à sa présence au sein de cette commission, une autre remarque est révélatrice de sa déception quant à la ligne théologique qui y est prépondérante : « Sans cesse, dans l'Église, il y a l'étalage —attirant— et il y a le magasin. L'étalage annonce Lubac, mais le magasin contient Gagnebet<fnref n="60" />». Pour Congar, le nom de son confrère Rosaire-Marie Gagnebet, secrétaire de la commission des études de l'ordre dominicain, est directement lié à ses épreuves des années 1950, au moment de la crise des prêtres-ouvriers qui le conduisit à l'éloignement forcé du Saulchoir. Le dominicain toulousain, professeur de théologie dogmatique à l'Angelicum, était dès les années 1950 collaborateur du St-Office<fnref n="61" />. Chargé par celui-ci de deux «conversations» avec Congar le 14 et 18 décembre 1954, Gagnebet a été selon celui-ci « le plus fraternel qu'il était possible d'être<fnref n="62" />». Certes, Gagnebet «estime qu'il y avait des choses à mettre en ordre en France<fnref n="63" />», P. ex. il se réjouit que Congar n'ait pas de contacts étroits avec les prêtres-ouvriers, tandis que ce dernier regrette au contraire de ne pas les voir assez<fnref n="64" />. Si l'on considère les prêtres-ouvriers comme la face visible de l'iceberg<fnref n="65" />, ces deux approches ecclésiologiques différentes de Gagnebet et de Congar révèlent des implications fondamentales concernant les rapports entre histoire et présent, dogme et pastorale, magistère et vie chrétienne, Église et société. Lors d'un examen de conscience à Rome, Congar regrette une mise à l'écart de la réception du renouveau ecclésial et ecclésiologique telle qu'elle se fait dans sa réflexion théologique<fnref n="66" />. En ce qui concerne les «conversations», la position de Gagnebet peut être résumée ainsi: «Il faudra qu'à l'avenir je (Congar, MQ) dise plus expressément certaines choses. Que je dis, d'ailleurs, mais pas assez. Et

<footnote n="58">58 Pour une comparaison entre de Lubac et Congar, cf. Michael QUISINSKY, *Aggiornamento – aber wie? Die Konzilstheologen Henri de Lubac SJ und Yves Congar OP zwischen «nouvelle théologie» und Konzilsrezeption*, dans FZPhTh (à paraître).</footnote>

<footnote n="59">59 CONGAR, *Mon journal du Concile*, I/18 (juillet 1960).</footnote>

<footnote n="60">60 CONGAR, *Mon journal du Concile*, I/18.</footnote>

<footnote n="61">61 Robert CHRISTIAN, s.v., dans David BERGER, Jörgen VIJGER (dir.), *Thomistenlexikon*, Bonn, 2006, p. 186-188.</footnote>

<footnote n="62">62 Yves CONGAR, *Journal d'un théologien (1946-1956)*. Présenté et annoté par Etienne Fouilloux avec la collaboration de Dominique Congar, André Duval et Bernard Montagnes, Paris, 2000, p. 319 et 324; pour l'ensemble de ses «conversations» (le terme est du C<sup>1</sup> Ottaviani, cf., p. 299) avec Gagnebet voir p. 309-333. On retrouve ce caractère fraternel lors de la période préparatoire, voir Yves CONGAR, *Mon journal du Concile*, I/69 (23 septembre 1961).</footnote>

<footnote n="63">63 CONGAR, *Journal d'un théologien*, p. 311.</footnote>

<footnote n="64">64 S'il dit que «cela aurait été l'honneur de ma vie d'être leur serviteur doctrinal», Congar n'hésite pas de dire que les prêtres-ouvriers «ont manqué de théologiens et de théologie» (CONGAR, *Journal d'un théologien*, p. 318).</footnote>

<footnote n="65">65 FRANÇOIS LEPRIEUR, *Quand Rome condamne. Dominicains et prêtres-ouvriers*, Paris, 1989.</footnote>

<footnote n="66">66 LEPRIEUR, *Quand Rome condamne*, p. 302-306.</footnote>