qui travaille aux problèmes de la vie humaine sur terre et à son évolution. Nous sommes appelés à être pasteurs des hommes de ce monde-là et, pour cela, au besoin, recourir à un nouveau mode de parler. Ce monde nouveau requiert des pasteurs d'un nouveau type, pas moins « doctrinaires » que les pasteurs de Trente, qui ne se contentèrent pas d'annoncer la doctrine en soi mais de répondre aux questions des hommes. Que Dieu fasse qu'une nouvelle génération de pasteurs émerge du concile Vatican II, comparable à la génération tridentine, mais qui convient pleinement aux hommes de ce siècle (p. 199).

Toutefois, cette recherche d'un nouveau style, plus pastoral, ne convainc pas tout le monde. On n'est pas prêt à renoncer sans combat à un style conciliaire séculaire et à rayer d'un trait de plume le schéma préparé par la Commission. L'intervention de Marcel Lefebvre est emblématique. Pour lui, on ne peut poursuivre, en un seul texte, des fins aussi diverses sinon opposées : exposer la doctrine et extirper les erreurs, d'une part, et favoriser l'œcuménisme et présenter la vérité à tous les hommes, d'autre part. Nous sommes pasteurs, poursuit-il, et nous savons que nous parlons différemment aux laïcs et aux prêtres. Comment définir la doctrine de manière à ne pas donner prise aux erreurs de ce temps et, en même temps, à la rendre intelligible à tous ? Après avoir fait référence au discours inaugural de Jean XXIII qui avait rappelé que cette doctrine avait été transmise « dans sa plénitude avec cette précision de termes et de concepts qui a fait la gloire particulièrement du Concile de Trente et du premier Concile du Vatican », il propose d'exprimer la doctrine sous un mode dogmatique et scolastique pour les experts, et de la présenter sous un mode plus pastoral pour l'édification des autres23. Ainsi, croit-il, le concile aura inculqué aux futurs pasteurs un amour de la saine doctrine transmise dans son intégrité.

Prenant la parole immédiatement après et répondant presque mot-à-mot à cette proposition, l'évêque auxiliaire de Strasbourg, Mgr Elchinger, réfléchit à ce que veut dire doctrinal et pastoral. Si l'on dit qu'il ne faut pas confondre une constitution pastorale avec une exhortation spirituelle destinée aux fidèles, il faut ajouter que les fidèles attendent du concile une présentation du « mystère de l'Église » qui rejoigne les questions d'aujourd'hui, et non seulement les fidèles catholiques, mais aussi ceux qui n'appartiennent pas à l'Église romaine. Nonobstant l'opportunité d'une déclaration doctrinale dans une forme quasi théologique, nous avons besoin d'une annonce doctrinale directement pastorale, sous la forme d'un document spécial, pour dire aux hommes d'aujourd'hui qu'ils sont appelés et aimés de l'Église du Christ. Ceci dit, il demeure que la présentation doctrinale destinée aux théologiens et aux évêques doit être elle aussi pastorale, l'intention pastorale n'étant pas simplement quelque chose surajoutée à une explication doctrinale, mais ce qui doit animer et orienter l'exposé doctrinal de manière à ce que les hommes puissent aimer la vérité et accéder à Dieu (p. 147).

Dans ces diverses interventions, la question des destinataires, question récurrente dans ce débat, et la référence au temps présent, exprimée par l'adverbe « aujourd'hui » et les qualificatifs « de ce temps » ou « de notre temps », sont à l'avant-plan. De plus, on l'a vu, le spectre des destinataires s'élargit considérablement, suivant l'exemple des

<footnote n="23">23 Pour son intervention, voir AS I/IV, p. 144-145. Voir aussi la reprise de cette idée dans l'intervention de Mgr Thomas Holland qui propose la rédaction d'un document à caractère kérygmatique, où les vérités seraient exposées dans un style fluide, expurgé de toutes expressions techniques (p. 247).</footnote>
encycliques de Jean XXIII. Il ne s'agit pas simplement des catholiques et des chrétiens, ou, pour l'Occident, des athées, mais également de tous les hommes, ce qui fournit déjà le programme du concile. Ainsi, pour $M^{gr}$ D'Souza (Nagpur), la proposition de la doctrine doit être faite sous un mode intelligible, non seulement pour les théologiens, mais aussi pour tous les fidèles, pour tous les chrétiens, mêmes pour ceux qui sont hors de l'Église. Pour lui, les Pères conciliaires doivent avoir sans cesse en vue ceux qui sont hors de l'Église (p. 384-385).

Dans cette discussion sur la méthode de présentation de la doctrine, le cardinal Gracias (Bombay) fait entendre une tonalité particulière. Certes, reconnaît-il, il convient d'être attentif, comme on le rappelle, aux frères séparés; plus encore aux orthodoxes qu'aux protestants, les premiers ne représentant que cent-onze millions d'adhérents, alors que les seconds en comptent deux-cent-neuf millions. Beaucoup plus nombreux encore sont les musulmans, les hindouistes et les bouddhistes (en Inde seulement les hindouistes sont au nombre de 370 millions) qui ont une littérature propre et un système philosophique et théologique original. S'il n'est pas possible que le concile détermine un mode définitif de présentation, il peut assurément recommander certaines méthodes de présentation de la doctrine. Pourquoi, se demande-t-il, ne pas faire, avec les écrits théologiques et philosophiques du bouddhisme et l'hindouisme, ce que Thomas a fait avec Aristote et Augustin avec Platon<fnref n="24" />.

Cependant, ce désir de s'adresser à tous les hommes, sous le mode d'une annonce kérygmatique ne convainc pas tout le monde. Par exemple, Jubany Arnaud précise clairement que le schéma n'est pas une exhortation pastorale à l'adresse de ceux qui sont considérés comme hors de l'Église. La question se pose alors de savoir s'il veut définir de nouvelles vérités ou simplement redire des vérités qui sont déjà le patrimoine de l'Église. Dans ce cas, il doit s'abstenir de prendre position sur des questions débattues entre écoles de théologiens (p. 201 ss.).

## QUELQUES PROPOSITIONS DE RENOUVEAU

Au-delà des refus ou des prises de distance, au-delà des interrogations qui expriment une recherche sans parvenir à une proposition claire quant au style à adopter, le débat offre un certain nombre de propositions pour renouveler le *modus loquendi*. Ces propositions sont souvent liées aux mouvements de renouveau préconciliaire : les mouvements biblique, patristique et œcuménique.

Ainsi, le débat illustre la réception par les Pères des mouvements bibliques ou patristiques et leur geste reprend en quelque sorte celui caractéristique de la « Nouvelle théologie », *ad fontes*. En effet, plusieurs Pères considéraient que le schéma faisait un usage déficient de l'Écriture sainte. C'est le cas, par exemple, du cardinal Döpfner et de $M^{gr}$ Volk (p. 184 et 387-388). De son côté, $M^{gr}$ Denis Hurley (Durban), réclamait que le schéma présente une théologie rénovée par la Sainte Écriture, la patristique et l'histoire ecclésiastique (p. 198). Pour sa part, le cardinal Frings observait que, dans les six pages de citations du chapitre IV, on ne trouve à peu près rien des Pères grecs, et peu de choses des Pères latins et du Moyen Âge. À peu près toutes les citations sont du dernier siècle. Il observait la même chose à la lecture des chapitres VI à VIII : toutes

<footnote n="24">²⁴ On verra son intervention à la p. 177 et la longue note 27 des p. 179 et 180.</footnote>
les références sont du 20e s., excepté une citation du Pape Innocent III, une de St-Thomas d'Aquin, et une du concile de Trente. C'est sensiblement la même chose dans les autres chapitres de la constitution. Je me demande, ajoutait-il, si cette manière de procéder est juste, universelle, scientifique, œcuménique, catholique, au sens grec du terme, « *Katholon* », c.-à-d. quelque chose en mesure de tout saisir et qui s'intéresse à tout. En ce sens, on peut se demander si un tel *modus prodedendi* est vraiment catholique » (p. 219). Un tel défaut, ajoute-t-il, et c'est là une remarque particulièrement intéressante, n'atteint pas simplement l'extérieur des choses, mais affecte la doctrine elle-même, ce qu'il illustre par des exemples, notamment l'interprétation que fait le schéma d'un passage de l'Écriture (« *unus panis, unum corpus sumus* »), qui est lue de manière plus juridique et sociologique que théologique. Il demande, en finale, que le texte soit amendé en profondeur au cours de l'intersession de manière à le rendre plus catholique (p. 220).

Cette intervention de Frings sera reprise par d'autres Pères, notamment le cardinal Bea qui relève au passage que les sources auxquelles renvoie le chapitre VII (*de magisterio*) se limitent aux cent, sinon aux deux cents dernières années. Mgr Hakim y fait aussi référence, constatant que « le *De Ecclesia* ne tient pas compte de la pensée orientale. [...] dans les quelques 300 notes et renvois de ce schéma, qui tiennent près de la moitié des pages, ajoute-t-il, seuls 5 renvois font mention des Pères Grecs ». Et de dénoncer à son tour l'absence de catholicité de cette pensée : « Et pourtant, l'Église catholique n'a-t-elle pas intérêt à s'enrichir de cette pensée, qui fait partie de son patrimoine, à être vraiment catholique et donc plus ouverte au dialogue œcuménique ? » (p. 359). Avec le cardinal Florit et Mgr Blanchet, ces Pères réclament que l'on ait davantage recours aux sources patristiques, orientales en particulier (p. 299).

Du reste, qu'elle soit explicite ou non, la référence à l'ecclésiologie des Pères de l'Église est sous-jacente à toutes les interventions qui réclament que l'Église soit considérée comme mystère et pas simplement comme société. Le lien entre patristique et approche mystérique de l'Église est d'ailleurs fait par Hakim (p. 359) et le cardinal Lefèvre (p. 371). Cet appel à la notion de mystère n'est pas non plus étranger au mouvement liturgique, ce dernier étant très lié au renouveau de l'ecclésiologie.

Le cardinal Bea reviendra également sur la question du rapport aux sources (Écriture et Tradition, en particulier la plus ancienne), en se posant la question « *Quid de modo proponendi doctrinam?* » . Pour lui, il ne s'agit pas d'ajouter à l'infini des renvois à l'Écriture qui ne seraient que décoratifs, mais de développer la pensée à partir de l'Écriture. Pour lui, le caractère pastoral du document est manifesté dans le mode même de l'exposé (p. 229). C'est aussi l'avis de Mgr Devoto (Guyanne), pour qui la présentation de l'Église dans la Bible n'est pas de nature essentialiste, mais existentielle (p. 250), ou de Mgr Ancel (Lyon) qui suggère un recours direct à la manière de parler de l'Évangile (p. 380). L'utilisation de l'Écriture dans le schéma est aussi critiquée par H. Volk, pour qui le « *modus loquendi schematis nostri valde differt a modo loquendi Sacrae Scripturae* » (p. 388). De son côté, Mgr Blanchet, en plus de réclamer une théologie de l'épiscopat consonante avec l'Écriture, reproche au schéma de ne pas faire un usage rigoureux de l'Écriture<fnref n="25" />.

<footnote n="25">²⁵ Pour son intervention, voir p. 235. Voir aussi l'intervention de Mgr Hakim qui réclame un retour «aux sources apostoliques». (p. 360)</footnote>
Le caractère œcuménique est également très prégnant, d'abord dans l'intervention de D. Hurley (p. 198), mais c'est sans doute le Patriarche Maximos IV qui donne la plus grande leçon à ceux qui sont réticents à l'égard de l'œcuménisme. Après avoir démontré l'unilatéralité de l'exposé doctrinal du schéma et, par conséquent, son caractère incomplet et partial, il semonce « une certaine école [qui] traite les problèmes théologiques, jusqu'à les défigurer, quitte ensuite à accuser l'œcuménisme de vouloir atténuer la vérité et de chercher des compromis dans la Foi. De tels compromis, personne n'en veut, ni les œcuménistes catholiques, ni nos frères orthodoxes ou protestants. Ce que nous demandons et ce qu'ils demandent, c'est que toute la vérité révélée soit dite et non pas une partie de la vérité, et qu'elle soit dite avec exactitude » (p. 296).

## CONCLUSION

Au vu de ce premier débat sur le *De Ecclesia*, tout l'enjeu semble résider dans cette alternative: allait-on affirmer en premier lieu le mystère de l'Église ou fixer l'attention uniquement sur son caractère sociétaire et hiérarchique, sa dimension visible et extérieure? En d'autres termes, allait-on la définir à partir de la catégorie philosophique et juridique de société ou à partir de son mystère? La question n'est donc pas de savoir si le schéma reçoit ou non l'ecclésiologie du corps mystique, ou l'enseignement des encycliques sur le laïcat, ou les développements sur le ministère épiscopal. Elle est beaucoup plus profonde et relève de la façon d'élaborer un discours ecclésiologique: la méthode, les sources, la finalité, etc. En effet, bien que plusieurs reconnaissaient que le schéma opérait avec la notion de « corps mystique », qui « faisait précisément l'objet d'une joyeuse découverte », notait Congar<fnref n="26" />, il leur semblait qu'elle était interprétée en un sens juridique étranger à ce que présente l'Écriture. Il faut donc situer ailleurs que dans l'émergence de nouvelles thématiques la réception des mouvements préconciliaires.

Certains se sont demandé si les divergences relevées au cours de ce débat sur le *De Ecclesia* relevaient seulement de la forme ou de la doctrine elle-même. Pour le cardinal Bacci, « non agitur de substantia, sed de forma » ou « non in doctrina catholica [...], sed in modo tantum quo eadem doctrina proponi debeat » (p. 231). Il a en partie raison, mais en partie seulement. C'est là que l'on retrouve le lien qui unit de manière indissociable le mode d'élaboration du discours et son contenu, ou la forme d'expression et la substance. Le choix des concepts, de la méthode, des sources et des destinataires n'est pas innocent quant au contenu du texte élaboré. Comme le reconnaissait Congar, « la porte par laquelle on entre dans une question décide des chances d'une heureuse ou moins heureuse solution. Les concepts qu'on utilise alors sont largement déterminants pour la suite<fnref n="27" /> ». Suivant que l'on réfléchit à partir du concept de « société » ou de « mystère », suivant que les sources mises en œuvre sont les encycliques du dernier siècle ou l'Écriture et la patristique, que les destinataires sont les chrétiens comme les

<footnote n="26">²⁶ Il note qu'il est paru, dans les années 1920-1925, autant d'articles sur le Corps mystique que dans les vingt années précédentes; il en est paru, en 1930-1935 cinq fois plus qu'en 1920-1925*, voir Yves CONGAR, Ministère et communion ecclésiale, Paris, 1971, p. 11. Congar renvoie à Joseph BLUETT, The Mystical Body. A Bibliography, 1890-1940, dans Theological Studies, 3 (1942), p. 260-289.</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷ *Mon cheminement*, p. 17-18.</footnote>
non-chrétiens et pas seulement les théologiens, etc., le texte produit est porteur, en
final, d'une « substance » différente, ou conduit à l'élaboration d'une doctrine un peu
différente.

Dans son article sur « Deux tendances dans la théologie contemporaine. En marge du IIe Concile du Vatican », G. Philips distinguait entre la théologie notionnelle et réelle, distinction que l'on retrouvait à l'époque dans d'autres publications. Ainsi, par exemple, P. Vallain distinguait entre une « théologie conceptuelle, rationnelle, rationaliste même », et une « théologie vivante, renouvelée par les sources... cohérente avec la mentalité d'aujourd'hui, plus traditionnelle...<fnref n="28" /> ». Pour sa part, R. Laurentin distinguait entre deux écoles théologiques :

> L'une pense notions et normes, elle met tout son soin à leur donner une netteté irréfragable, et si possible, univoque. Pour elle, la théologie a pour tâche de promouvoir des formules dogmatiques irréformables, de réduire les zones d'obscurité où s'exerce encore librement la discussion théologique. Elle supporte mal ces hésitations peu conformes à la nature monolithique de la vérité. Aussi est-elle portée à définir et à condamner. [...]

> L'autre école pense Histoire du Salut et Annonce aux hommes de la « Bonne Nouvelle » c.-à-d. de l'Évangile. Elle tient à garder contact avant tout avec cette source jaillissante inépuisable. D'où l'importance que prend en elle [...] le ressourcement, c.-à-d. le culte du retour aux sources [...]

Quant à la racine de la divergence, elle est double. Il y a ceux qui sont entrés dans la voie du ressourcement et ceux qui n'y entrent pas<fnref n="29" />.

On le voit, déjà à l'époque du concile, on avait saisi que la réception des renouveaux préconciliaires dépassait la simple question thématique. Ce qui est en jeu, c'est une méthode théologique et un *modus loquendi* déterminé, en amont, par le ressourcement et, en aval, par les destinataires à qui on veut s'adresser. Ce recadrage de la discussion sur la théologie, sa méthode et sa finalité, a l'avantage de poser autrement le problème et de nous éloigner des catégories « progressistes » et « traditionnalistes » pour la désignation des protagonistes. Cela pose également en d'autres termes la question de la continuité, qui ne porte pas d'abord sur les enseignements de Vatican II mais sur un style théologique.

Gilles ROUTHIER
Université Laval

<footnote n="28">28 Rythmes du monde, I (1963), p. 53.</footnote>

<footnote n="29">29 René LAURENTIN, L'enjeu du concile. Bilan de la première session, Paris, 1963, p. 29-34.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
# THE STRUGGLE FOR NOSTRA AETATE

## THE “QUAESTIONE EBRAICA” FROM 1960-1962: ISSUES AND INFLUENCES

### I

On June 5, 1960 Pope John XXIII formally brought to a close the antepreparatory period of the Second Vatican Council (1959-60) and began the preparatory phase. On that day he established commissions, secretariats and an overarching Central Preparatory Commission, that would oversee the council's planning. The ideas that had been solicited the year prior, from the worldwide church—bishops, religious superiors, theologates, and seminaries—for discussion at the Council were studied and topics were drawn-up and assigned to the preparatory bodies. Absent from among them though was anything related to the relations of the Catholic Church with the Jewish people.

The history of *Nostra Aetate* is well known. It has been chronicled many times by those who were there at the beginning, during the time of the establishment of the Vatican's Secretariat for Christian Unity in 1960, and by researchers and historians of the Council since.<fnref n="1" /> The story begins in June 1960 and finishes in October 1965. It follows a vicissitudinous path not unlike the other conciliar texts, undergoing redrafting and revising, being the subject of discussions and debates, and also, at times, the center of controversy and internal conciliar polemics. There is, however, an element to the history of *Nostra Aetate* that is unique to it among the documents of Vatican II. Its history, especially during the preparatory period of the Council, is closely tied to the political interests of a national body—the State of Israel, which at the time was only a little more than a decade old.

The history of *Nostra Aetate* from June 1960 to June 1962 was heavily influenced by secular politics that were interwoven into the internal development of the document within the Church itself. During this time, there were those within the Church who actively supported the document for theological reasons and for the purpose of overcoming the Church's long-standing anti-Jewish tradition. There were those for whom relations with the Jews were not important and who were neither supportive

<footnote n="1">¹ Cf. John M. OESTERREICHER, *Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions*, in Herbert VORGRIMLER (ed.), *Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II*, Vol. 3, New York NY, 1967, p. 1-137; Augustin BEA, *The Church and the Jewish People. A Commentary on the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions*, London, 1966; Thomas STRANSKY, *The Foundation of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity*, in Alberic STACPOOLE (ed.), *Vatican II Revisited by Those Who Were There*, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1986, p. 62-87; as well as the more current and detailed presentation in Giuseppe ALBERIGO and Joseph A. KOMONCHAK (ed.), *History of Vatican II*, Vols. 1-5, Maryknoll - Leuven, 1995-2006.</footnote>
nor obstructive. And there were those who were opposed to it —some because the idea of a positive statement on the Jews was too new (“Was Catholic theology prepared for it?”),<fnref n="2" /> others because relations with the Jews had political implications for the Church in the Middle East. At the same time, though, there were also those outside of the Church who supported it for reasons of political gain. In fact this was the most influential factor that led to the document’s downfall in spring 1962, raising the question as to whether the council would even have a statement on the Jewish people. As C¹ª Augustin Bea would later say to the Council Fathers regarding the schema being dropped from the conciliar agenda in June 1962: the reason was not because of “ideas or doctrine” but “solely for the infelicitous political circumstances at the time.<fnref n="3" />

This paper examines the issues and influences, especially through the lens of individuals, in the support of and resistance to what was known at the beginning —in June 1960— as simply the “Quaestione ebraica”. The period of study is the two years from June 1960 to June 1962. During this time, I consider Pope John XXIII's attitude to the Jewish question, and the outlook of the two main figures of the Secretariat for Christian Unity (SCU):<fnref n="4" /> the C¹ª President, Augustin Bea, and his Secretary, Johannes Willebrands. I also look at the one who was the first to raise the Jewish Question as a possible topic for the Council: the 20th century, French Jewish historian, Jules Isaac. Without Isaac, there may likely have been no document on the Jews at Vatican II. Finally, and most significantly, I look at Israeli politics and the persistent attempts on the part of the Israeli Foreign Ministry during this time to “breach the Vatican gates, politically speaking”.<fnref n="5" /> The result is a moment in the study of Vatican II that reveals a conflation of issues: theological, historical, and political both within the Vatican, and between nations: the State of Israel and the City State of the Vatican and bears witness to the influence of political interest on theological efforts.

## II

Pope John XXIII was sympathetic to the Jews. In the decades before his election as Pope, he had been Apostolic Nuncio to France and before that, Apostolic Delegate in Turkey and Greece. During this time, he became aware of tragedy that was happening to the Jews under the Nazi regime and worked with others to save those condemned to deportation and the death camps.<fnref n="6" /> On Good Friday 1959, during the first Holy

<footnote n="2">² Thomas STRANSKY, *Holy Diplomacy. Making the Impossible Possible*, in Roger BROOKS (ed.), *Unanswered Questions. Theological Views of Jewish Catholic Relations*, Notre Dame IN, 1988, p. 57.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Augustin BEA, *De Catholicorum Habitudine ad Non Christianos et Maxime ad Iudaeos* in Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II, II/V (18 November 1963), Vatican, 1973, p. 481. Cited hereafter as AS.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Pope John XXIII created the Secretariat on June 5, 1960 as one of the preparatory bodies of the upcoming Council. Cf. Pope John XXIII, *Superno Dei Nutu*, in *The Pope Speaks*, 6 (Summer 1960), p. 240-243.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Uri BIALER, *Cross on the Star of David. The Christian World in Israel's Foreign Policy*, 1948-1967, Bloomington IN, 2005, p. 57.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ Alberto MELLONI, *Fra Istanbul, Atene e la Guerra. La missione di A. G. Roncalli (1935-1944)*, Genova, 1992, p. 258-268 and 275-279; Cf. also Angelo Giuseppe RONCALLI, *La mia vita in Oriente. Agende del*</footnote>
Week after his election, he eliminated the adjective “perfidious” from the prayer for the Jews.<fnref n="7" /> Clearly he recognized the offensiveness of these words to the Jewish people. Perhaps more importantly though was his recognition of the influence that the prayers had had in perpetuating an anti-Jewish sentiment within the Catholic Church. Two other gestures during his pontificate also demonstrate his affection for the Jewish people.<fnref n="8" /> During an audience with some Jews in October 1960, the Pope greeted them —arms wide open— with the words “I am Joseph, your brother!” The other occurred in March 1962, when Pope John found himself passing in front of a synagogue in Rome. He reached out of the car and blessed a group of Jews who were leaving the building. A rabbi, who witnessed it, later wrote: “...the Jews surrounded him and applauded him... enthusiastically. It was in fact the first time in history that a Pope had blessed Jews and it was perhaps the first real gesture of reconciliation”.<fnref n="9" />

Equally important in discerning the Pope's attitude toward the Jews was his meeting with the elderly, French, Jewish historian, Jules Isaac in late spring 1962. On June 13, eight days after the start of the preparatory period, the Pope received the 82-year-old Isaac in a private audience. Isaac was a scholar who had spent much of his later life studying the cause of anti-Semitism. He was well known in France as the author of a multi-volume manual of history studied by generations of secondary students in that country. Isaac had felt personally the pain of anti-Judaism many times in his own life, but none so acutely as when he lost his wife, his daughter, and son-in-law in the Holocaust.<fnref n="10" /> After the war, he discovered he had a mission. He had to do what he could to eliminate the anti-Jewish hatred he had discovered within Christianity. He soon realized that in order for change to take place in the Catholic Church, it must start at the top “...and an idea ripened and took root in him.”<fnref n="11" /> He later explained that Pope John XXIII's election and his call for a Council had given him a new sense of hope: “For the first time, contrary to what I had thought prior to then, I considered the possibility of an approach at the highest level”.<fnref n="12" /> Through the encouragement of friends and the local bishop of Aix-en Provence, where he lived, he secured an audience with the Pope. For him, the goal of the meeting was clear: “the revision of Christian teaching about the Jews”.<fnref n="13" />

delegato apostolico. Vol. 2: 1940-1944, Valeria MARTANO (ed.), Bologna, 2008, p. XVI-XVIII.

<footnote n="7">7 Loris CAPOVILLA, *Lettere 1958-1963*, Rome, 1978, p. 484.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8 José Oscar BEOZZO, *The External Climate*, in Giuseppe ALBERIGO and Joseph KOMONCHAK (ed.), *History of Vatican II*, Vol. 1, New York, 1995, p. 395.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">9 Elio TOAFF, *Perfidi guide – fratelli maggiori*, Milan, 1987, p. 219-220.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">10 Here I am following the account of the meeting as recorded in Stjepan SCHMIDT, *Augustin Bea. The Cardinal of Unity*, New York, 1992, p. 33ff.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">11 Maria VINGIANI, *Jules Isaac. Il promotore de dialogo ebraico-cristiano a venti anni della morte*, in *Ecumenismo Anni '80. Atti XXI Settimana di formazione ecumenica 1983*, Verona, 1984, p. 332, as cited in SCHMIDT, *Augustin Bea*, p. 333.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">12 Jules ISAAC, *Le Vatican et nous*, in *Arche*, 69 (October 1962), p. 30, as cited in Stjepan SCHMIDT, *Augustin Bea*, p. 333.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">13 SCHMIDT, *Augustin Bea*, p. 333.</footnote>
Isaac met with Pope John early in the afternoon on June 13.<sup>14</sup> He began by introducing himself as a “non-Christian, a promoter of the Jewish-Christian Friendship association in France (l’Amitié Judéo-Chrétienne de France), and as a very deaf old man.” He found the Pope to be, as he described, “simplicity personified.” He thanked the Pope for the things he had already done for Jews and described the “great hope” that the Pope had already raised “in the hearts of the people of the Old Testament.” But Isaac wondered to himself: How in the few minutes he had, could he make the Pope understand “the spiritual ghetto to which the church had gradually consigned the biblical Israel?” According to Isaac’s research there were two currents in the Catholic Church in the late 1950s/early 1960s regarding its relations with the Jews. The one Isaac labeled a “teaching of contempt” that had arisen over the centuries resulting in a system of “restrictions, exclusions, humiliations and servitude”<sup>15</sup> toward the Jewish people. The other was a newer “purifying counter-current”, which sought to rectify the wrongs committed throughout history. To his mind, if a voice could come from the highest point in the Church —its head— condemning this “teaching of contempt” it would go far to help Jewish-Christian relations. At the end of the meeting Isaac suggested the setting up of a sub-commission charged with the task of studying the ‘Jewish Question’. The Pope responded by saying that he’d been thinking of that from the beginning of their meeting. Isaac departed asking the Pope if he could “take away some grain of hope” that something might be done. The Pope responded, “You have the right to more than hope” and invited Isaac to take the next step and contact C<sup>al</sup> Augustin Bea.<sup>16</sup>

It would be difficult to overestimate the importance of that meeting on June 13, both for the document on the Jews but also subsequently, for relations between Jews and Roman Catholics. It was pivotal. Loris Capovilla, Pope John's personal secretary, later wrote, "Until that day, it had not crossed John XXIII's mind that the Council should also deal with the Jewish question and anti-Semitism". From that day on, however, the Pope was firmly behind the idea.<sup>17</sup>

Two days later, on June 15, Jules Isaac met with C<sup>al</sup> Bea for more than an hour. He found him open and intelligent, and an excellent speaker of French who spoke frankly about the problems between Jews and Christians. Bea too, was deeply interested in the Jews. In 1962, Bea had prepared an article on the Jewish people for publication in an Italian Jesuit review. However, the Vatican Secretary of State asked him not to publish it for fear that it would upset the Arab governments that were sensitive to anything that might be considered supportive of Israel. Bea conceded. Twenty years later, however, C<sup>al</sup> Willebrands, who was the first Secretary of the Secretariat for Christian Unity under Bea, retrieved and presented it. Willebrands called the article a "very valuable guide" to Bea's personal thinking about the Jews in the early 1960s.<sup>18</sup>

<footnote n="14"><sup>14</sup> The following comes from Jules ISAAC, *Autobiographical Report of Meeting with Pope John XXIII*, in *SIDIC*, 3(1968), p. 10-12; Cf. also Jean TOULAT, *Juifs, mes frères*, Paris, 1962, p. 152.</footnote>

<footnote n="15"><sup>15</sup> Jules ISAAC, *The Teaching of Contempt. Christian Roots of Anti-Semitism*, New York, 1964, p. 35.</footnote>

<footnote n="16"><sup>16</sup> SCHMIDT, *Augustin Bea*, p. 336.</footnote>

<footnote n="17"><sup>17</sup> SCHMIDT, *Augustin Bea*, p. 336.</footnote>

<footnote n="18"><sup>18</sup> Johannes WILLEBRANDS, *Cardinal Bea's Attitude to Relations with the Jews – Unpublished Details*, in Atti del Simposio Card. Agostino Bea, Rome, 1983, p. 79.</footnote>
Two sections in particular illustrate Bea's fondness for them. He wrote that even in their suffering, the Jewish people continue to be bearers of divine revelation and valuable instruments of God's merciful design.<fnref n="19" /> Christians owe “the duty of charity” to this people. They are “our ancestors according to the Spirit”. We are indebted to them as “to those who have given us life” but so much more so since “the gifts we have received from God through his people are greater, more public, move decisive, being spiritual and supernatural…”<fnref n="20" />

Bea spent the months after this meeting with Isaac reflecting on the Jewish question. On September 14, 1960, after his summer holidays, he wrote to the Pope asking to have a personal meeting with him about “certain questions concerning the Secretariat for Christian Unity” and especially “the question concerning relations with the Jews and Catholics, on which I am frequently consulted”.<fnref n="21" /> Four days later, on September 18, he met with Pope John, who formally entrusted him with the responsibility for relations with the Jews.<fnref n="22" />

Bea was not unaware of the complications that might arise in relation to the Council dealing with the Jewish question, especially within the Jewish world itself. Thus a month later, on October 26, 1960, Bea met with Nahum Goldmann, President of the World Jewish Congress (WJC) to inform him that the Pope had put the question of Christians and Jews on the agenda of the Council and had charged him with the task of dealing with it.<fnref n="23" /> The World Jewish Congress had been suggested to Bea as the body most representative of the diversity of global Judaism. It was thus thought to be a good partner for him. Bea acknowledged that there would be opposition, even among his colleagues in the Curia. However, he was determined to do all that he could in order to bring about a positive outcome at the Council. He said that the first step must be for Jewish organizations to submit a memorandum to the Secretariat, indicating their interest in having the Jewish-Catholic matter on the Council's agenda. He asked Goldmann to try to produce a united Jewish front as comprehensive as possible, in order to avoid having many different groups involved in different ways with different interests. Goldmann told him that it would not be easy. Jewish orthodoxy for example would not support the idea of discussions with Catholics. Nevertheless, Goldmann promised Bea that he would do his best and would keep in touch.

The WJC's President moved swiftly and gathered together, in New York City on December 8 that year, rabbis from the various streams of Judaism —Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform.<fnref n="24" /> Some were opposed on the grounds that theological dialogue with Christians violated Jewish religious law. One among them, however, was not opposed to cooperation on societal issues and therefore did not object to a “secular” agency like Goldmann's to provide Bea with secular Jewish wishes. Others

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ WILLEBRANDS, *Cardinal Bea's Attitude*, p. 81.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰ WILLEBRANDS, *Cardinal Bea's Attitude*, p. 82.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹ From Bea's papers concerning the Council, as cited in SCHMIDT, *Augustin Bea*, p. 336.</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²² BEA, *The Church*, p. 22.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³ Nahum GOLDMANN, *Staatsmann ohne Staat. Autobiographie*, Cologne/Berlin, 1970, p. 378-379, as cited in SCHMIDT, *Augustin Bea*, p. 337-8.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴ Thomas STRANSKY, *Nostra Aetate. An Insider's Story*, in Neville LAMDAN and Alberto MELLONI (eds.), *Nostra Aetate. Origins, Promulgation, Impact on Jewish-Catholic Relations*, Berlin, 2007, p. 38ff.</footnote>
were concerned that the Council would be a subtle way of proselytism, especially since the office in charge had the words “promoting the unity of Christians” in its official Latin title (*Secretariatus ad unitatem Christianorum promovendam*). The influential rabbi, Abraham Heschel, however, took the view that “no religion is an island” and “dialogue with the Catholic Church is necessary”. He called on responsible, competent Jews to take the risk.

At the same time that Bea was consulting with the Jews and Jewish leaders were debating the pros and cons of cooperation with the Vatican, Mgr Willebrands was busy setting up the newly formed Secretariat for Christian Unity. Willebrands had learned the news of his appointment when Radio Vaticana announced it on June 28, 1960, three weeks after the start of the preparatory period.<fnref n="25" /> The Dutchman was an obvious choice because of his deep commitment to Christian unity and his involvement in the “Catholic Conference on Ecumenical Questions”.<fnref n="26" /> Much of his time in these early days was spent setting up the Secretariat, helping in the selection of members and consulters and making contacts in the Vatican in order to ensure smoother relations with the other offices in preparation for the Council.

It is important to draw attention to Willebrands' attitude to the Jews in the years leading up to the preparatory period in order to consider whether or not he would have been a proponent or an obstacle to a text on the Jews. In this respect, Willebrands' recently published diary from the years 1958-1961 is an important resource.

In short, Willebrands' attitude to relations with the Jews appears to have been less enthusiastic than that of Bea.<fnref n="27" /> In the early 1950s, he was chairperson of a local Catholic ecumenical commission in the Netherlands called the Saint Willibrord Society. Under his chairmanship, a “Catholic Council for Israel” was established in the Netherlands as a branch of this society. Willebrands was anxious about this Council. Its work was not just about theology, but also about politics and the newly formed State of Israel. In 1957, the group published a book, which challenged the classical anti-Jewish theology. Willebrands wrote in support of Judaism in the preface, but he also wrote that fulfillment would only come to the Jews when they recognize “that Jesus is the Christ”.<fnref n="28" />

It is noteworthy that, in his diary from 1958-1961, there is no mention of some of the most significant advancements in the relations between Jews and Christians even though he would certainly have known about them. For example, he does not mention the fact that on Good Friday, 1959, Pope John XXIII eliminated the ancient prayer for the perfidious Jews from the liturgy. Neither does he mention the important meeting of John XXIII with Jules Isaac on June 13, 1960. In his diary, his attention to the Jews

<footnote n="25">²⁵ Willebrands wrote in his diary that day: “In the afternoon, the KNP calls me: Radio Vaticana has announced my appointment as Secretary of the Secretariat for Christian Unity. I don't know anything about this. It's more than likely that this announcement is true... Radio Vaticana is usually trustworthy with this type of information.” Theo SALEMINK (ed.), ‘You will be Called Repairer of the Breach.’ *The Diary of J.G.M. Willebrands 1958-1961*, Leuven, 2009, p. 172.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶ The Conference was established in 1952 as a collaborative venture between European Catholic bishops and theologians interested in Christian Unity. It prepared the way for the establishment of the Secretariat for Christian Unity in 1960.</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷ For an analysis of Willebrands' early views on Judaism, see SALEMINK (ed.), 'You will be Called', p. 19-22.</footnote>

<footnote n="28">²⁸ Josephus COOLS, *et al.*, *Het mysterie van Israël*, Utrecht, 1957, p. 8.</footnote>
is scant, despite the question of the Jews being the purview of the Secretariat of which
he was the Secretary. He mentions visiting M<sup>er</sup> John Oesterreicher on September 8,
1960, who would meet with him three days later, on September 11, to discuss the
"question of Israel". When that meeting was held, the only thing he records is that
two offered up names of competent consulters (Oesterreicher, Paul Démann, and
someone from Jerusalem: Bruno Hussar, Joseph Stiassny, Leo Rudloff).<sup>29</sup> At a meeting
of the Catholic Conference for Ecumenical Questions in Gazzada on September 21,
1960, three days after Pope John XXIII charged the Secretariat with responsibility
for the Jewish question, Willebrands' diary is silent regarding his thoughts on the
matter, despite Bea being present at the meeting with him. When the Secretariat
held its first plenary meeting on November 14-15, 1960 —the meeting at which Bea
first announced to the members and advisors, the Secretariat's responsibility for the
Jewish question— not a word appears in the diary about this. The same is true for
the second plenary meeting February 7-9, 1961, when the first report on the Jews is
presented. Willebrands' interest and attention to the Jewish question seems only to
come after the start of the Council in 1962.<sup>30</sup>

It is difficult to decipher clearly from this, Willebrands' attitude towards the Jewish question at this time. It would be hasty to conclude that he was hostile to the idea of a text on the Jews. At the same time there are no signs to show that he was supportive of one. His diary is saturated with evidence that he was deeply involved during this time with matters dealing with the unity of Christians. It is likely that Willebrands sees dialogue with the Jews at this time as a non-issue, one that detracts from the Secretariat's main task of ecumenism.

The Secretariat held its first plenary meeting from November 14-15, 1960, in Rome.<sup>31</sup> It was then that Bea announced to the members and advisers present that John XXIII had entrusted what he called the "Quaestione ebraica" to that office. He emphasized though that it was a special papal mandate and that the Pope had explicitly requested that it be "sub secreto".<sup>32</sup> Since the Cardinal had not yet decided how to proceed on this matter, Gregory Baum offered to produce a short survey on the question to present at the Secretariat's next plenary meeting.

As Thomas Stransky wrote, in Rome "a secret is either not worth keeping or
too good to keep".<sup>33</sup> Whether through members of the Secretariat or through an
interview with a Jewish journalist in which Cardinal Bea had disclosed details
that were to have been confidential, details which the journalist was not to have
published, or through Bea's earlier meeting with Nahum Goldmann of the World
Jewish Congress, or though some other channel, the Arab world was soon aware that
the Secretariat was working on a text on the Jews. The document was to have been
"purely religious". However, "in the Middle East religious politics and political religion

<footnote n="29"><sup>29</sup> SALEMINK (ed.), *You will be Called*, p. 206.</footnote>

<footnote n="30"><sup>30</sup> Cf. Leo DECLERCK, *Les Agendas conciliaires de Mgr. Willebrands, secrétaire du Secrétariat pour l'Unité des Chrétiens*, Leuven, 2009.</footnote>

<footnote n="31"><sup>31</sup> I am following here primarily the history of the text as presented in OESTERREICHER, *Declaration*, p. 17-42.</footnote>

<footnote n="32"><sup>32</sup> STRANSKY, *Nostra Aetate*, p. 33.</footnote>

<footnote n="33"><sup>33</sup> STRANSKY, *Nostra Aetate*, p. 33.</footnote>
is the norm. 'Purely religious' is an oxymoron".<fnref n="34" /> For the Arab world, this theological document was in fact a political one; anything positive about the Jews must also be —at the least implicitly— recognition and support for the state of Israel. Therefore, in response, great efforts were made to clarify that the Jewish question had to do with "the inner life of the church" and not with diplomatic relations between Israel and the Vatican. Nevertheless, the Arab newspapers would not let the issue rest, resulting in slanders and occasional threats against Christians living the Middle East.

By now, the Israeli government had been alerted to the fact that the Vatican was preparing a document on the Jews for the upcoming Council. In 2005, Israeli scholar and professor of International Relations at Hebrew University, Uri Bialer, published a book entitled *Cross on the Star of David*.<fnref n="35" /> In it, he draws upon recently declassified Israeli archival material to examine Israel's foreign policy in relation to Christianity in the years 1948-1967. Two chapters are devoted to Israel foreign policy and the Vatican in the years leading up to and during the Council. In particular, he highlights Israel's persistent attempt to establish diplomatic ties with the Vatican during this time.<fnref n="36" /> Some of these details are important for understanding the development of the Jewish question, especially in relation to support for and opposition to it, operating alongside the work of the Secretariat.

Israel had already recognized the power the Vatican had in influencing Catholics worldwide and realized that if it could establish diplomatic ties with the Vatican, it would have a powerful ally in the Middle East. In the eyes of the Israeli government at the time, religious support for Judaism was tantamount to political support for Israel, and this shaped its foreign policy.

In early January 1957, the Israeli government sent Maurice Fischer to Rome to try to establish relations with the Vatican. Fischer had previously served as Israel's representative in France in the late 1940s and he was currently deputy director-general of Israel's Foreign Ministry. Israel already had a diplomat for Italy in Rome, Eliahu Sasson. Sasson's approach to diplomacy, however, was thought to be too confrontational for the delicate touch needed at the time. After all, as Bialer wrote, this move in 1957 was "essentially Israel's first official and significant attempt to establish formal political contact through independent action at the Vatican".<fnref n="37" /> Fischer arrived in Rome and sought out Cal Tisserant, Secretary of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, who promised Fischer that he would raise the subject of Israel at his next meeting with the Pope, who at the time was Pius XII. Fischer then requested a meeting with the Vatican Secretary of State, Domenico Tardini. Tardini though denied his request out of concern for retaliatory action against Catholic institutions in the Middle East if the fact of their meeting was made known.

Israel soon learned that the Vatican Secretariat of State and especially Tardini were hostile to it. Towards the end of 1957, the Israeli Foreign ministry received a report, which highlighted the anti-Israeli sentiment in the Vatican's Secretariat of

<footnote n="34">³⁴ STRANSKY, *Nostra Aetate*, p. 33.</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵ BIALER, *Cross on the Star*.</footnote>

<footnote n="36">³⁶ BIALER, *Cross on the Star*, p. 52-90.</footnote>

<footnote n="37">³⁷ BIALER, *Cross on the Star*, p. 57.</footnote>
State. During a meeting between the French Ambassador to the Vatican and Tardini, Tardini said: "I have always been convinced that there was no real need to establish that state... that its creation was a grave mistake on the part of the Western states and that its existence is a constant source of danger of war in the Middle East. Now that Israel exists, there is of course no possibility of destroying it, but every day we pay the price of this mistake".<fnref n="38" />

Israel's hopes were renewed in autumn 1958 with the death of Pius XII and the election of John XXIII. The government knew that before becoming Pope, Giuseppe Roncalli had been on good terms with Israeli representatives in Istanbul during WWII when Roncalli had been Apostolic Delegate to Greece and Turkey and further that he had assisted in the rescue of Jews. He had also been on friendly terms with Maurice Fischer when Roncalli was Apostolic Nuncio of France and Fischer was Israel's Minister in Paris. Moreover, the new Pope had replied to a cable of congratulations from Israeli president Yitshak Ben-Zvi. After poring over the content of the Pope's reply, Israeli intelligence concluded that "letters were not sent to countries with which the Vatican was unwilling to establish relations". It therefore symbolized, "if not the offering of a hand, at least... the offering of fingertips".<fnref n="39" /> At the same time though the Vatican Secretary of State had not changed. Instead, Tardini, who had been acting-head, became the head. In addition, the newly elected John XXIII made Tardini a Cardinal in December 1958. These two latter moves, Israel thought, would likely strengthen his power in the Vatican. Nevertheless, Jerusalem was emboldened overall by the election of the new Pope and Fischer was dispatched once again.<fnref n="40" />

Already there were signs that Pope John was sympathetic to Israel. Before arriving in Rome, Fischer received some hopeful news from Tisserant who had raised the question of Israel at his first meeting with John XXIII. Tisserant had gained the impression that the Pope's response was "encouraging" and that he was "ready to study the problem".<fnref n="41" />

Fischer met with John XXIII in early February 1959. The meeting was friendly and personal; they began by recalling their days together in Paris. The Pope said that Fischer knew him to be a man who supports anything that brings people closer together and is opposed to anything that separates them. He was fully in favour of promoting understanding between the Vatican and Israel. However, Fischer needed to understand that even the Pope could not make decisions alone. He needed to consult. Fischer then made a concrete suggestion. He asked the Pope to appoint an apostolic vicar in Israel who would oversee Catholic affairs in that country and maintain contact with that government. The Israeli government did not accredit the current apostolic representative. The Pope promised to consider the problems presented with sympathy and respect. Fischer asked if the Pope would arrange a

<footnote n="38">³⁸ BIALER, *Cross on the Star*, p. 58.</footnote>

<footnote n="39">³⁹ BIALER, *Cross on the Star*, p. 60.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ BIALER, *Cross on the Star*, p. 59.</footnote>

<footnote n="41">⁴¹ BIALER, *Cross on the Star*, p. 60.</footnote>
meeting with Tardini. The Pope agreed. As they parted the Pope said to Fischer: "you would receive immediate satisfaction if I listened to my heart".<fnref n="42" />

Fischer met with Tardini, who began by complaining about Israel's the negative attitude towards Christians in the Holy Land. However, the outcome of the meeting was positive. The Vatican had decided to respond favourably to the request for an apostolic vicar in Israel. This move though, Tardini emphasized, should not be regarded as the Vatican establishing diplomatic relations with Israel. He told Fischer that Israel should view this as a "great achievement". "The Church is accustomed to moving slowly", Tardini said, "and here we have progressed with giant steps since the new Pope took office".<fnref n="43" /> Little though had changed in the attitude of Tardini. In a remark to Tisserant, he said "there is no possibility of contact or negotiations with the killers of God".<fnref n="44" />

By the end of the year, Jerusalem was looking for new ways to advance their interests. They decided to devote more time to a new initiative that had taken shape earlier in the year. The project was to "set up a disguised Israeli representation in Rome in the form of an 'Institute for the Study of Jewish-Christian Relations' whose real assignment would be to collect precise and up-to-date information on the Catholic Church, to foster relations with key figures at the Vatican, and to supply current information on Jewish and Israeli affairs to clerics". Dr. Haim Wardi of Israel's Ministry of Religious Affairs would lead the Institute and it would be officially affiliated with the World Jewish Congress so as to conceal the fact that Israel was behind it.<fnref n="45" />

During most of 1960, Israeli Foreign relations with the Vatican were occupied with a plan by Eliahu Sasson, Israel's ambassador to Rome.<fnref n="46" /> In February, a representative of a group inside the Vatican had approached Sasson. The group —led by Alfredo Ottaviani, of the Vatican's Holy Office— was looking to remove Tardini from office because of his objections to establishing diplomatic relations with Israel. The Holy Office was interested in allying with Israel in order to block the growing ties between the Arabs and the Soviet Union. However, the effect would serve more than just this interest within the Vatican. According to Sasson's contact, the Pope—who the Ottaviani group referred to has “the old man”— had already given his “100 percent” positive response to the idea of diplomatic recognition. As Bialer writes: “[Sasson's] reports contain colourful descriptions of intrigues within the Vatican around the plotting of the Ottaviani group and its various supporters and the ‘raging struggle between the Holy Office and the State Secretariat’”.<fnref n="47" /> Sasson wrote: “...not only does one hand not know what the other is doing, but that sabotage, subversion, scheming, and lies play a central part in relations between these offices and their approach to most problems. The Pope himself, despite his goodness of heart and good intentions, is to a certain degree weak charactered and, because of his advanced age, has begun to

<footnote n="42">⁴² BIALER, *Cross on the Star*, p. 61-62.</footnote>

<footnote n="43">⁴³ BIALER, *Cross on the Star*, p. 63.</footnote>

<footnote n="44">⁴⁴ BIALER, *Cross on the Star*, p. 64.</footnote>

<footnote n="45">⁴⁵ BIALER, *Cross on the Star*, p. 65-66.</footnote>

<footnote n="46">⁴⁶ BIALER, *Cross on the Star*, p. 66-71.</footnote>

<footnote n="47">⁴⁷ BIALER, *Cross on the Star*, p. 69.</footnote>
suffer from loss of memory, which the people around him are exploiting for their own purposes”.<fnref n="48" /> In the end though, the plan fell apart; the Vatican declared that “the time was not yet ripe”; Israel cancelled the plan for the Jewish-Christian Institute in Rome, and in June 1960 Fischer replaced Sasson as ambassador in Rome.

Israel's approach to the Vatican in the early 1960's could be described as an attempt to influence the Church in its anti-Jewish theological stand, in order to rework its official opposition to Israel and to increase the possibility of diplomatic recognition.<fnref n="49" /> In doing so it exploited growing pressure both inside and outside the Church for Rome to do something about relations with the Jews as a result of the Holocaust. According to Bialer, Israeli experts knew well that this would not directly result in the Church establishing diplomatic relations with Israel. However, they certainly hoped it would further their interests.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry was supportive of Jules Isaac's meeting with John XXIII in June 1960. In preparation for his audience on June 13, Jules Isaac approached the Israeli embassy in Rome on his own initiative “for advice on how to present the matter to the Holy See and what arguments to cite”.<fnref n="50" /> The Foreign Office advised him to ask the Pope for three things: i) that any statement that might be interpreted as offensive to the Jewish people be erased from the manuals of instruction; ii) that a subcommittee be established to examine the contents of the manuals; and, iii) that the Pope make a public statement announcing that these steps were being taken. Despite not all of these requests being fulfilled, Isaac's audience was deemed a success in Israel. More importantly though, the very fact of the audience and the Pope's positive response was seen by the embassy in Rome as signs that the Vatican was prepared to revise its anti-Judaic position. This, it was thought, “could have an indirectly positive impact on the state of relations between the Vatican and Israel”.<fnref n="51" />

At the same time, various Jewish organizations and individuals were becoming invested in the Jewish question. It was well known that Orthodox Jews and organizations were opposed to dialogue with the Catholic Church. However, groups such as B'nai B'rith, the World Jewish Congress and various reform groups were supportive. Bialer claims that several Jewish organizations sent missions to Rome and submitted lengthy memoranda to the Vatican. Jewish Professor, Zwi Werblowsky, who taught at Hebrew University at the time claimed that all of these were written by Catholics and not Jews since no Jewish experts on the subject could be found.<fnref n="52" />

In the meantime, the Secretariat for Christian Unity was continuing its work. Gregory Baum's short survey on the “Quaestione ebraica” was presented at the second plenary meeting held in Ariccia in early February 1961. At the same gathering, two other members were appointed to the Secretariat for Christian Unity's sub-

<footnote n="48">⁴⁸ BIALER, *Cross on the Star*, p. 69</footnote>

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹ BIALER, *Cross on the Star*. p. 72.</footnote>

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰ BIALER, *Cross on the Star*. p. 73.</footnote>

<footnote n="51">⁵¹ BIALER, *Cross on the Star*, p. 74.</footnote>

<footnote n="52">⁵² If this claim is accurate then more work is necessary studying the contributions of Jewish scholars to the two “Catholic” reports submitted to Rome, one by the Institute of Judaeo-Christian Studies in the United States in June 1960, the other by a group that met in Apeldoorn, Netherlands in late summer 1960. For more information on these reports, see OESTERREICHER, *Declaration*, p. 9-17</footnote>
commission for Jewish questions to assist Baum: Leo Rudloff and John Oesterreicher. George Tavard would soon join the group, too. Since there was enough interest in Baum's survey, Oesterreicher was asked to prepare a study on behalf of the sub-commission for the next plenary meeting. This study, prepared for the third plenary session of the Secretariat, in April 1961 in Ariccia, would form the first text on the Jews. It was entitled "Quaestiones de Iudaeis".<fnref n="53" /> The proposal was discussed, debated, revised and reworked at the following two plenary sessions, in Bühl, Germany, in August 1961 and again in Ariccia at the end of November 1961, where it was eventually abandoned.

Oesterreicher attributes its downfall to contrary forces both outside the Church and inside the Church. Outside the Church the public and press perceived the counter-movements of the Arab governments as a main obstacle. Inside the Church, according to Oesterreicher the “theologians were not prepared for it in their own minds”.<fnref n="54" /> As Thomas Stransky noted, in the almost two thousand year history of the Church there had hardly been any development in the Church’s teaching on “the mystery of the Jewish existence… nothing on the relationship of the Church and Synagogue”.<fnref n="55" /> It was the neglected topic, “the Cinderella of theology”.<fnref n="56" /> George Tavard, too, echoed this sentiment almost 55 years later. To his mind “the Catholic hierarchy was not ready for such a departure from past views of Judaism by Christians”.<fnref n="57" />

After abandoning this first attempt, the plenary moved quickly at this same meeting to prepare and adopt another much shorter draft entitled "Decretum de Iudaeis", with the additional help of Belgian bishop Emiel Joseph De Smedt, Secretary of the Secretariat, Mgr Johannes Willebrands (now Bishop) and Mgr Francis Davis.<fnref n="58" /> With the completion of this schema, the preparatory work for the document on the Jews was finished. The schema would be sent in due time to the Council's Central Preparatory Commission for approval and distribution. Everyone anticipated that the schema would be on the conciliar agenda for the first session in autumn 1962.

Uri Bialer reports that on the Israeli side, around the same time, an interesting proposal came forth from a Jewish professor at Basel University named Ernst Ehrlich. Ehrlich was an active member of a group called the Jewish Christian-Understanding Association and the director of the Western European office of B'nai B'rith. Ehrlich contacted Prof. Zwi Werblowsky and told him that he had met with Cardinal Bea in the summer of 1961, and who agreed to consider any memorandum submitted to him if done properly. Fischer had made it clear that in accordance with Israel's approach to the Vatican at the time, Jews were only to be involved behind-the-scenes in preparing a document; the document itself was to be submitted as a "purely Catholic document,

<footnote n="53">⁵³ Oesterreicher provides a detailed description of this first text in OESTERREICHER, *Declaration*, p. 22-32.</footnote>

<footnote n="54">⁵⁴ OESTERREICHER, *Declaration*, p. 38.</footnote>

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵ STRANSKY, *Holy Diplomacy*, p. 57.</footnote>

<footnote n="56">⁵⁶ OESTERREICHER, *Declaration*, p. 39.</footnote>

<footnote n="57">⁵⁷ George TAVARD, *Nostra Aetate. Forty Years Later*, in Michael ATTRIDGE (ed.), *Jews and Catholics Together. Celebrating the Legacy of Nostra Aetate*, Ottawa, 2007, p. 46.</footnote>

<footnote n="58">⁵⁸ The full English text of this first schema can be found in OESTERREICHER, *Declaratio*, p. 40; also, Philip A. CUNNINGHAM, Norbert J. HOFMANN, and Joseph SIEVERS, (ed.), *The Catholic Church and the Jewish People: Recent Reflection from Rome*, New York, 2007, p. 191-192.</footnote>
signed solely be Catholic theologians”.<fnref n="59" /> Bea had asked for a list of Jewish “demands” that could serve as a basis of a Church document. The approach had three advantages: first the Council would receive an “even-handed and responsible document”; second, the memo would be Christian and not Jewish, at least officially speaking, even though it was practically a joint composition; and, third, it would eliminate the need for other Jewish groups and memoranda. Ehrlich claimed that “All of the “hurly-burly of the Jewish organizations… will vanish in a puff of smoke and… Bea… can then turn them down with a clear conscience and tell them that there is no more need for anything to be done since preparation of a basic memo is already underway”.<fnref n="60" /> Ehrlich was ready and invited Werblowsky to meet him in Paris in late November to begin work.

The proposal was supported by the foreign office, who saw three advantages: Israel was interested to be involved in this significant event; the plan had been construed in such a way that Israel's involvement was sure to be kept discreet; and there were fewer Jewish organizations involved, which minimized the risk that one or more may act irresponsibly. Werblowsky was convinced that if they could change Catholic theology to be friendlier to the Jews, this would undoubtedly have an impact on political relations.

At the end of November, five Jews and seven Catholics were invited to attend a two-day meeting in Paris.<fnref n="61" /> Bialer is not explicit about who the seven Catholics were but did say that all of them were on side with Bea and all were present. Only two Jews came, though, Ehrlich and Werblowsky. The document drafted represents the fruits of Israel's first attempt to operate directly within the Vatican's theological policymaking circles.<fnref n="62" /> Bialer says that the “participants soon discovered that Cardinal Bea's office had already drafted the document, which was more or less complete”.<fnref n="63" /> Their task was restricted to editing, amplifying and refining. Werblowsky's main point at the meeting was that the problem was not just an indelicate statement here and there. The Council needed a complete, unequivocal and binding declaration. And he suggested four major amendments.<fnref n="64" /> Bialer describes the Paris meeting as having had a “highly positive impact”. Cardinal Bea voiced no objection to the final document. But at the same time, it was clear to Israeli diplomats that the proposal would still undergo extensive revisions.

It would therefore seem as though there were others than just those of the Secretariat for Christian Unity who were waiting with anticipation for the June

<footnote n="59">⁵⁹ BIALER, *Cross on the Star*, p. 75.</footnote>

<footnote n="60">⁶⁰ BIALER, *Cross on the Star*, p. 75.</footnote>

<footnote n="61">⁶¹ Bialer reports that they met “in the last week of November”. The “last week” of November 1961 was November 26 – December 2 (Sunday – Saturday). Moreover, according to Bialer’s notes Werblowsky wrote a report to Fischer, dated Thursday, November 30, so presumably the meeting was finished by then. The timing of this meeting is curious, since the Secretariat for Christian Unity was holding its fifth plenary meeting in Ariccia (November 27 – December 2) at exactly the same time.</footnote>

<footnote n="62">⁶² BIALER, *Cross on the Star*, p. 76.</footnote>

<footnote n="63">⁶³ More research is necessary to know which “Bea draft” this was: “Quaestiones de Iudaeis” or “Decretum de Iudaeis”. Both were in existence at the fifth plenary meeting of the Secretariat.</footnote>

<footnote n="64">⁶⁴ BIALER, *Cross on the Star*, p. 76.</footnote>
meeting of the Central Preparatory Commission to approve the "Decretum de Iudaeis". The Israeli Government was also looking forward to its approval as a step toward closer relations between Jews and Catholics and in turn the possibility of stronger diplomatic relations with the Vatican.

In spring 1962, though, the Israeli government's strategy to remain quiet and behind-the-scenes ran aground.<fnref n="65" /> Nahum Goldmann got restless and tried to revive the 1959 proposal to have an Institute for the Study of Jewish-Christian Relations in Rome with Dr. Haim Wardi of the Ministry of Religious Affairs at its head. The Foreign Ministry was reluctant. It feared that too much publicity might hamper the progress already made. Nevertheless, Foreign Minister Golda Meir agreed with the condition that Wardi was only there "to listen". The plan was approved in late May 1962. However, Goldmann's instructions to Wardi implied a more active role. He was "to deal with all problems pertaining to the imminent Ecumenical Council in his capacity as representative of the World Jewish Congress." Soon the whole plan began to unravel. The Israeli newspaper, *Ma'arvi*, published an interview with Joe Golan, an advisor on Arab affairs for Nahum Goldmann. Golan referred to Wardi's appointment as being "at" the Vatican. Therefore, what was supposed to have been officially presented as an appointment "in Rome" was presented as "at the Vatican". From the perspective the Foreign Ministry the effect was disastrous. Orthodox Jews in the US and England were outraged at the possibility of a Jew participating in the Council. Arab ambassadors to the Vatican were angered. And, reportedly, threats were made towards Catholics in countries like Egypt and Iraq. According to Israeli reports, the Vatican Secretariat was convinced that the publicity of Wardi's appointment was part of a "nefarious" Israeli plot, coordinated with Goldmann, to bring an observer through the back door and exploit the Council for its own political gain. Fischer received reports informing him that the affair, which had become known as the "Wardi Affair" "has provided our enemy, Mér Samoré (the spiritual heir of Cāl Tardini) [and Secretary of the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs since 1953] with the opportunity of breaking his silence" and demanding that the Vatican's Secretariat, under Secretary Amleto Cicognani, who had been elected the year before, veto the Jewish problem at the Council "due to the appointment of an Israeli government official as representative of the World Jewish Congress at the Vatican".<fnref n="66" />

The Central Preparatory Commission, indeed, removed the schema on the Jews from the agenda on June 20, 1962. It was said at the Commission "since disagreements between Jews and Arabs in our time are well known, the suspicion of political intent, or of favouring the one or other side, easily arises; false rumours to this effect are already being spread".<fnref n="67" /> The chair, Cāl Cicognani, then expressed his objection to the schema in a more personal way, "It would be a waste of time to recall our connections with the Jewish people: Christ our Lord himself was of that people, and we hold to the Old Testament as well as the New. But we should stick to the purpose of the

<footnote n="65">⁶⁵ For an account of the "Wardi Affair" see BIALER, *Cross on the Star*, p. 77-78.</footnote>

<footnote n="66">⁶⁶ BIALER, *Cross on the Star*, p. 77.</footnote>

<footnote n="67">⁶⁷ Acta et documenta Concilio oecumenico Vaticano II apparando; Series secunda (praepordinatoria), II/4, Vatican, 1969, p. 21.</footnote>
Council at which the Church desires solemnly to affirm its faith and to strengthen its apostolate. And why this particular decree? If a decree on the Jews, why not one on the Muslims? They certainly boast of their descent from father Abraham".<fnref n="68" />

Thus ends the history during the preparatory period of what started almost exactly two years earlier as simply the “Quaestione ebraica”, developed into the draft text “Quaestiones de Iudaeis” and finished as “Decretum de Iudaeis”. The official minutes of the Central Preparatory Commission do not include the schema “Decretum de Iudaeis” text. Of this time in the history of the decree, Thomas Stransky wrote: “secular diplomacy and its blunderings seemed to be winning.” But there was a price. The Israeli ambassador to Italy found doors previously open now closed “until further notice.” Jewish delegations need not apply for papal audiences.<fnref n="69" /> An American Jewish source at the time reported that there “has been a drastic change in the attitude towards the Jews” and that “they mistrust us and are deeply suspicious of our conduct”.<fnref n="70" />

Historian Anna Caponera visited the Vatican Secret Archives a few years ago and reviewed the *Nostra Aetate* papers of the Secretariat for Christian Unity. She concluded that the history of the declaration, especially in the early years “was replete with difficulties that lay not so much on a theological level but more on the political consequences of the historical moment”.<fnref n="71" />

### III

Looking back over the two-year period, one can conclude that the central question in 1960 was how to redress the centuries-old tradition of anti-Judaism that had developed within the Christianity. So obvious was this tradition at the time that Jules Isaac was able to recognize and label it a “teaching of contempt” toward Jews and Judaism. He would write that it was comprised of “deep-seated prejudices and of the most odious habits of mind, heart and tongue”.<fnref n="72" /> His goal was to remind Christianity of its Jewish origin and to purge Christianity of its religious anti-Semitism. At the same time, he also perceived a change occurring within Catholicism, such that there were now two currents: this long-standing, vitriolic anti-Jewish one; and a new one that sought to purify the Church and to rectify the wrongs committed throughout history. At the same time, there was a corresponding issue that was not yet apparent to Isaac nor presumably to the Pope or to those in the Secretariat for Christian Unity in 1960, namely, the extent to which any movement within the Church in support of Jews and Judaism was inextricably linked to political issues within the Middle East. In the minds of Arab leaders, support for the Jews theologically was tantamount to support for the State of Israel, a politically contentious international issue at the time. Any move on the part of the Church in support of the Jews would result in resistance for political reasons. Thus there were two forces to overcome and one that needed to

<footnote n="68">⁶⁸ BIALER, *Cross on the Star*, p. 77</footnote>

<footnote n="69">⁶⁹ STRANSKY, *Nostra Aetate*, p. 42.</footnote>

<footnote n="70">⁷⁰ BIALER, *Cross on the Star*, p. 78.</footnote>

<footnote n="71">⁷¹ Anna CAPONERA, *Papers of the Secretariat for Christian Unity on Nostra Aetate*, in Neville LAMDAN and Alberto MELLONI (ed.), *Nostra Aetate*, p. 56.</footnote>

<footnote n="72">⁷² ISAAC, *The Teaching*, p. 35.</footnote>
be strengthened in order that the schema see the light of Council floor: on the one hand religious anti-Semitism within Christianity and political opposition to Israel needed to be overcome; on the other hand, the “purifying counter-current” needed to be developed.

Support for the Jews was evident at the time among some of the most powerful individuals in the Vatican. Pope John XXIII was in favour of a schema on the Jews. Whether it was related to a general commitment he held for value of humanity, or for specific theological reasons —such as those found in Scripture— of Christianity's relationship to Judaism, or as a penitential attempt to rectify the wrongs committed against Jews by Christians throughout history, the reason is unclear. What is clear is his affection for the Jews, as shown by his many acts of kindness towards them over the years, and by his support for the Jewish question, especially after his meeting with Jules Isaac.

Augustin Bea's support was more theologically articulated. Turning to the unpublished paper that he wrote on the Jews in 1962, we see that he considers them, even in their suffering, to be bearers of God's revelation to the world. Christians ought to change their attitudes towards the Jews for Christians are indeed indebted to Jews. Through Jesus of Nazareth, a first-century Palestinian Jew, the Jewish people have given Christians life. But Bea speaks even more broadly saying that the Jews have given gifts to Christians that are greater, more public, more decisive —gifts that are spiritual and supernatural.

Bea was also strategic in his approach to advancing the Jewish question. He knew of the diversity and complexity of modern Judaism. In the early 1960's there were approximately thirteen million Jews in the world. Twenty-five percent of them lived in Europe. However, two of the most powerful centers of Judaism were in the United States and in Israel.<fnref n="73" /> He sought contact with an organization —the World Jewish Congress—that could act as a representative of that diversity and he remained open to collaboration with the Jews throughout the entire drafting of the schema. Also noteworthy is the fact that two of the four original drafters of “Quaestiones de Iudaeis” were Jews who had converted to Christianity. And Bea had appointed them.<fnref n="74" />

Jan Willebrands was also an important and influential person within the Vatican Curia. As already mentioned, he appears to have been neither an advocate for, nor an obstacle to developing relations with the Jews during the preparatory period. There is no evidence to suggest that he was working “behind-the-scenes” with those who were opposed to the idea, like the Secretary of State, Domenico Tardini. Indeed, Willebrands' diary shows that he is not at all supportive of Tardini, or others like him.<fnref n="75" /> Instead, it is probable that his attention during this time was focused on the unity of Christians, not on the relations with non-Christians. Among the Jews who encouraged deeper relations with Catholics, were many individuals like Jules Isaac, Ernst Ehrlich, and Zwi Werblowsky whose interests were personal, academic, and

<footnote n="73">73 BEOZZO, *The External Climate*, p. 393.</footnote>

<footnote n="74">74 The members of the original drafting team were Leo Rudloff; George Tavard; John Oesterreicher; and, Gregory Baum. Both Oesterreicher and Baum were Jews who has converted to Christianity.</footnote>

<footnote n="75">75 For a summary of how Willebrands felt about Tardini, Cªl Alfredo Ottaviani, and Sebastian Tromp, see SALEMINK (ed.), *You will be Called*, p. 17-18.</footnote>
even theological. Their primary motivation appears to have been to assist Catholics in removing the anti-Jewish accretions that had developed in their own tradition and to help them to return to a proper understanding of their historical relationship with Jews, as found in Scripture.

Of course, the government of the State of Israel was strongly supportive of a statement on the Jews. This though was part of a larger political plan to establish diplomatic ties with the Vatican —a state that had its “citizens” all around the world. In this sense, the Vatican would undoubtedly be a powerful ally. Certainly there were those in government offices who were —in the same way as Isaac, Ehrlich, Werblowsky and others— supportive for personal and theological reasons. Just as there were those who were opposed for theological reasons. Orthodox Judaism, for example, was known to have been against dialogue with Christians. Nevertheless, broadly speaking the approach on the part of the government, especially the Foreign Ministry office, was deliberate: promote the schema in order to strengthen political ties.

At the same time there was also intransigence, resistance to change, and even outward opposition to the Jewish question. Stransky wrote that, even at that time, many wondered whether the Jewish question came too late, or too soon.<fnref n="76" /> On the one hand, given the massacre of the Jews during the mediaeval Crusades, the hounding of the Inquisition, the denial of civil rights, the imposed ghettos, the horror of the Holocaust, was the question too late? On the other hand, given that there was no apparent preparation for it within Catholic theology, was it too early? Would the bishops even accept it as a topic for the Council? This latter sentiment haunted the drafters of “Quaestiones de Iudaeis” and the Secretariat as they prepared and discussed the text. And finally, it was the key factor in deciding not to proceed with that first text and instead to develop the much shorter and more theologically restrained “Decretum de Iudaeis”.

Those most vociferously opposed were the foreign diplomats and political leaders of Arab countries in the Middle East. The controversial establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 was still fresh in the air and the sides were vying for influential partners. Symbolically, if not practically, the Vatican would be a significant partner for Israel regardless of whether it came in the form of diplomatic relations or religious rapprochement. We must remember that religious politics and politicized religion was the norm in the Middle East. There is no such thing as pure religion or pure politics. The Catholic Bishops of the Middle East were also aware of the political significance of the Jewish question, and they feared retaliation and persecution of the Catholics in their dioceses. Later, during the conciliar period, they would exercise a decisive influence over the final form of the Declaration.

Finally, there was the attitude of the powerful Vatican Secretariat of State under Secretaries Domenico Tardini and later Amleto Cicognani. In the case of Tardini, there is evidence that his opposition to the Jewish question was related on some level to religious anti-Semitism, especially if one recalls his remark to Tisserant where he refers to the Jews as “killers of God”. For him the founding of the State of Israel was

<footnote n="76">76 STRANSKY, *Nostra Aetate*, p. 55.</footnote>
a mistake that all must now pay for. Cicognani too, was unsupportive of the Jewish question, offering his acerbic, unsolicited comment that the Jewish question was a waste of time.

## IV

This analysis of issues and influences through the lens of individuals shows three things. First, it shows that the Church was at the threshold of change in 1960 with regards to its teaching on the Jews. There were two forces at work, the two "tendencies" of Jules Isaac. One force was to resist or refuse change and maintain its traditional stance towards the Jewish people. The other was to overcome this tradition and move into the future. In summer 1962, it appeared as though the former had dominated the latter. Second it shows the complexity of the many competing influences operating within the Vatican in preparation for the Council. If one considers alone, the stances taken by officials such as Tardini and Cicognani and compares them to those taken by Bea and John XXIII, one begins to see the internal polemics that characterized the preparatory period of Vatican II. Finally, it must be said that the history of Nostra Aetate is 'sui generis' in its history when compared to the other conciliar texts. No other Vatican II document was so closely tied to the political interests of a government. Thus politics—both within the Vatican and operating on the Vatican—have to be taken into consideration in any proper examination of the history and theology of the Declaration.

The period 1961-1962 was an important one for the Church in its relationship with the Jewish people. It was a time for the Church to look back over its history and to recognize and take hold of the anti-Semitism within its own tradition. Then when it attempted to remedy this tradition, it was an opportunity to look around and to see the many individuals and influences emerge and to learn where the challenges and obstacles but also the opportunities were. Many lessons were learned in these two years that in 1963, the following year, would reorient the drafting committee and set it on the proper path that would lead finally to *Nostra Aetate*.

Michael ATTRIDGE
University of St-Michael's College
LA RÉCEPTION DES AUTEURS PROTESTANTS COMME
MARQUEUR D'UN AFFRONTEMENT CULTUREL À L'IN-
TÉRIEUR DU CHAMP RELIGIEUX CATHOLIQUE AU MO-
MENT DU CONCILE

L'EXEMPLE DE L'ESPACE THÉOLOGIQUE NORD-AMÉRICAIN

INTRODUCTION

Entre intransigeance et renouveau, la réception des grands auteurs protestants du 20e s. est un des marqueurs d'une ligne de force qui polarise le champ religieux catholique, et fait du concile, *a minima*, le temps d'un affrontement. C'est ce que nous nous proposons de montrer en étudiant l'espace théologique des années 1950-1960 en Amérique du Nord, et plus particulièrement en nous attachant à repérer dans cet espace les théologiens qui sont aussi les experts au concile.

Par « grands auteurs », nous entendons ceux que René Marlé appelle « les grands maitres ayant inauguré un nouvel âge de la théologie évangélique<fnref n="1" /> », Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Paul Tillich, qui ont permis aux théologiens catholiques de s'engager dans une reformulation de leur propre pensée. L'accueil, le débat, le refus, ou l'indifférence à ces penseurs constituent autant d'attitudes qui permettent de se représenter une cartographie de l'espace théologique étudié. En somme, c'est un « entre-soi » catholique perturbé par un « avec-l'autre » protestant qui est l'objet observé, à l'intérieur de l'espace théologique. Cet espace lui-même est fortement bousculé, c'est le moins qu'on puisse dire, par le concile, qui opère une rupture majeure des « habitus » institutionnels et individuels.

LA RÉCEPTION DES AUTEURS PROTESTANTS : QUELQUES MARQUEURS

UN INDICATEUR DE MESURE AVANT LE CONCILE: LA PLACE DES AUTEURS PROTESTANTS DANS LES PRINCIPALES REVUES THÉOLOGIQUES ÉTATS-UNIENNES

Nous proposons ici une étude circonscrite à quatre revues états-uniennes, *American Ecclesiastical Review*, *Catholic Biblical Quarterly*, *Theological Studies* et *The Thomist*. Il est à noter qu'aucune des quatre revues ne dispose d'un index des auteurs cités, et ne permet donc de construire un indicateur « quantitatif » homogène. L'analyse de ces revues sur la période 1940-1974 se fait en comparant quatre agrégats, ou ensembles d'articles, qui dessinent un faisceau de questions théologiques: la pensée protestante, bien sûr, mais également la question « des deux théologies », la place du thomisme, et enfin le débat autour de la philosophie existentielle. Ces quatre thèmes, ou fil conducteurs, n'occupent pas une place équivalente dans la production théologique.

<footnote n="1">¹ RSR, 65 (1967), p. 257-287.</footnote>
Il est à noter que l'on entend pensée protestante dans un sens large ici, puisqu'il s'agit de fait de toute présentation catholique soit d'un auteur protestant, soit d'un point de la doctrine protestante, soit d'une recension d'un ouvrage protestant ou bien explicitement consacré au protestantisme. Ainsi entendu, le protestantisme dont il est question est un thème qui apparaît plus souvent que le thomisme<fnref n="2" />.

<table><caption>Quatre thèmes majeurs dans l'espace théologique défini par les revues catholiques nord-américaines</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="4">AER</th><th colspan="4">CBQ</th><th colspan="4">TS</th><th colspan="4">TT</th></tr><tr><th>T1</th><th>T2</th><th>T3</th><th>T4</th><th>T1</th><th>T2</th><th>T3</th><th>T4</th><th>T1</th><th>T2</th><th>T3</th><th>T4</th><th>T1</th><th>T2</th><th>T3</th><th>T4</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1940-1950</td><td>0</td><td>16</td><td>5</td><td>19</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>18</td><td>3</td><td>36</td><td>5</td><td>33</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>1951-1960</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>11</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>18</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>40</td><td>12</td><td>47</td><td>1</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>1961-1964 (70)</td><td>5</td><td>9</td><td>4</td><td>2<br>(31)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>16</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>50</td><td>4</td><td>41</td><td>1</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>1971-1974</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>6</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>33</td><td>0</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Total par revue</td><td>5</td><td>28</td><td>14</td><td></td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>40</td><td>8</td><td>30</td><td>11</td><td>133</td><td>27</td><td>154</td><td>3</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="4">T1</td><td colspan="4">T2</td><td colspan="4">T3</td><td colspan="4">T4</td></tr><tr><td>Total par thème</td><td colspan="4">40</td><td colspan="4">212</td><td colspan="4">29</td><td colspan="4">230</td></tr></tbody></table>

Sans surprise, *The Thomist*<fnref n="3" />, éditée par la maison d'études dominicaine de Washington DC, consacre l'essentiel de sa production à l'étude de St. Thomas (154 articles ou recensions dont le titre renvoie explicitement à l'Aquinate entre 1939, année de la création de la revue, et 1974). Mais alors que la revue ne s'intéresse absolument pas aux penseurs protestants, 27 articles sont consacrés à l'existentialisme. À l'inverse, parmi ces quatre thèmes, le protestantisme arrive en tête dans les trois autres revues. On a bien conscience de comparer ici des revues dont les méthodes et les finalités ne sont pas homogènes, mais cela donne une idée de la façon dont le débat avec le protestantisme intervient à l'intérieur du champ des préoccupations propres à chaque revue.

Ainsi, si *The Thomist* ne consacre que 25 items au protestantisme, mis à part deux articles de fond sur Tillich, c'est exclusivement par des recensions d'ouvrages catholiques de type apologétique. Parmi les 40 occurrences que l'on trouve dans *Catholic Biblical Quarterly*, et les 133 dans *Theological Studies*, il en va tout autrement : il s'agit la plupart du temps de débattre des options exégétiques et théologiques des

<footnote>*(T₁ – Thème 1: l'existentialisme; T₂ – Thème 2: le thomisme; T₃ – Thème 3: les deux courants théologiques; T₄ – Thème 4: le protestantisme)</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² On ne doit bien sûr pas être totalement dupe de ce calcul: beaucoup d'articles dont le titre n'évoque pas St. Thomas ou le thomisme restent, sur le fond, une mise en œuvre du thomisme. Une analyse qualitative des articles sur la période, pour impossible qu'elle soit, changerait sans doute cette hiérarchie —il n'en reste pas moins que ce premier comptage que nous avons effectué indique unagrégatsur le protestantisme dont le poids est considérable.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Sous-titrée «revue trimestrielle spéculative».</footnote>
grands auteurs protestants. Quant à l'American Ecclesiastical Review (32 occurrences<fnref n="4" />), elle aborde le protestantisme par le biais de l'œcuménisme, présenté jusqu'en 1964 comme un appel à la conversion pour les «chrétiens séparés». Si l'on étudie les auteurs, on observe une fréquentation des auteurs protestants irrégulière et inégale: pour 117 occurrences au total, Bultmann arrive en tête (50), suivi de Karl Barth (24), Oscar Cullmann (21), Paul Tillich (15) et Dietrich Bonhoeffer (7). La progression est constante à partir du milieu des années 1950, et atteint son apogée pendant les années 1960 avant de chuter<fnref n="5" />.

L'étude des auteurs protestants dans *Theological Studies*

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Sur le fond, *Catholic Biblical Quarterly* se présente d'abord comme une revue exégétique, mais les commentaires théologiques<fnref n="6" /> qu'on y trouve légitiment sa prise en compte<fnref n="7" />. Sur les 28 articles ou recensions, mêmes brèves, consacrés par la revue à des auteurs protestants, 11 concernent Bultmann. Le premier article situe d'emblée le débat sur la question de la réception comme dialogue. En 1957, David Stanley s.j., du séminaire de Toronto, écrit sur « Rudolf Bultmann: un défi contemporain pour les théologiens catholiques<fnref n="8" /> ». S'il n'omet pas d'adresser au lecteur catholique un avertissement qui semble rédhibitoire, « il est assez évident que la plupart

<footnote n="4">4 Nous avons ici considéré la revue à «l'époque Fenton», c.-à-d. jusqu'à son départ, annoncé en décembre 1963. Ce départ marque un tournant assez radical pour la revue, à la fois sur le plan de la ligne éditoriale et des contributeurs.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5 42 articles dans les années 1950, 46 dans les années 1960, 12 entre 1971 et 1974.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">6 Cette revue est la revue de la *Catholic Biblical Association of America*, fondée à la CUA en 1940.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">7 À l'inverse, comme son nom l'indique, *Theological Studies* est une revue de théologie – mais quatre de ses premiers articles sur le protestantisme sont consacrés à l'étude des genres littéraires dans les évangiles, selon Bultmann.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8 CBQ, 19 (1957), p. 347-355.</footnote>
des affirmations de Bultmann sont inadmissibles du point de vue catholique. Sa conception d'un kérygme démythologisé coupe tout lien entre 1957 et les années de la vie du Christ ... » (p. 353), la suite invite évidemment à découvrir cet auteur : « Mais du côté positif, Bultmann nous donne une théologie de la révélation qui mérite notre attention. Il a resitué à sa juste place le thème de la révélation et de la Parole de Dieu et leur insertion dans l'histoire (...) De plus, on doit louer Bultmann pour son effort de re-présenter le message de Dieu à l'homme moderne. C'est un devoir auquel le prédicateur ou enseignant en religion d'aujourd'hui ne peut échapper » (p. 353-354). Au passage, ces louanges semblent tellement contradictoires avec l'avertissement initial qu'on peut s'interroger sur la fonction initiale de celui-ci.

Joseph Hardon s.j., en 1961, dans une recension de *Ce monde et au-delà*, autre ouvrage de Bultmann, est enthousiaste : « Il est regrettable qu'il ait fallu attendre si longtemps pour disposer en anglais des sermons de Bultmann. Ils montrent avec une clarté remarquable les aspects positifs de sa théologie et permettent d'équilibrer heureusement ce qui peut apparaître comme des excès dans ses écrits scientifiques<fnref n="9" /> ». En 1962, en 1964, en 1965, en 1969 encore, on trouve des articles conséquents sur Bultmann et les post-bultmanniens. Dans une de ses recensions, sur un ouvrage de Charles W. Kegley, *La théologie de Rudolf Bultmann*, de 1966¹⁰, Raymond Brown<fnref n="11" /> situe Bultmann parmi les plus grands. « Dans sa préface à ce volume l'éditeur écrit : 'Bultmann a l'insigne honneur d'avoir identifié et façonné quasiment toutes les questions que les savants contemporains ont à affronter'. C'est certainement vrai (...) Le flot des publications récentes concernant la pensée et les théories de Bultmann témoigne de façon éloquente de cela. (...) il se peut bien que, parce qu'il a été un tel catalyseur dans l'ordre de la pensée théologique, il se situe parmi les théologiens les plus influents de tous les temps ».

De même, en 1969, Bertil E. Gartner, en présentant un compte-rendu de l'ouvrage collectif dirigé par Thomas O'Meara, op, et Donald M. Weisser, op : *Rudolf Bultmann dans la pensée catholique*, publié à New York en 1968, reconnaît la dette de la théologie à l'égard du théologien allemand : « La question de Bultmann concernant la démythologisation, concernant l'homme comme centre de la religion et concernant l'existentialisme comme cadre approprié pour transmettre à l'homme moderne le kérygme ont eu la plus grande influence qui soit sur le débat théologique des dernières décades, et c'est pourquoi il est légitime de discuter de son impact sur la pensée catholique aussi. L'éditeur évoque Vatican II comme « *la reconnaissance critique par le catholicisme du problème herméneutique pour aujourd'hui* » et comme étant sur la même ligne que l'herméneutique bultmannienne » (Vol. 31, p. 596-597).

<footnote n="9">⁹ CBQ, 19 (1957), p. 512.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ CBQ, 28 (1966), p. 151-153.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ Futur membre de la commission biblique pontificale, entre 1973 et 1979, et 1997 et 1998.</footnote>
## UN INDICATEUR DE MESURE APRÈS LE CONCILE:
LA PLACE DES AUTEURS PROTESTANTS DANS LES LIEUX DE FORMATION THÉOLOGIQUE AMÉRICAINS

Nous nous proposons ici de procéder à partir d'un autre échantillon, celui des catalogues publiés par différents lieux de formation. On retiendra comme lieux la *Catholic University of America* (Washington DC), soutenue par la conférence épiscopale états-unienne, un séminaire interdiocésain, celui de *St Joseph - Dunwoodie* (NY), un lieu de formation jésuite (*Fordham University*, NY) et un lieu dominicain (*Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception*, Washington DC).

Jusqu'en 1965, le catalogue des enseignants comme des cours, dans tous ces lieux, repose sur les normes posées par *Deus Scientiarum Dominus*, de Pie XI (mai 1931), et n'inclut aucun cours ou enseignement explicitement construit sur un dialogue avec les pensées protestantes. Ainsi à la CUA, le catalogue de 1963-1964, rédigé en latin, est encore organisé selon ce schéma<fnref n="12" />: théologie fondamentale (cours d'apologétique sur la révélation divine, ecclésiologie catholique —cours donné par Msgr. Fenton<fnref n="13" />, qui enseigne à la CUA depuis 1938, et la quitte en 1965); théologie dogmatique (le Verbe Incarné, la Rédemption, le Péché originel, la Grâce, Marie, les sacrements); théologie morale (essentiellement par le dominicain Merkelbach); écriture sainte et droit canonique, histoire de l'Église. Dans les cours électifs, on trouve déjà en 1965 des ateliers de pratique pastorale (fondements théologiques, monde de la médecine, psychologie).

Le catalogue de 1966-1967, rédigé en anglais, garde la même structure, mais inclut des cours aux contenus très différents: une majeure en théologie fondamentale et dogmatique est proposée en « œcuménisme », de même qu'un cours sur le développement de la doctrine et de la théologie. Un cours sur « la connaissance humaine de Jésus-Christ, approche comparative » est proposé par Carl J. Peter, professeur assistant de théologie dogmatique, recruté en 1964 (Ph.L et STD de l'université Grégorienne, Ph.D de l'Université St-Thomas-d'Aquin): il distingue « la théologie biblique des faits », en s'appuyant sur des auteurs protestants (Schweizer, Cullmann, Bultmann, Robinson), et « la théologie systématique de l'interprétation » (étude de Galtier-Parente-Diepen, Rahner, Vogtle, Lonergan<fnref n="14" />). Une autre majeure, en théologie morale, sous la responsabilité de Charles Curran (STD Université Grégorienne et Université du Latran), qui vient d'être recruté à la CUA comme professeur de théologie morale, propose un séminaire de lecture sur la pensée protestante contemporaine en éthique (discutant des auteurs suivants: Luther, Calvin, Barth, Niebuhr, etc.<fnref n="15" />).

Le catalogue de 1968-1969 reconduit le cours de Carl J. Peter, qui fait également un séminaire sur le concile de Trente et l'œcuménisme, mais c'est David Tracy

<footnote n="12">¹² CUA catalogue 1963-1964, p. 25.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ En caractère gras les noms des experts au concile Vatican II. Pour Fenton comme pour beaucoup d'autres, on peut notamment se rapporter à *The American Catholic Who's Who*, 1960 and 1961, Vol. 14, Michigan. Ou bien à *The Official Catholic Directory*, édition annuelle de 1960, par exemple.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ CUA, catalogue 1966-67, p. 26.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ CUA, catalogue 1966-67, p. 28.</footnote>
(STL Université Grégorienne, Instructeur en théologie dogmatique) qui reprend un séminaire de recherche, «la problématique contemporaine de la méthodologie théologique dans la théologie protestante» (étude historique des méthodes de Schleiermacher, Kierkegaard, Barth, Bultmann, Cullmann et Tillich<fnref n="16" />).

On retrouve un basculement similaire si l'on étudie de près les catalogues du « séminaire du Cardinal Spellman<fnref n="17" /> », St. Joseph seminary, à Dunwoodie (Yonkers, New York). On trouve en 1966-67 un cours d'exégèse du Nouveau Testament, par Myles Bourke (STD CUA, SSL Institut Biblique Pontifical), intitulé : « Le problème du Jésus historique », étude des écrits des post-bultmanniens sur la ‘nouvelle quête du Jésus historique’ et la réaction d'autres auteurs. On trouve également un cours de « Théologie de l'œcuménisme », assuré par Robert Kennedy (JUD Université du Latran). On trouve également un séminaire « Théologie protestante contemporaine », consacré à l'étude de Barth, Bultmann, Tillich, par James Connolly (Ph.D Fordham University<fnref n="18" />). Le contenu du cours précise qu'il s'agit d'étudier l'état actuel de la théologie protestante, y compris la question de la sécularité et les théologiens de « la mort de Dieu ».

En 1967-68, Joseph Komonchak (STL Université Grégorienne) inaugure un cours sur « Théologie de la révélation et foi », en proposant une approche comparée entre les théologies catholique et protestante. La même année, avec Msgr Austin Vaughan (STD Université Grégorienne) et James Connolly, il conduit un séminaire de « théologie œcuménique », avec l'étude de la théologie protestante et des principales dénominations protestantes. James Connolly de son côté reconduit son cours sur Barth, Bultmann et Tillich. Richard Dillon (STL Université Grégorienne, SSL Institut Biblique Pontifical) organise un séminaire sur « le problème du Jésus historique », incluant l'étude de Bultmann, Käsemann, Bornkamm, Robinson.

En 1969-1970, son séminaire d'écriture sainte porte sur l'évangile selon Jean et s'appuie sur la lecture de Bultmann. A partir de 1970-71, le signifiant « protestant » disparaît largement des intitulés. Les questions adressées à la théologie semblent changer de provenance.

À noter que Myles Bourke, pour un article sur les récits de l'enfance chez Matthieu (Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 22 - avril 1960) et Richard Dillon (pour un article dans la revue du séminaire, *Dunwoodie Review*, 1 (1961) concernant les mêmes récits de l'enfance, mais chez Luc) ont tous les deux été accusés de « bultmannisme » par Ottaviani, et défendus par leur archevêque de tutelle, le Cardinal Spellman<fnref n="19" />.

L'université jésuite de Fordham University (Bronx, New York) n'est pas vraiment dans la même situation que ses homologues. Si on y enseigne bien la théologie, en particulier depuis 1953, année où est créée une formation sur quatre ans conduisant à l'obtention d'un « Bachelor » en Théologie, la Graduate School ouvre un Master of

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ CUA catalogue 1968-1969, p. 52-53.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ Pour reprendre l'expression de Thomas J. SHELLEY, Francis Cardinal Spellman and His Seminary at Dunwoodie, dans *Catholic Historical Review*, 80 (1994), p. 282-298.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ St Joseph's seminary, catalogue 1966-1968, p. 19.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ Thomas J. SHELLEY, Francis Cardinal Spellman, p. 282-298 – pour cet épisode, précisément à la page 287: « I have complete confidence in you and consider you a great asset to St. Joseph's Seminary ».</footnote>
Arts en théologie seulement en 1963, et c'est à partir de 1967 que les étudiants ayant obtenu une moyenne minimale de B+ peuvent envisager un doctorat. Dès 1963, le cours de christologie d'Alfred Corbo (STL St Mary's; MA CUA) aborbe les pensées de Bultmann et de Cullmann<fnref n="20" />. Le même cours est offert en 1965-66, et s'y ajoute le cours de Myles Bourke d'« Introduction au Nouveau Testament », proposant une introduction aux méthodes historico-critiques. À partir de l'automne 1966, M. Ryan assure pour le Fordham College un séminaire sur « Le protestantisme moderne. Étude de la théologie protestante au 20ᵉ s.; Bart, Bultmann, Brumer, Tillich, Niebuhr », en alternance avec le Professeur Healey, quand Charles Giblin s.j. (SSL, SSD Institut Biblique Pontifical) assure un cours sur « La théologie de Paul Tillich ». Au printemps 1968, Henri Bouillard s.j. est professeur invité et offre un séminaire sur Karl Barth. John Macquarrie (Ph.D Université de Glasgow, lui-même protestant), en 1967-68, intitule son séminaire « Rudolf Bultmann »; il y étudie les problèmes de l'interprétation du Nouveau Testament à la lumière de la critique des formes et de l'existentialisme. Il travaille sur « Les herméneutiques post-bultmanniennes », et John Dwyer s.j. (STL Woodstock, Dr. Theol. Tübingen) sur « Paul Tillich ». La plupart de ces cours, sauf les séminaires d'invités, sont reconduits en 1968-69. En 1969-70, Donald Moore s.j. (STL Woodstock, STD Strasbourg) aborde « Les penseurs protestants modernes. Une enquête sur la théologie protestante au 20ᵉ s. et la réponse des théologiens catholiques ». Richard Dillon travaille sur l'Évangile selon Marc à partir des auteurs allemands Wrecke, Bultmann, Holtzmann. En 1971, c'est au tour de Doris Donnelly de travailler sur les « Théologiens protestants modernes », avec une insistance particulière sur les concepts de foi et de communauté.

C'est aussi pour son édition de 1965-1966 que le catalogue de la maison d'études dominicaines à Washington, DC, *Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception*, passe à la langue vernaculaire. Il faut attendre la publication des *Normae quaedam ad Constitutionem Apostolicam Deus Scientiarum Dominus* du 20 mai 1968 pour que le catalogue mentionne explicitement un dialogue théologique de fond (même si le programme de cette année-là se présente comme un programme de transition). « Théologie et science moderne » propose « une approche comparée des théologies catholique et protestante sur des questions telles que la vie, l'évolution, Dieu, la nature ». Un séminaire sur « Paul Tillich et le renouveau de la théologie catholique<fnref n="21" /> » jouxte un cours sur les « Premières théories protestantes de l'Eucharistie » (ibid., par Donahue). Un cours sur la « reconceptualisation de Dieu » s'attache à montrer les directions prises par la théologie contemporaine lorsqu'elle dialogue avec le pragmatisme, la phénoménologie et l'existentialisme, et prévoit des lectures de Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Bultmann, Robinson.

Cet échantillon de lieux de formation est certes limité, mais il permet une lecture dans des espaces très différents de par leurs appartenances institutionnelles, leurs places dans le dispositif ecclésial et leurs histoires respectives. Pourtant, ces quatre lieux sont marqués par une très forte convergence dans leur offre de formation au lendemain du concile, au point que l'on peut dire qu'il y a un avant et un après Vatican

<footnote n="20">²⁰ Fordham University, *The Graduate School of Arts and Science, Catalogue*, p. 107.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹ PFIC Catalogue 1968-1969, Hill, p. 20.</footnote>
Il dans le rapport à la pensée protestante, un changement préparé par des années de réception.

L'AFFRONTEMENT CULTUREL DANS LA SPHÈRE CATHOLIQUE

LA QUESTION DES « DEUX THÉOLOGIES » DANS LES REVUES

« Le thomisme et la nouvelle théologie<fnref n="22" /> », en 1950, présente les termes d'un débat qui est constant jusqu'au moment du concile. « Une fois que les frontières de l'Europe furent ouvertes après la libération, on put vite constater qu'un nouvel élément était entré en scène (...) Cette nouvelle philosophie reçut le nom d'existentialisme. Maintenant, c'est aussi un fait de l'histoire que peu de philosophies viennent au monde sans avoir une influence, tôt ou tard, sur la science théologique; aussi il était naturel que le thomisme, non sans un certain degré d'appréhension, attende de pouvoir mesurer l'impact de cette philosophie sur la pensée catholique. Cela était d'autant plus important dans le cas présent qu'une école florissante d'existentialistes catholiques existait déjà en France et dans quelques autres pays. Dès 1946 des controverses dans plusieurs revues ecclésiastiques rendirent manifeste le fait que ces appréhensions étaient plus que justifiées (cf. Labourdette, op, « La Théologie et ses sources », *Revue Thomiste*, 56 (1946), p. 353-371, et J. Daniélou, « Les orientations présentes de la pensée religieuse », *Études*, 249 (Avril 1946<sup>23</sup>) ».

Théologie incertaine, selon Greenstock, la nouvelle théologie n'en est pas moins identifiable par ses représentants : « plusieurs de ses partisans en chef sont maintenant bien connus de nous tous » (et de citer Bruno de Solages, « Pour l'honneur de la théologie », in *Bulletin de Littérature Ecclésiastique*, 48 (1947), p. 65-84, article dans lequel se trouvent les noms des principaux tenants de ce courant). À ces personnes on se doit d'ajouter « quelques publications dans les séries *Sources Chrétiennes*, *Collection Théologie et Unam Sanctam* » (où Henri Bouillard est désigné comme un des plus radicaux dans la contestation du thomisme<fnref n="24" />).

« Le problème principal auquel nous sommes confrontés est tout simplement celui de deux manières contraires d'envisager la relation entre révélation et raison. Soit la raison est l'instrument dans le développement de la vérité révélée, soit la vérité révélée est l'instrument de la raison. (...) C'est pourquoi, en matière de conclusions théologiques, on n'a pas affaire à des séries de probabilités, mais à de strictes conclusions dans la forme de jugements qui correspondent à la vérité ontologique contenue dans les principes révélés (...). De tous ces points de vue nous parvenons à une seule et même conclusion, à savoir que c'est la vérité de la foi qui joue un rôle actif dans l'acte théologique de la raison, utilisant la vérité naturelle pour développer le contenu latent dans la révélation, et l'utiliser comme un strict instrument au sens thomiste de ce mot. Pour cette raison ces conclusions théologiques sont plus certaines qu'aucune vérité

<footnote n="22">²² David Lee GREENSTOCK, *Thomism and the new Theology*, dans *The Thomist*, 13 (1950), p. 567-596. L'article est écrit avant la publication d'Humani Generis, et publié après sa publication.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³ GREENSTOCK, *Thomism*, p. 567. Voir H. LABOURDETTE, *La Théologie et ses sources*, dans *Revue Thomiste* 56 (1946), p. 353-371, et Jean DANIÉLOU, *Les orientations présentes de la pensée religieuse*, dans *Études*, 249 (1946).</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴ GREENSTOCK, *Thomism*, p. 571-572.</footnote>
seulement naturelle ne saurait l'être, parce qu'elles sont réduites, en dernière analyse,
à un principe plus grand que la raison naturelle, un principe surnaturel et divin qui
informe tout ce qui est humain dans l'acte théologique, lui conférant une nouvelle
valeur surnaturelle<fnref n="25" /> ».

En somme, selon Greenstock, au cœur de la méprise des nouvelles théologies,
il y a cette volonté de s'adapter à leur époque, ce qui leur fait ignorer que la vérité
ontologique contenue dans la révélation informe à ce point la foi et la raison
théologique qu'elle ne peut produire que des conclusions théologiques certaines,
uniques, stables dans ses formes, celles-là même qu'a formulées le thomisme dans
l'histoire, et qui explique l'attachement des papes à cette unique philosophie. Ainsi,
« quand l'Église utilise un certain vocabulaire philosophique dans ses définitions
dogmatiques, elle exerce réellement son jugement infaillible quant à la valeur de tels
termes pour exprimer le sens profond d'une vérité divinement révélée (...) [ces termes
qu'elle utilise] n'appartiennent plus à l'ordre humain ou naturel, mais reçoivent une
approbation surnaturelle de ces mêmes vérités divines qu'ils servent à exprimer<fnref n="26" /> ».

En 1963, Anthony Lee, rédacteur en chef de *The Thomist*, dresse un portrait de la
bataille menée autour du concile<fnref n="27" />. Il soulève le problème de « l'anti-thomisme dans
la pensée catholique récente<fnref n="28" /> ». Cet anti-thomisme procèderait d'une « nouvelle
théologie », elle-même adossée à une nouvelle philosophie, l'existentialisme<fnref n="29" />.
« Soucieux de rejoindre la philosophie existentialiste sur son propre terrain et bien
disposés à l'égard de son opposition aux 'formulations rationalisantes du scolasticisme
décadent', les nouveaux théologiens ont compromis l'orthodoxie : 'Il est assez évident
en effet que la théologie scolastique n'est pas en prise avec ces catégories [d'historicité
et de subjectivisme]', dit-il en citant Daniélou<fnref n="30" />. « Dès 1946, la destruction de la
philosophie et de la théologie scolastiques avait pris les proportions d'une croisade
triomphante. Maurice de Gandillac confirme l'acte de décès du néo-thomisme. Hans
Urs von Balthasar écrit une épitaphe pour St Thomas et les Pères de l'Église<fnref n="31" /> ».
Or, selon lui, « les causes [des erreurs produites par l'existentialisme] tiennent à une
acceptation implicite des principes de base de l'existentialisme, à savoir le primat de la
subjectivité et le rejet d'une philosophie et d'une théologie systématique<fnref n="32" /> ».

Dans le même numéro est donné le verbatim du discours de Mgr Dino Staffa<fnref n="33" />,
secrétaire de la Sacrée Congrégation des Séminaires et des Universités, pour
l'inauguration de la chaire St. Thomas d'Aquin à l'université pontificale du Latran, le
10 mars 1963. Le discours porte un titre-programme : « le renouveau du thomisme ».
« Parmi les causes les plus graves du malaise [parmi les universitaires catholiques] se

<footnote n="25">25 GREENSTOCK, *Thomism*, p. 574-578.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">26 GREENSTOCK, *Thomism*, p. 579.</footnote>

<footnote n="27">27 Anthony D. LEE, *Thomism and the Council*, dans *The Thomist*, 27 (1963), p. 451-492.</footnote>

<footnote n="28">28 LEE, *Thomism and the Council*, p. 459.</footnote>

<footnote n="29">29 LEE, *Thomism and the Council*, p. 463.</footnote>

<footnote n="30">30 Jean DANIÉLOU, *Les orientations*, p. 14.</footnote>

<footnote n="31">31 LEE, *Thomism and the Council*, p. 465.</footnote>

<footnote n="32">32 LEE, *Thomism and the Council*, p. 466.</footnote>

<footnote n="33">33 Mgr Staffa est également conseiller de la commission théologique préparatoire du concile, et vice-président de la commission conciliaire pour les Séminaires et les universités.</footnote>
trouve encore, comme toujours, l'opposition, renouvelée, et répandue y compris parmi
les fils de l'Église, au Docteur Commun<fnref n="34" /> ».

Quels sont les reproches adressés à l'existentialisme ? Ils sont nombreux, mais les trois plus importants sont très clairement énoncés: fondamentalement, il priverait la théologie catholique de tous ses principes essentiels; ensuite, il conduirait à un éclectisme qui aboutirait à faire un choix arbitraire entre l'ancien et le moderne, sans considération pour le développement de la doctrine à travers l'histoire; enfin, il conduirait à un affaiblissement de l'autorité de l'Église<fnref n="35" />. Parler ainsi de deux théologies, c'est affirmer clairement, au fond, qu'il n'y a qu'une seule façon de faire de la bonne théologie.

L'ASPIRATION À « D'AUTRES » THÉOLOGIES

Que disent de ces enjeux théologiques, dans l'après-guerre, les autres revues ? Avant la publication d*Humani Generis*<fnref n="36" />, abondamment commentée, vécue par les uns comme une confirmation de tout ce qu'ils dénonçaient, comme les autres comme un rappel à la rigueur mais pas un renoncement aux nouvelles méthodes, de nombreux auteurs manifestent leur impatience à s'affranchir d'une méthode et d'une démarche dans laquelle ils ne se reconnaissent plus.

Dans *Catholic Biblical Quarterly*, Edward Siegman, en 1949³⁷, évalue sévèrement l'utilisation des citations bibliques par les manuels de théologie: « À la question 'la méthode de présentation de l'Écriture dans nos manuels de théologie est-elle satisfaisante?', la réponse est largement négative, de la part d'un nombre croissant d'enseignants et d'étudiants. Bien sûr, ils ne limitent pas leur critique à la façon dont l'Écriture est traitée dans ces manuels, comme nous le ferons dans cet article. Ils condamnent comme dépassée et contraire à toute pédagogie l'ensemble de la méthode de présentation dans nos manuels de dogmatique et attribuent à cette méthode l'apathie générale des séminaristes et des prêtres envers la science-reine (...) Nos manuels de théologie dogmatique suivent tous ce que l'on appelle la méthode positivo-scolastique, (...) une méthode dépassée ».

Au même moment, en 1948, dans *Theological Studies*, les cosignataires de la rubrique « Current theology », dont John Courtney Murray, déclarent : « L'étude des Pères de l'Église permet « de combler le fossé qui s'est créé, dans l'opinion de beaucoup, entre la théologie et la spiritualité. Les Pères de l'Église ne sont pas simplement des professeurs de doctrine chrétienne mais des maîtres de vie spirituelle... À cet égard, les études patristiques offrent un complément précieux, et sans doute aussi un nécessaire correctif à la mentalité rigidement intellectualiste créée par l'immersion des étudiants dans la pensée scolastique<fnref n="38" /> ».

<footnote n="34">³⁴ Dino STAFFA, *Le renouveau du thomisme*, dans *The Thomist*, 27 (1963), p. 129-137; citation tirée de la page 134.</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵ LEE, *Thomism and the Council*, p. 475-478.</footnote>

<footnote n="36">³⁶ Encyclique *Humani Generis*, d'août 1950.</footnote>

<footnote n="37">³⁷ Edward F. SIEGMAN, *L'Utilisation de l'Écriture sainte dans les manuels de théologie dogmatique*, Vol. II, p. 151-152.</footnote>

<footnote n="38">³⁸ John Courtney MURRAY et al.; *Current theology*, dans *Theological Studies*, 9 (1948), p. 250-289.</footnote>
Pour commenter *Humani Generis*, Gustav Weigel, après avoir éreinté l'existentialisme, termine par cette étonnante ouverture : « assumer le pari existentialiste pour rencontrer l'homme moderne ? Par souci apostolique ? Pas complètement déraisonnable. Pas complètement valide. Mais c'est mieux que l'action de ceux qui avancent sans ouvrir les yeux<fnref n="39" /> ».

Les « nouveaux mouvements » qui précèdent le concile sont-ils au cœur du conflit culturel entre les « deux théologies » ? Rien n'est moins sûr. Dans son article déjà cité de 1963, le rédacteur en chef de *The Thomist* se félicite des « nouveaux mouvements pastoraux » : « au milieu de cette agitation intellectuelle, cependant, d'autres mouvements se firent jour, qui s'avérèrent ultérieurement bénéfiques à la vie de l'Église ». Ainsi, « l'intérêt pour la Bible s'est développé avec les avancées des recherches contemporaines dans le domaine de l'Écriture (...) Là étaient les semences du renouveau, de la proclamation moderne, de l'histoire du salut et de la catéchèse nouvelle. L'insistance souhaitable sur le souci pastoral des âmes a été servie par un mouvement liturgique en pleine expansion, qui pouvait conduire les laïcs vers une participation plus vivante dans les mystères solennels de l'Église du Christ, (...) par l'ouverture d'un dialogue avec les autres Chrétiens pour renforcer l'esprit religieux comme un monde plus puissant au sein d'un monde sécularisé. (...) Tous ces mouvements, qui portent aujourd'hui du fruit, se sont développés sous l'influence d'idéologies en conflit, et avec l'incertitude des « premiers pas », malheureusement sans le soutien d'une théologie systématique<fnref n="40" /> ».

Autrement dit, la question au concile n'est pas tant la nouveauté des mouvements pastoraux, liturgiques et bibliques, ou bien patristiques, que le thomisme se fait fort d'absorber, que la question de la relation philosophie-théologie. Pourquoi alors cet acharnement contre l'existentialisme ? Car il est, à cause du primat qu'il accorde à la subjectivité, cela même qui expose la citadelle catholique<fnref n="41" /> à ce dont elle s'est si bien, grâce au thomisme, défendu : le protestantisme.

Pourtant, c'est bien à penser le christianisme, dans un dialogue incluant les protestants, y compris en s'en distinguant, que des auteurs s'emploient. Ainsi, Gustave Weigel, dans *Catholic Theology in dialogue*<fnref n="42" />, consacre un premier chapitre à « L'ecclésiologie catholique dans notre temps » - où il établit une histoire de l'ecclésiologie comme discipline formelle apologétique, en réponse à la Réforme protestante. Il situe le tournant ecclésiologique au début du 20ᵉ s., et voit dans l'encyclique *Mystici Corporis* de 1943 la consécration par Pie XII d'une ecclésiologie centrée sur le symbole du corps du Christ. Il articule ces évolutions au progrès du renouveau biblique et patristique<fnref n="43" />, et montre comment cette évolution s'accompagne d'un changement dans la méthode.

Dans un deuxième chapitre, « The Scriptures and Theology<fnref n="44" /> », il évoque la « convergence » des exégètes catholiques et protestants vers une méthodologie

<footnote n="39">³⁹ Gustav WEIGEL, *The historical background of the Encyclical Humani Generis*, dans *Theological Studies*, 12 (1951), p. 208-230.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ LEE, *Thomism and the Council*, p. 468.</footnote>

<footnote n="41">⁴¹ Joseph Clifford FENTON, *Tower of David*, dans AER, 142 (, p. 41-49.</footnote>

<footnote n="42">⁴² Gustav WEIGEL, *Catholic Theology in Dialogue*, New York NY, 1960.</footnote>

<footnote n="43">⁴³ WEIGEL, *Catholic Theology*, p. 14.</footnote>

<footnote n="44">⁴⁴ WEIGEL, *Catholic Theology*, p. 29-48.</footnote>
identique<fnref n="45" />. Il parle de la manière dont les catholiques ont dû évoluer pour arriver à ce point de convergence : « La réelle faiblesse de leurs efforts était due à l'assomption implicite que toute affirmation était, ou impliquait, une affirmation logique que le sens commun pouvait atteindre. Bien qu'ils dussent admettre, à cause de la tradition catholique, qu'il y avait plus d'un sens dans l'Écriture, ils s'en tenaient à la doctrine thomiste que tous les sens s'enracinaient dans le sens littéral des mots ». Il cite comme signe de cette convergence catholico-protestante le nom de professeurs ayant formé indifféremment des universitaires des deux confessions : William Albright à l'université John Hopkins, les Canadiens Roderick McKenzie et David Stanley, les Américains John McKenzie, Roland Murphy, Patrick Skehan, Edward Siegman, Bruce Vawter et Joseph Fitzmyer.

## LE CONCILE COMME MOMENT DE LA CRISTALLISATION DE CET AFFRONTE- MENT ?

### POUR DEMEURER BON CATHOLIQUE FAUDRAIT-IL DEVENIR PROTESTANT ?

Le titre de cet article de Mgr Lefebvre éclaire à sa manière le conflit culturel que nous essayons d'analyser. La note préliminaire à cet article publié en 1970 dans *La Pensée Catholique*<fnref n="46" /> précise : « l'article qui suit a été composé en octobre 1964, alors que peu de schémas du Concile avaient été approuvés. Pour des motifs tout à fait étrangers à l'article lui-même, il n'a pas été publié. Nous pensons que ce cri d'alarme de 1964 demeure plus que jamais actuel. Il prouve aussi que, dès ce moment, on pouvait prévoir les conséquences de cet esprit néo-moderniste qui régnait au Concile, conséquences dont nous sommes les témoins atterrés aujourd'hui ». « Est-il possible de déceler le motif, du moins apparent, qui a permis à ces thèses révolutionnaires de prendre place officiellement à la barre du Concile ? Nous croyons pouvoir dire que c'est à la faveur d'un œcuménisme qui, se présentant d'abord comme catholique est devenu au cours même des sessions un œcuménisme rationaliste<fnref n="47" /> ». La manière dont

<footnote n="45">45 WEIGEL, *Catholic Theology*, p. 31.</footnote>

<footnote n="46">46 Marcel Lefèbvre, *Pour demeurer bon catholique faudrait-il devenir protestant?*, dans *La Pensée Catholique*, 126-127 (1970), p. 9-19.</footnote>

<footnote n="47">47 *Pour demeurer...,* p. 10. Et de suivre: Venons-en d'abord à la *Primauté de Pierre*, qu'on veut mettre en échec par une *collégialité* mal définie et mal comprise [...] Mais qu'on juge de la thèse nouvelle qui contient deux affirmations: 1. Tout, absolument tout pouvoir sur l'Église est donné à Pierre seul. 2. Tout ce même pouvoir a été donné aussi à Pierre et aux Apôtres collectivement [...]. S'il s'agit de la Vierge Marie. C'est avec une impudence incroyable, en dépit du désir explicite du Saint-Père, que le schéma proposé supprime le titre de Marie Mère de l'Église; les œcuménistes regrettent que la Vierge Marie y soit nommée Médiatrice [...] Au sujet de l'Eucharistie, bien que ce sujet n'ait pas été traité ex professo, on aura remarqué deux allusions qui tendent à diminuer l'estime de la présence réelle de Notre Seigneur. On met l'Écriture et l'Eucharistie sur un pied d'égalité [...] Dans tout le schéma de la Révélation, on cherche à minimiser la valeur de la Tradition au profit de l'Écriture. (...) La Vérité de l'Église a évidemment des conséquences qui gênent les protestants et hélas aussi un certain nombre de catholiques imbus de libéralisme. Désormais le nouveau dogme qui prendra la place de celui de la Vérité de l'Église sera la dignité de la personne humaine et le bien suprême de la liberté: deux notions qu'on évite de définir clairement. D'où il suit, d'après nos novateurs, que la liberté de manifester publiquement la religion de sa conscience devient un droit strict de toute personne humaine qu'aucune personne au monde ne peut interdire. Que la religion soit vraie ou non, qu'elle entraîne à sa suite des</footnote>
ce membre du groupe du *Coetus Internationalis Patrum* voit les enjeux dans les débats en cours pose la question de la représentation d'eux-mêmes qu'ont les catholiques vis-à-vis de « l'autre » protestant. Il est peut-être aisé aujourd'hui de considérer Mgr Lefebvre comme un cas atypique de catholique —dans ce cas encore pourtant, le rapport entre ce profil atypique et des profils jugés plus typique serait instructif. Mais notre but n'est pas de trancher cette question ici. On se contentera de revenir à notre corpus de revues et de théologiens américains pour voir quels habitus théologiques sont, de fait, en conflit, à l'intérieur du monde catholique, et notamment par rapport à la question de cette identité catholique.

Il convient en effet d'articuler ensemble ces conceptions philosophiques, que nous avons exposées très brièvement, avec les implications ecclésiologiques et théologiques qu'elles comportent. Et de montrer, par l'analyse des positions des acteurs du concile que sont les experts, que ces débats sont portés par eux à l'intérieur du concile. Revenons sur une des figures parmi les plus connues de ces acteurs<fnref n="48" />, Joseph Clifford Fenton. Thomiste, doyen de la faculté de théologie de la *Catholic University of America* entre 1952 et sa retraite en 1965, consulteur de la Sacrée Congrégation pour les Études et les Séminaires depuis 1950, secrétaire de la *Catholic Theological Society of America* en 1946 et 1947, éditeur de l'American Ecclesiastical Review depuis 1944⁴⁹, expert au concile, l'homme cumule les fonctions et offre un point de repère intéressant dans l'affrontement culturel que nous essayons d'analyser.

Si en effet son rôle dans la mise sous silence de Murray après 1954 est maintenant connu<fnref n="50" />, la liste de ses autres combats nous instruit encore davantage sur la polarisation de l'espace théologique catholique. En 1948, il dénonce dans les termes les plus vifs le travail de Gustave Thils<fnref n="51" />. « Telle qu'elle est présentée et expliquée dans la science de la théologie sacrée, la caractéristique de catholicité de l'Église a

vertus ou des vices, peu leur importe. La seule limite sera un bien commun qu'on se garde bien de définir! [...] Il s'ensuivrait que les catholiques n'auraient plus le droit de travailler à établir ou à rétablir un État catholique. Ils auraient le devoir de maintenir l'indifférentisme religieux de l'État. Pie IX a appelé cela «du délire» à la suite de Grégoire XVI et encore une «liberté de perdition» (Quanta Cura, 8 déc. 1864). Léon XIII a fait sur ce sujet une encyclique admirable Libertas praestantissimum. Mais tout cela était pour leur temps et non pour 1964! [...] La Vérité de l'Église est la raison d'être de son zèle à évangéliser [...] Ce zèle, ce feu qui veut embraser le monde est gênant pour les protestants. [...] Ces exemples suffisent amplement à prouver que les commissions ont une majorité de membres imbus d'un ocuménisme qui non seulement n'est plus catholique selon leur propre affirmation mais ressemble étrangement au modernisme condamné par Saint Pie X et dont le pape Paul VI nous affirme dans son encyclique «Ecclesiam Suam» qu'il en constate la reviviscence».

<footnote n="48">48 On pourra se reporter notamment à R. Scott APPLEBY and John H. HAAS, *The Last Supernaturalists*. Fenton, *Connell, and the Threat of Catholic Indifferentism*, dans U.S. Catholic Historian, 13 (1995), and APPLEBY and HAAS, *The Intellectual Life. Essays in Memory of John Tracy Ellis*, Part 2, p. 23-48.</footnote>

<footnote n="49">49 Et jusqu'à sa démission en décembre 1963, officiellement pour raisons de santé.</footnote>

<footnote n="50">50 Joseph A. KOMONCHAK, *The Silencing of John Courtney Murray*, dans *Cristianesimo nella storia*, 17 (1996), p. 657-702; et KOMONCHAK, *Catholic Principle and the American Experiment*. "The Silencing of John Courtney Murray", dans U.S. Catholic Historian, 17 (1999).</footnote>

<footnote n="51">51 Joseph Clifford FENTON, *The Note of Catholicity in Scholastic Theology*, dans AER, 118 (1948), p. 127-142. Cette recension fait suite à quatre articles de 1946-1947 dans lesquels il dénonce les attaques du «professeur de Malines» (FENTON, *The True Churchand the notes of the Church*, dans AER, 116 [1946], p. 245).</footnote>
une valeur précise et de très grande importance. (...) dans un des traités les plus impudents et les plus savants parmi ceux qui traitent de la catholicité de l'Église, le chapitre « La Catholicité » dans la thèse « Les notes de l'Église dans l'apologétique catholique depuis la Réforme », du docteur Gustave Thils, semble prendre pour un acquis le fait que la note de catholicité, telle qu'elle est présentée par les théologiens depuis quelques siècles, a été mise à l'épreuve et prise en défaut<fnref n="52" /> ».

En 1952 et en 1957, Fenton croise le fer avec Congar, pour ses ouvrages, *Vraie et fausse réforme dans l'Église*<fnref n="53" />, puis *Christ, Marie et l'Église et L'Apostolat des Läics*<fnref n="54" />. La traduction de *À la rencontre du protestantisme* de George Tavard, en anglais, est l'occasion d'une critique acerbe<fnref n="55" /> : « Ce que le Père Tavard a à dire, dans sa traduction anglaise, à propos de 'tous les groupes américains' et à propos des 'catholiques américains' ne peut pas être considéré autrement que comme scrupuleusement blessant et insultant (...). À la rencontre du protestantisme n'est, en aucune manière, un travail important ou même sérieux ».

Fenton n'est pas seul dans ces combats. Lors de la polémique avec Murray sur les relations entre l'Église et l'État, Francis Connell<fnref n="56" /> et George Shea<fnref n="57" /> interviennent. En septembre 1952, George Shea, dans un article sur la liberté religieuse en Espagne<fnref n="58" />, montre comment la répression de toute expression publique du protestantisme par l'État constitue un devoir envers la « Vérité » de la foi. Quelques mois après, en mai 1953, comme pour appuyer leur position par des auteurs faisant autorité, ils ouvrent les colonnes de la revue, d'abord à Ottaviani<fnref n="59" />, tout juste créé cardinal, puis en mai 1954, à Amleto Cicognani, délégué apostolique aux États-Unis<fnref n="60" />.

## UNE CARTOGRAPHIE DES EXPERTS AU CONCILE.

Qu'ont en commun tous ces noms évoqués ? Fenton, Connell, Shea, Thils, Murray, Congar, Tavard — et plus haut dans notre exposé, Charles Curran, Weigel ? Tous sont mobilisés au concile comme experts —seul Weigel n'est pas expert mais consulteur du Secrétariat pour l'unité des Chrétiens. Alors que Fenton, en 1951, se réjouit que ces « nouveaux théologiens n'aient en rien entamé la vraie doctrine de l'Église<fnref n="61" /> », on sait à quel point le décret sur la liberté religieuse fût un des lieux du combat conciliaire.

<footnote n="52">⁵² FENTON, *The Note of Catholicity*, p. 128.</footnote>

<footnote n="53">⁵³ Joseph Clifford FENTON, *Reform and Integralism*, dans AER, 126 (1952), p. 126-139.</footnote>

<footnote n="54">⁵⁴ Joseph Clifford FENTON, *An Ecumenist viewpoint on the Church's Magisterium*, dans AER, 137 (1957), p. 113-126.</footnote>

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵ Joseph Clifford FENTON, Book review of G. Tavard's *The Catholic Approach to Protestantism*, dans AER, 133 (1955), p. 352-353.</footnote>

<footnote n="56">⁵⁶ Francis CONNELL, *To tell the immutable truth, always*, dans AER, 121 (1949), p. 312-321.</footnote>

<footnote n="57">⁵⁷ George SHEA, *Catholic doctrine and 'the religion of State'*, dans AER, 123 (1950), p. 161.</footnote>

<footnote n="58">⁵⁸ George SHEA, *Spain and religious freedom*, dans AER, 127 (1952), p. 161-172.</footnote>

<footnote n="59">⁵⁹ Créé cardinal en janvier 1953, et pro-secrétaire du St. Office, il écrit: Alfredo OTTAVIANI, *Church and State. Some present problems in the light of the Teaching of Pope Pius XII*, dans AER, 128 (1953), p. 321-334.</footnote>

<footnote n="60">⁶⁰ Amleto CICOGNANI, *For Church and Pope*, dans AER, 130 (1954), p. 289-291.</footnote>

<footnote n="61">⁶¹ Joseph Clifford FENTON, *The status of a controversy*, dans AER, 124 (1951), p. 451-458. Et il l'écrit à nouveau en 1960, *Rome and the status of Catholic theology*, dans AER, 143 (1960), p. 395-417.</footnote>
Clairement, alors que le moment du concile lui-même marque une rupture des *habitus* de silence ou de soumission au sein du groupe des théologiens —voir le cas éclairant de Murray rappelé au concile pour y défendre les idées pour lesquelles il avait été invité au silence, le recours à la théologie protestante est envisagé, non pas pour quitter la tradition catholique, mais pour nourrir un renouveau. De ce renouveau était attendu un infléchissement « existentiel », qui pouvait conduire à dépasser le juridisme et le moralisme propres au catholicisme. Mais c'est bien cela que refusaient les tenants de la « vraie théologie », comme ils la désignaient. À ces théologiens tentés de renouveler ou d'infléchir les pratiques, les rappels à l'ordre ne manquent pas: au moment du concile encore, dans *The Thomist*, Luigi Ciappi, o.p., rappelle que « la mission du théologien [...] n'est pas de se substituer au Magistère de l'Église; elle est plutôt de se mettre au service, humblement, du Magistère, avec la conviction que c'est seulement en servant la vérité que l'esprit humain devient libre et participe à la souveraineté spirituelle de Dieu<fnref n="62" /> ». L'appel à l'autorité, que ce soit dans le recours à des signatures de personnalités de la Curie ou dans l'argument d'autorité dans le débat théologique, est déjà, en lui-même, un marqueur de la disposition au dialogue dans l'espace théologique.

Cette cartographie et ces polémiques réelles ne doivent pas être caricaturées au point de laisser croire qu'il existerait un plan figé des forces en présence. On est là dans un affrontement culturel, et il s'agit toujours de positions relatives, de champs de force qui évoluent. À ce titre, pour conclure, on évoquera la figure particulièrement intéressante d'un autre expert au concile, B. Lonergan. Son parcours nous semble assez exemplaire, précisément parce qu'il dessine une trajectoire, et que, sur cette trajectoire, nombreux sont ceux qui cherchent à se l'approprier. Le premier Lonergan est un thomiste. Sa thèse<fnref n="63" />, préparée à la Grégorienne, sous la direction de Charles Boyer, porte sur « Grâce et liberté: la grâce opérante dans la pensée de St. Thomas ». Ses quatre premiers articles, publiés dans *Theological Studies*, se rapportent à l'étude de Thomas<fnref n="64" />. Aussi c'est sans surprise que l'on trouve dans *The Thomist*, en 1958, la recension la plus élogieuse qui lui soit consacrée, à la suite de la sortie de son premier ouvrage, *Insight*: « Ce livre constitue, il me semble, le premier produit parfait de la reconstruction [du thomisme] initiée par Léon XIII. *Insight* pourrait inaugurer une nouvelle ère dans la philosophie scolastique<fnref n="65" /> », indique Germain Grisez.

Pourtant, dix ans après, c'est un deuxième Lonergan que l'on peut lire, tel qu'il apparaît dans le recueil d'articles qui est édité sous le titre *A second collection*<fnref n="66" />. Que ce soit dans « La déshellénisation du dogme », « Le futur du thomisme », « Philosophie

<footnote n="62">⁶² Luigi CIAPPI, *Magisterium of the Church and sacred theology*, dans *The Thomist*, 27 (1958), *Vatican II: The Theological Dimension*, p.196-210. Citation p. 210.</footnote>

<footnote n="63">⁶³ Frederick E. CROWE and Robert M. DORAN (eds.), *Grace and Freedom. Operative Grace in the Thought of St Thomas Aquinas*, 2000.</footnote>

<footnote n="64">⁶⁴ Bernard LONERGAN, *The Concept of "Verbum" in the Writings of St. Thomas Aquinas I, II, III et IV*, dans *Theological Studies*, 8-10 (1957-1959)..</footnote>

<footnote n="65">⁶⁵ Germain GRISEZ, *de Georgetown University in The Thomist*, (1958), p. 554-560. Citation p. 554.</footnote>

<footnote n="66">⁶⁶ Bernard LONERGAN, *A second Collection*, Toronto, 1996 [1er edition 1974].</footnote>
et théologie », ou bien encore « Révolution dans la théologie catholique », Lonergan invite à déplacer les frontières culturelles qui enferment la théologie. Il situe l'espace théologique entre deux marqueurs au cœur de notre débat, St. Thomas et Bultmann: « On veut quelque chose de plus [que la méthode transcendantale]. Quelque chose que ni l'interprétation de l'Écriture dans des termes aristotéliciens par l'Aquinate ni l'interprétation du Nouveau Testament par Bultmann dans les termes du premier Heidegger ne nous fournissent. Ce qu'il nous faut plutôt, c'est la mise en commun des fruits de l'expertise historique et de modèles dérivés des appréhensions de la conscience, depuis les types variés de sa différenciation et de sa spécialisation<fnref n="67" /> ».

Dans leur introduction à *A second collection*, William Ryan et Bernard Tyrell précisent: « Ce changement, un tournant dans la pensée de Lonergan, peut être daté: les années 1964-65. Frederick Crowe et David Tracy, dans leurs remarquables écrits, ont explicité les développements de la pensée de Lonergan avant et après ce tournant. Pour ce qui nous concerne, nous pouvons pointer vers ce souci principal de Lonergan, l'analyse intentionnelle, et ensuite distinguer deux thèmes majeurs présents dans cette deuxième collection: d'abord, l'émergence, clairement, du primat du quatrième niveau de conscience humaine, le niveau existentiel, le niveau de l'évaluation et de l'amour; ensuite, l'importance de la conscience historique<fnref n="68" /> ».

## CONCLUSION

Cette cartographie des théologiens montre clairement des débats internes à l'espace théologique nord-américain, tel qu'il se dessine dans les revues théologiques et les lieux d'enseignement de la théologie. Ces débats sont aussi bien propres à la situation singulière du catholicisme sur ce continent, que, parfois, des échos par rapport à des débats liés à des situations européennes. Dans tous les cas, ils préfigurent une typologie des experts au concile, qui est sans doute un indicateur du conflit socio-culturel qui s'y joue tout au long des quatre sessions.

On peut aisément reconnaître l'affinité qui existe entre toute démarche protestante et les pensées de l'existence. Ce qui apparaît peut-être, bénédiction pour les uns, malédiction pour les autres, c'est comment les catholiques eux-mêmes sont sensibles à cette affinité dès qu'ils considèrent la foi et la vie dans la foi comme des événements d'existence. Or, une telle approche n'est-elle pas toujours celle de ceux qu'on appelle les « spirituels » : ils sont toujours des « existentiels » ! En face de cette démarche, il y a ceux dont la démarche est ontologique, c.-à-d. essentialiste. Cette répartition des

<footnote n="67">⁶⁷ «Something more is wanted [than transcendental method]. It is not supplied either by Aquinas'interpretation of Scripture in Aristotelian terms or by Bultmann's interpretation of the new Testament in the terms of the early Heidegger. Rather what is wanted is a coming together of the fruits of the historical expertise and, on the other hand, of models derived from the data of conscienciousness, from the different types of its differentiation and specialization, from the various structures that result from differentiation and specialization» («Philosophy and Theology», p. 193 – 208, citation p. 205-206, LONERGAN, *A second Collection*. Premières parutions: *The dehellenization of dogma*, dans *Theological Studies*, 1967; «The future of thomism», conférence du 15 mars 1968 à St.Paul's Seminary, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; «Philosophy and Theology», discours à l'American Catholic Philosophical Association, 1970; «Revolution in Catholic Theology», repris de *The Catholic Theological Society of America, Proceedings*, 27 (1972), p. 18-23.</footnote>

<footnote n="68">⁶⁸ LONERGAN, *A Second Collection*, «Introduction», p.VII-VIII.</footnote>
esprits fait qu'il y a deux conceptions de la vérité. L'une d'elle se définirait assez bien
par l'adéquation entre la chose et l'intelligence. L'autre, par l'engagement.

François WEISER

École Pratique des Hautes Études
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>
ELEMENTA ECCLESIAE

A BASIS FOR VATICAN II'S RECOGNITION OF THE ECCLESIAL CHARACTER OF NON-CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN COMMUNITIES

As if to fulfill the fateful prediction of its principal drafter, Gerard Phillips, Assistant Secretary of the Theological Commission at the Second Vatican Council, that much ink would flow concerning its meaning and proper interpretation,<fnref n="1" /> recent years have seen renewed discussion regarding the expression *subsitit in* of article 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (*Lumen gentium*).<fnref n="2" /> At issue is a correct appreciation of the debate which occurred in the conciliar period between a rigid and exclusivist interpretation of Pius XII's identification of the Roman Catholic Church and the mystical body of Christ in the 1943 encyclical letter, *Mystici corporis*,<fnref n="3" /> and the efforts of Catholic theology to arrive at a positive evaluation of other Christian

<footnote n="1">¹ Gérard PHILIPS, L'Église et son mystère au IIe concile du Vatican. Histoire, texte et commentaire de la constitution «Lumen gentium», 2 T., Paris, 1967, T. 1, p. 119.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² «This is the unique church of Christ which in the creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic [...] This church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him» (LG 8). Discussion in recent years was sparked by the publication of Alexandra von TEUFFENBACH, *Die Bedeutung des subsistit in* (LG 8). *Zum Selbsverständnis der katholischen Kirche*, München, 2002; and Karl Joseph BECKER, *The Church and Vatican II's 'Subsitit in' Terminology*, in *Origins*, 35 (2006), p. 514-522, first published in the English version of *L'Osservatore Romano* (December 14, 2005), p. 1, 6-7. Luigi SARTORI, *Osservazioni sull'ermeneutica del subsistit in proposta da Alexandra von Teuffenbach*, in *Rassegna de Teologia*, 45 (2004), p. 279-281. Francis A. SULLIVAN, *A Response to Karl Becker, s.j.*, on the *Meaning of Subsitit In*, in *Theological Studies*, 67 (2006), p. 395-409; *The Meaning of Subsitit in as Explained by the Doctrine of the Faith*, in *Theological Studies*, 69 (2008), p. 116-124; *Further Thoughts on the Meaning of Subsitit In*, in *Theological Studies*, 71 (2010), p. 133-147. Karim SCHELKENS, *Lumen Gentium's 'Subsitit in' Revisited. The Catholic Church and Christian Unity after Vatican II*, in *Theological Studies*, 69 (2008), p. 875-893. Schelkens has helpfully shown, through a careful historiography of the various versions considered by the drafting committee within the Doctrinal Commission, that the term *est*, was first replaced by *adest*, and finally *subsitit* (p. 884-891). *CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Responses to Some Questions regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church*, in *Origins*, 37 (2007), p. 134-136. Jared WICKS, *The Pope's Message to Protestants – and Catholics. Not-so-fully Church in Christian Century* (21 August 2007), p. 9-11.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Pius XII describes the mystical body of Christ, the "true Church of Jesus Christ" as "the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church." Pius XII, "The Mystical Body of Christ (Mystici corporis, 1943)," no 13; cf. no. 91. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html. To believe a strictly exclusivist interpretation of the church's position, Pius XII condemned the interpretation of the axiom "no salvation outside the church" advanced by the American Jesuit Leonard Feeney in 1949, and maintained the traditional conviction that those who were not members of the visible church might, through a life of faith and charity, be related to the church or belong to it by desire. *Suprema haec sacra*. English version in AER, 127 (1952), p. 308-315. In that same year, the Congregation of the Holy Office issued an instruction authorizing Catholic scholars to undertake more formal conversations with other Christians.</footnote>
communities. A much neglected aspect of recent discussion is the role played by the notion of those "elements of grace and sanctification", constitutive elements of the Church of Christ, referred to in the subsequent clause of the same sentence in article 8 of *Lumen Gentium*.<fnref n="4" /> The *relatio* explaining the use of the term *subsistit in* explains that its use is a direct consequence of the Constitution's robust understanding of the "elements of truth and sanctification" that are "proper to the church of Christ".<fnref n="5" /> It was necessary "so that the expression might better agree with the affirmation about the ecclesial elements which are found elsewhere".<fnref n="6" />

The council sought to recognize more than a collection of baptized individuals beyond the borders of the Catholic Church, to affirm more than a purely sociological vision of other Christian bodies and acknowledge their truly ecclesial character. Explaining its use of the terms "churches and ecclesial communities" to refer to those Christian communities separated from the Catholic Church in its Decree on Ecumenism (*Unitatis redintegratio*), the council explained:

> It must not be overlooked that the communities that have their origin in the separation that took place in the West are not merely a sum or collection of individual Christians, but they are constituted by social ecclesiastical elements which they have preserved from our common patrimony, and which confer on them a truly ecclesial character. In these communities the one sole Church of Christ is present, albeit imperfectly, in a way that is somewhat like the presence in particular churches, and by means of their ecclesiastical elements the church of Christ is in some way operative in them.<fnref n="7" />

As a contribution to the consideration of how the Second Vatican Council can itself be seen as an event of "reception", this paper will explore the development of theological consensus on the recognition of other Christian communities in the period immediately preceding the council, with particular attention to the role of the notion of the *elementa ecclesiae*. But before turning to this development, a brief word regarding its prevalence in the council's effort to reflect on the life of the non-Catholic churches is in order.

## THE NOTION OF ELEMENTA ECCLESIAE IN THE EARLIEST SCHEMATA

It is important to frame this discussion by acknowledging that the notion of *elementa ecclesiae* or elements of the church was not a new idea introduced in the

engaged in ecumenical efforts. See "Instructio ad locarum ordinarios 'De motione oecumenica' (Ecclesia Catholica)", AAS, 42 (1950), p. 12-17.

<footnote n="4">⁴ "Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards catholic unity." In the Latin version, these affirmations are found within a single sentence: "Haec Ecclesia, in hoc mundo ut societas constituta et ordinata, subsistit in Ecclesia catholica, a successore Petri et Episcopis in eius communione gubernata, licet extra eius compaginem elementa plura sanctificationis et veritatis inveniantur, quae ut dona Ecclesiae Christi propria, ad unitatem catholicam impellunt" (LG 8).</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ *Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Vatican II.* Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1970-, II/I, p. 219-220. (hereafter cited as AS).</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ AS III/I, p. 177.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ AS, III/II, p. 335. The expression "churches and ecclesial communities" is employed in *Lumen Gentium* 15 and *Unitatis Redintegratio* 19, cf. 3.</footnote>
course of the conciliar debate. Indeed, it is striking to consider its frequent use from the earliest drafts of the council documents. It was already present in chapter XI of the schema on the church debated in the first session of the council between 1 and 7 December, 1962. In reflecting on the attitude of the Catholic Church toward the separated Christian communities, the schema acknowledged that in them "there exist certain elements of the church, above all Sacred Scripture and the sacraments which, as effective means and signs can bring about a mutual union in Christ, and by their nature as realities belonging properly to the church of Christ, impel towards catholic unity".<fnref n="8" />

The relator of this chapter was not the Secretary of the Preparatory Theological Commission and chief drafter of the schema, Sebastian Tromp, but the Dutch Jesuit Johannes Witte.<fnref n="9" /> Witte was well acquainted with the reflections of the ecumenists of his day, being a frequent participant in the international network of Catholic theologians established in 1952 by his compatriot, Johannes Willebrands, the Catholic Conference for Ecumenical Questions. When he appealed to the notion of the elementa ecclesiae in his presentation of the Catholic commitment to ecumenism, Witte drew upon a quarter century of study and dialogue.

Willebrands, now the Secretary of the newly established Vatican Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, refers in his diary to a meeting with Witte on 16 January 1961, more than a year before the first draft documents were distributed to the bishops. Against the protests of Tromp, yet with the full knowledge and support of Cardinal Ottaviani, Witte sought Willebrands' advice on the drafting of a chapter on ecumenism for the proposed constitution on the church. Willebrands writes:

> The most difficult case has to do with the *membra Ecclesiae*. There is a difference of opinion. Fenton says: There is no difference in this matter between being baptized and unbaptized, just like there is no difference between never having been in the army and having been a former soldier: at this moment you are not a member. Others want a differentiation that comes to expression in one way or another. But Witte thinks that Cardinal Bea is going too far in his article —they are not just members, the "separati baptizati".<fnref n="10" />

<footnote n="8">⁸ "In iis enim elementa quaedam Ecclesiae existent et potissimum Scriptura Sacra et sacramenta. Quae, ut media et signa unitatis efficacia unionem mutuam in Chtisto producere possunt et natura sua, et res Ecclesiae Christi propriae, ad unitatem Catholicam impellunt.» *Schema constitutionis dogmaticae de Ecclesia*, in *Schemata constitutionum et decretorum de quibus disceptabitur in Concilii sessionibus*, Civitate Vaticana, 1962-63, I pars., XI, 51, p. 82.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ Witte was a professor at the Gregorian. He was the drafter for the Latin drafts of this chapter which were elaborated by Sub-Commission XI of the Preparatory Theological Commission. Tromp refers to Witte's involvement in his diary, see Alexandra von Teuffenbach (ed.), *Konzilstagebuch Sebastian Trop SJ mit Erläuterungen und Akten aus der Arbeit der Theologischen Kommission*, II. Vatikanisches Konzil, Vol. 1, Rome, 2006. See entries for July 14, 1961, where Witte reports to the Preparatory Theological Commission on the draft; and May 29, 1962, mention of Witte's submission of the final version. Congar records meeting with Witte and Gagnebet to discuss the draft of *De Oecumenismo* on September 22, 1961, and on the discussion of Witte's text by the commission on November 21-22, 1961. Yves CONGAR, *Mon journal du concile*, 2 Vols., Vol. 1, p. 66, 81-82.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ Theo SALEMINK (ed.), "You Will be Called Repairer of the Breach". *Diary of J. G. M. Willebrands*, Leuven, 2009, p. 255. Willebrands is referring to the American theologian Joseph-Clifford Fenton, a member of both the Preparatory Theological Commission and the conciliar Theological Commission. He was professor at the Catholic University of America and Editor of the *American Ecclesiastical Review*. Salemink suggests that Witte was likely referring an address by Augustine Bea published as, *Il cattolico di fronte al problema dell'unione dei Cristiani*, in *La Civiltà Cattolica*, 112 (1961/1), p. 113-129.</footnote>
A more complete treatment of our topic would include an exploration of the conflicting views on membership in the church and the conciliar decision to set aside this more juridical framework in favour of a reflection on the real but existing communion that exists between the churches.<fnref n="11" /> For the purpose of the present study, we note that Witte found, in the notion of the *elementa ecclesiae*, a path to avert this impasse and an avenue towards a fuller reflection on the reality of communion in the church of Christ shared with non-Catholic communities.

Witte was not alone in appealing to the *elementa ecclesiae* to reflect on the ecclesial character of non-Catholic communities. The proposed schema, “On the Unity of the Church” (*Ut omnes unum sint*), submitted to the council fathers by the Preparatory Commission for Eastern Churches during the first session, acknowledged the “vestiges of unity” present in the Eastern Churches separated from Rome, including many supernatural, theological, liturgical, and canonical means of grace.<fnref n="12" /> Similarly, the first draft of a decree “On Catholic Ecumenism” prepared by the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, a text which was never debated in aula, affirmed the presence of “visible and invisible elements” belonging to the common patrimony of the church and found in the separated communities. These constitutive elements of the church were presented there as “means” and “sources” of salvation.<fnref n="13" /> Components of these three draft documents: chapter XI of *De ecclesia*, the text of the Oriental Commission, *Ut Unum Sint*, and the draft from the Secretariat for Christian Unity, were to be combined and form the basis for the council’s Decree on Ecumenism (*Unitatis redintegratio*).<fnref n="14" />

Outside of these official drafts produced by the various preparatory commissions, an appeal to the idea of the *elementa ecclesiae* can be found in a series of other influential texts reflecting the mind of the bishops. The pre-conciliar *vota* of the Dutch bishops included a pointed request to deepen the appreciation of the “traces” or “vestiges”, of the church, or “elements of truth” that are found in non-catholic communities.<fnref n="15" />

<footnote n="11">¹¹ Bishop Charue refers to this decision in his diary, in the entry for February 28, 1963. Leo DECLERCK (ed.), *Carnets conciliares de l'évêque de Namur A. M. Charue*, Louvain-la-Neuve, 2000, p. 93.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² *De ecclesiae unitate “Ut omnes unum sint”*, in *Schemata*, IV pars, p. 249-271. See especially no. 10.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ *De unione favenda inter christianos* in *Schemata*, IV pars, p. 373-391, especially I, 1 and 2, p. 374.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ AS I/4, p. 7-9. Originally, a tripartite committee was suggested, to be composed of members of the Oriental Commission, the Doctrinal Commission, and the Secretariat for Unity. By February 1963 the intransigent members of the Oriental Commission refused to collaborate in the project and questioned the competency of the Secretariat in the matter. See Jan GROOTAERS, *The Drama between the Acts. The Second “Preparation” and its Opponents in History of Vatican II*. Vol. 2, p. 439-435. In the drafting of the Decree on Ecumenism, an initial draft by Thils was rejected, and instead a text by Witte would form the basis for the first chapter on the “Principles of Catholic Ecumenism.”</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ See Jan Y. H. A. JACOBS, *Les ‘vota’ des évêques néerlandais pour le concile*, in Mathijs LAMBERIGTS and Claude SOETENS (eds.), *À la veille du concile Vatican II. Vota et réactions en Europe et dans le catholicisme oriental*, Leuven, 1992, p. 108. Jacobs notes that four members of the Dutch episcopate raise this point, namely, B.J. Alfrink (Utrecht), R.A. Nierman (Groningen), P.J. Moors (Roermond), and M.A. Jansen (Rotterdam). As well, he notes the likely influence of a memorandum that was circulated in several languages by the Steering Committee of the Catholic Conference for Ecumenical Questions (C. Boyer, Fr. Davis, C.-J. Dumont, J. Höfer, J. Willebrands), which laid out their expectations for the upcoming ecumenical council (p. 103-104). For more on the role of Willebrands in these developments, see the forthcoming essay by Jared Wicks in *Pro Ecclesia* (2011).</footnote>
Assertions comparable to those of the Witte draft can also be found in three of the five alternate schemas on the church, most notably in the schema submitted by the German and Austrian Conferences of Bishops.<fnref n="16" /> The German schema suggests that other baptized Christians living in good faith are imperfectly joined to the church through saving elements which belong properly to it. A proposed schema submitted in the name of a number of Latin American bishops, the Chilean schema, alluded to the many important “common elements of our theology” shared by Orthodox and Protestant Christians which ought to be considered within a framework of ecclesial communion.<fnref n="17" />

In a fateful twist, the Philips schema paired sentences from two chapters of the first schema (I and IX), juxtaposing the affirmation of an identity between the one church of Christ —the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church of the creed— and the Catholic Church, with the recognition of ecclesial realities beyond its borders: “This church ... is the catholic Church; nonetheless, some elements of sanctification are still found outside its visible confines”.<fnref n="18" /> Indeed, the new schema presented to the fathers in the second session of the council, based on the Philips text, insisted that “many” such elements could be found beyond the visible structure of the Catholic Church, realities (later, “gifts”) that belong properly to the church of Christ and remain forces impelling towards catholic unity. In the course of the council, it would become necessary to better harmonize these affirmations. Through the introduction of the term *subsistit in*, the Theological Commission sought both to solidify the recognition that the church of Christ is present and active outside the institutional bounds of the Catholic Church and to uphold the traditional teaching that the church established by Christ continues to exist in the Catholic Church.

<footnote n="16">16 “Ista elementa, quibus Ecclesia ut signum salutis constituitur, ex natura sua ad se invincem ordinantur et vicissim se postulant.” In Concilii Vaticani II Synopsis. Constitutio Dogmatica de Ecclesia Lumen Gentium. Francisco GIL HELLIN (ed.), Città del Vaticano, 1995, p. 716-750, no. 13 at p. 733-734.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">17 The Chilean Schema speaks of “common elements” drawn from a shared patrimony in a note concerning its presentation on membership in the church from the perspective of communion, rather than a purely juridical one: “El aspecto de communión entre los cristianos es otro aspecto del ministerio de la Iglesia. Otro descubrimiento de la vuelta a las Fuentes bíblicas y patrísticas. Tiene —importancia ecumeníca: porque es an aspecto vivido intensamente por los orthodoxos y protestantes. Acusan ellos a los católicos a reducir toda la communión a la obediencia a la jerarchía. Importar mostrar los elementos comunes de neustra teología y presentar la jerarchía dentro de la communión de la Iglesia, como servicio de la comunidad.» In Synopsis. Constitutio Dogmatica de Ecclesia, p. 762-801, especially II, 1, p. 784, general notes. See also the enumeration of expressions of common patrimony in II, 3, p. 789-790.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">18 “Haec igitur Ecclesia ... est Ecclesia catholica ... licet elementa quaedam sancitificationis etiam extra totalem compaginem invenire possunt.” From a version of the Philips schema dated February 27, 1963. CSVII, Archives Philips, 596. This version of the Philips schema was the fruit of collaboration by a group of *periti* who met at the Belgian College on 24-26 February. Philips learned of the decision to accept his schema as the basis of the document on the church and to consult the other alternate schemas in a telephone call from Bishop Charue on February 26, 1963. See Karim SCHELKENS (ed.), *Carnets conciliaires de Mgr. Gérard Philips Secrétaire adjoint de la commission doctrinale*, Leuven, 2006, p. 92-93. I am indebted to Jared Wicks for drawing this reference to my attention. In the schema presented to the bishops in April, “elementa quaedam” had been revised to read “elementa plura.” See AS II/1, p. 220.</footnote>
In view of these facts, it would be incorrect to characterize the evolution of the Constitution on the Church as the simple introduction of a novelty into the document in the course of the council. It would be far more accurate to say that from the drafting of the first schema *De ecclesia*, we are in the presence of conflicting or contrasting assertions: a narrow interpretation of *Mystici corporis* and the emerging theological consensus of the day. The latter sought to speak in a more positive manner about non-Catholic Christian churches in light of the broader tradition's recognition that the justifying grace of salvation and hence, the one church of Christ, is operative outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church. The new theological consensus would be more fully embraced in the course of the council. In the word of Gustave Thils, one of the principal drafters of the Decree on Ecumenism, “The history of the years 1943-1960 was repeated, in a shorter lapse of time, at the Second Vatican Council. [...] The conciliar debate, carried on under the banner of ecumenism, quickly made the most of the theological contribution made in ecclesiology since the end of the war of 1940-45, with the result that we now know”.<fnref n="19" /> It is to those developments that we now turn.

## ORIGINS OF THE NOTION OF THE “ELEMENTS OF THE CHURCH”

The Catholic Church has consistently regarded the churches of Eastern Orthodoxy as churches in the theological sense of the word.<fnref n="20" /> However, when new communities were formed in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, introducing new divisions within Western Christianity, it is fair to say that the Catholic Church had no theological categories to describe them adequately. Anglicans and Protestants were referred to variously as “dissidents” and “heretics”. For the most part, they were regarded as “fallen away Catholics”.<fnref n="21" /> Catholic theology was not in possession of a language or any systematic reflection on the corporate life of the Church of England

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ Gustave THILS, *L’Église et les Églises. Perspectives nouvelles en œcuménisme*, Bruges, 1967, p. 158-159.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰ Yves Congar provides a lengthy list of citations from the often forgotten teaching of the magisterium to enumerate the terms used to apply to “dissent Christendoms”, including the use of the term “churches” in reference to the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, in Yves CONGAR, *Chrétiens désunis. Principes d’un «œcuménisme» catholique*, Paris, 1937, p. 288. See especially Appendix VI, p. 381-382. [English trans: *Divided Christendom. A Catholic Study of the Problem of Reunion*, London, 1939.] Any citations are my free translation from the original French. Witte’s draft chapter of the schema *De Ecclesia* included a footnote of one and a half pages in length, reproducing many of the same sources, and indicating his debt to this list in the Appendix of *Chrétiens désunis*. See *Schema constitutionis dogmaticae de Ecclesia*, XI, 51, note 6, p. 88-90.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹ This seems to be the reasoning of Pope Pius XI, who rejected the invitation to send Catholic participants to the meeting of Faith and Order at Lausanne, in 1927: “So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it.” *Mortalium Animos* (1928), at: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encycicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html It is worth noting Pius XI’s reliance on Cyprian’s ecclesiology. Another expression of this tendency to consider all non-Catholic Christians as “lapsed Catholics” can be seen in the principle of considering them all as subject to Catholic canon law.</footnote>
or of Protestant churches, Christian communities that continued to evolve and develop their own ethos—including distinctive confessional statements, theological expression, liturgies, and polities—in the over four centuries that had elapsed since the Reformation.

## THE CONTRIBUTION OF YVES CONGAR

The first Catholic theologian to reflect systematically on this question was the French Dominican, Yves Congar, in his first major work, *Chrétiens désunis*, published in 1937. In light of the new and unprecedented reality of an organized ecumenical movement, Congar sought to establish a theological ground for active ecumenical engagement on the part of the Catholic Church. He set out to appropriate all that was “theologically receivable” in two approaches reflected in the pioneering efforts of Anglican and Protestant ecumenists on the one hand, and in Orthodox perspectives on the other. As he observed from a distance the burgeoning of this movement in the meetings of Life and Work and Faith and Order, Congar noted:

> Ecumenism begins when one admits that others —and not only individuals, but ecclesiastical bodies as such— are also correct, even if they says things that differ from us, that they also possess truth, holiness, the gifts of God, though they do not belong to our [form of] Christendom. There is ecumenism (...) when we believe that the other is Christian, not in spite of their confession, but in it and through it. Such a conviction directs a complex, concrete “ecumenical” attitude comprising: the respect of other confessions, of the action of the Holy Spirit in them (not only in individual souls); the sense and avowal of the historical sins of one’s own confession, its limits and failures; the desire to know the other confessions and the gifts they have received from God; entering into friendship with them and, while we await the fullness of unity, into as much effective communion as is possible.<fnref n="22" />

Congar recognized the need to elaborate a theological basis for the corporate aspect of such an engagement and sought to do so without renouncing the Catholic Church's conviction of an identity and continuity with the one visible church of Christ in history. In this regard he was inspired by the writings of the Russian Orthodox theologian Nikolai Berdiaev. While the Orthodox shared the Catholic conviction of standing in continuity with the one church, Berdiaev was nonetheless able to distinguish between the “the ecumenical Church, where the fullness of truth is found, and the Orthodox Church as a confession, bearing inevitably the marks of human limitation. One considers that the Orthodox Church is more true than the others, yet incomplete so long as the fullness of the ecumenical church is not realized both within her, and beyond her present narrow and confessional boundaries”.<fnref n="23" /> Berdiaev's thought furnished a basis for reflecting on the varying degrees of communion between the churches and the one church of Christ and for recognizing that, so long as ecclesial division persists, something is lacking from the historical expression of catholicity in each church.

<footnote n="22">²² CONGAR, *Chrétiens désunis*, p. 173-174.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³ CONGAR, *Chrétiens désunis*, p. 176. He cites Nikolai BERDIAEFF, *Esprit et Liberté. Essai de philosophie chrétienne*, Paris, 1933, p. 345ff; and BERDIAEFF, *L'æcuménisme et confessionalisme*, in *Foi et Vie* (novembre 1931), p. 757-776.</footnote>
Congar develops his consideration of what he called “dissident Christendoms” by way of an analogy from the case of individual “dissident Christians.” He begins from the recognition that the tradition has always recognized an existence of Christianity beyond the boundaries of the visible church in the implicit faith of those not in full communion, and insists that all those who are justified the grace must belong in some way to the body of Christ, since the grace they receive “is not foreign to the Church”.<fnref n="24" /> The church, he argues, is quite simply “humanity reconciled with God in Christ”.<fnref n="25" /> Proceeding from the case of the justified non-Christian to that of the baptized Protestant he asks, what is the “Christian value” of his or her baptism, and of the prayer and worship of these “churches”?

The church, he argues, is created by God in Christ as “*a fullness*”, a fullness of those principles capable of leading humanity to a new life in Christ and of gathering all into the unity of his body. These principles of unity “are less the sum of diverse elements than an ordered, organic, and living fullness”.<fnref n="26" /> Among these principles or elements, he includes sanctifying grace, the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity, incorporation into Christ and the church through baptism, the profession of faith, the grace of the sacraments, participation in the communion of the church, the teaching of the gospel, and the pastoral guidance of the hierarchy, the ministers of the church.<fnref n="27" /> While this fullness is offered to all believers, these gifts are not received equally by all those who belong to the church by baptism. If this is true, Congar argues, we must admit that there are differing degrees of belonging to the church or distinguish between perfect and imperfect belonging in the case of both individuals and groups.

The Protestant Christian, he wrote, will not find in their own confession the totality of these principles or elements, or may encounter them in an imperfect form.<fnref n="28" /> They are estranged members of the church:

> ... they belong to it invisibly, they belong to it incompletely, yet they truly belong to it. They are of the church to the extent that they belong to Christ, for that which unites them to Christ is a fibre of his mystical Body, a constitutive element of the church. That such an element exists, in whatever manner, outside the church, is due to an abnormal and violent situation, and calls by nature for a complete integration into the invisible and visible body of Christ, the catholic Church.<fnref n="29" />

Yet even outside the Catholic Church, this element retains its efficacy by reason of the good faith of the believer and results in a real incorporation into the communion of Christ and his church. For this reason, Congar argued that baptized Christians of other Christian churches are to be considered members of the church, not only in a spiritual sense, or in *voto*. It should be recognized that the life they lead within their

<footnote n="24">²⁴ CONGAR, *Chrétiens désunis*, p. 278.</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵ CONGAR, *Chrétiens désunis*, p. 282.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶ CONGAR, *Chrétiens désunis*, p. 283.</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷ CONGAR, *Chrétiens désunis*, p. 287. These are developed at greater length in chapter II, p. 59-113.</footnote>

<footnote n="28">²⁸ CONGAR, *Chrétiens désunis*, p. 289.</footnote>

<footnote n="29">²⁹ CONGAR, *Chrétiens désunis*, p. 292.</footnote>
own communities tend toward a full and real (in re) incorporation in the catholic ecclesiastical body. Nor can these Christians continue to be regarded indiscriminately as “heretics”.<fnref n="30" /> Those born into the divided churches cannot be regarded as morally responsible for the divisions wrought in the past, and continue to live according to the Christian tradition in good faith, though we may differ in its interpretation.

Congar’s position and that received by Vatican II is essentially Augustinian. Augustine had argued repeatedly that the sacraments of schismatics and heretics were effective means of grace. Indeed, although their full effect might not be realized apart from a restored unity, that which schismatic communities had maintained from the common heritage of the church continued to bear fruit.<fnref n="31" /> Commenting on Augustine’s approach to separated communities, Congar would later write, “For Augustine, not only are the sacraments not fruitful for salvation except within the *unitas*, within the *una Catholica*, but that which does exist of the sacraments, of the ministry, and of the true faith in the separated communions belongs to this *una Catholica*. Here we are at the threshold of a theology of the elements of the church”.<fnref n="32" />

Congar seeks to build on Augustine’s insight by extending the notion of differing degrees of belonging or of communion among individual “dissidents” to his reflection on the “dissident Christendoms” as “ecclesiastical bodies.” He argues that while they may not be considered members of the *Una Ecclesia* in the full sense, one can nonetheless affirm that they are, in differing degrees, “elements of the Church”.<fnref n="33" /> He uses the term “elements” here interchangeably to refer to the churches themselves and to the constitutive aspects of the church previously enumerated. “They are elements of the church to the extent they have more or less maintained, in that which constitutes their sociological reality as a religious body, elements or principles

<footnote n="30">³⁰ Among his contributions to the wider question of ecclesial recognition, see also Yves CONGAR, *Note sur les mots ‘Confession’, ‘Église’ et ‘Communion’*, in Irénikon, 23 (1950), p. 3-36; Also in Chrétiens en dialogue*, Paris, 1964, p. 211-242; *Les ruptures de l’unité in Istina*, 11 (1964), p. 133-178.</footnote>

<footnote n="31">³¹ In *Chrétiens désunis*, (p. 297-298), Congar notes his debt to *De unico baptismo contra Petil*, c. 3, no. 4; PL 43, 547; Cf. *De baptismo contra Donatistas*, Book III, c. 19, no. 28; PL 43, 154. The principle of the latter which he seeks to apply is the traditional custom of the fathers “that whenever they found anything divine and lawful remaining in its integrity even in the midst of any heresy or schism, they approved rather than repudiated it.” Elsewhere he refers to the importance of Augustine’s thought for the Decree on Ecumenism’s positive evaluation of other Christian churches, with reference to *De baptismo contra Donatistas I*, 10; PL 43, 117: “And so there is one Church which alone is called Catholic; and whenever it has anything of its own in these communions of different bodies which are separate from itself, it is most certainly in virtue of this which is its own in each of them that it, not they, has the power of generation. For neither is it their separation that generates, but what they have retained of the essence of the Church; and if they were to go on to abandon this, they would lose the power of generation. The generation, then, in each case proceeds from the Church, whose sacraments are retained, from which any such birth can alone in any case proceed, —although not all who receive its birth belong to its unity, which shall save those who persevere even to the end. Nor is it those only that do not belong to it who are openly guilty of the manifest sacrilege of schism, but also those who, being outwardly joined to its unity, are yet separated by a life of sin.” See Yves Congar, *Le développement de l’évaluation ecclésiologique des églises non-catholiques*. Un bilan, in Gellert BEKES and Vilmos VAJTA (eds.), *Unitatis Redintegratio 1964-1974. The Impact of the Decree on Ecumenism*, Rome, 1977, p. 63.</footnote>

<footnote n="32">³² CONGAR, *Le développement de l’évaluation ecclésiologique*, p. 63-64.</footnote>

<footnote n="33">³³ CONGAR, *Chrétiens désunis*, p. 302.</footnote>
which realize the one church. These principles are the realities by which God draws
humanity to himself, and incorporates into Christ a people destined to receive his
inheritance".<fnref n="34" />

MYSTICI CORPORIS: DEEPENING REFLECTION ON SACRAMENTAL ECCLESIOLOGY

Leaders of the organized ecumenical movement, which was developing without official Catholic representation or participation, surely took note of Congar's constructive attempt to provide an ecclesiological foundation for Catholic ecumenical engagement. In a biographical note, Congar recalls with some satisfaction that copies of his new book were on sale at the 1937 meetings of Life and Work (Oxford) and Faith and Order (Edinburgh).<fnref n="35" /> However, the reception of his proposal was postponed by two significant events, not the least of which was the outbreak of the Second World War. An additional difficulty was introduced into the theological landscape by the publication of Pope Pius XII's *Mystici corporis* in 1943, in particular by the encyclical's identification of the spiritual reality of the mystical body of Christ with the visible institutional reality of the Roman Catholic Church. The spiritual and juridical realities, the *res* and the *sacramentum* of the church, were considered to be virtually identical. *Mystici corporis* neglected any reflection on the other Christian churches in their corporate reality and considered baptized non-Catholic individuals at best as “ordered” to the church by their baptism, though not members in any real sense. One of the effects of Pius XII's teaching was to generate considerable reflection over the next decade on the notion of “membership” in the church, as the encyclical was often interpreted as excluding any real participation in the body of Christ by those who rejected any aspect of the faith, sacraments, and governance of the Catholic Church.

One notable exception to this trend was a contribution by Dom Jean Gribomont in 1949, “Du sacrement de l’Église et de ses réalisations imparfaites”.<fnref n="36" /> As the title indicates, rather than focus on the narrow question of real (*reapse, in re*) or moral (*in voto*) belonging to the church on the part of non-Catholic individuals, Gribomont sought to build on the broad sacramental or incarnational approach developed by *Mystici corporis* to consider the ecclesial reality of the dissident communities in its corporate dimension. He noted that for Aquinas, any consideration of “real” membership was located within a reflection on the *res* of the church, on the communication of divine grace. This reality cannot be entirely identified with the *sacramentum*, the visible, exterior reality of the church. By analogy, it would be possible to consider that a non-Catholic belongs imperfectly to the *res* of the church, even if not incorporated into its visible structure. Conversely, any visible manifestations of grace must also retain some sacramental value.

<footnote n="34">³⁴ CONGAR, *Chrétiens désunis*, p. 302.</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵ CONGAR, *Chrétiens en dialogue*, p. XXXV.</footnote>

<footnote n="36">³⁶ Jean GRIBOMONT, *Du sacrement de l'Église et de ses réalisations imparfaites*, in *Irénikon*, 22 (1949), p. 345-367. Also worthy of mention for placing the encyclical against the background of broad historical development and debates is Clément LIALINE, *Une étape en ecclésiologie. Réflexions sur l'encyclique «Mystici Corporis»* in *Irénikon*, 19 (1946), p. 129-152, 283-317; and 20 (1947), p. 34-54.</footnote>
Extrapolating this line of thinking, Gribomont turns to a consideration of the external and visible signs of the body of Christ that are found in and belong to the corporate reality of other Christian communities. He argues that they too, because they have preserved many “common elements”<fnref n="37" /> and are, by analogy, truly Christian and catholic; they are not entirely separated from the church. Gribomont builds on Congar’s recognition of “catholic elements” and “ecclesial values”<fnref n="38" /> which retain a certain efficacy in other Christian churches and argues for the need to affirm the truly “ecclesial character”<fnref n="39" /> of these communities. Recognizing that the sacramental structure of the church and the reality of grace are always held together in an eschatalogical tension, he reasons that evidence of the constitutive elements of the church must ground the recognition of real ecclesial communion. Even where some constitutive element of the church seems to be lacking, they are never totally absent, as one finds in the living faith of other Christian communities a sincere desire to maintain many others. Indeed, he considers the ecumenical movement to be one of the clearest indications of this desire, a sign that the life of the church continues to flow in and through the separated churches.<fnref n="40" /> Dom Gribomont’s contribution is particularly significant in that it was one of the only contemporary authorities cited in Witte’s draft chapter XI of *De ecclesia*.<fnref n="41" />

ELEMENTA ECCLESIAE OR VESTIGIA? 1949-1954

The Toronto Statement of the World Council of Churches 1950

Congar's *Chrétiens désunis* appeared in 1937 at the very moment that ecumenical pioneers voted to establish a new World Council of Churches (WCC). Though the project for the founding of the WCC was delayed by ten years due to the outbreak war, the founders of the WCC would draw upon his idea of “elements” of the church to establish a basis for membership within this new fellowship. The period of 1949 to 1952 saw an unprecedented opportunity for concerted reflection owing to a confluence of events within both Catholicism and Protestantism. The 1949 Instruction of the Holy Office under Pius XII, *Ecclesia catholica*, published in the wake of the WCC Assembly at Amsterdam, recognized the ecumenical movement embodied by the newly established WCC as one inspired by the Holy Spirit and authorized the participation of qualified Catholic theologians in ecumenical conversations. These events were followed closely by the Dominican Christophe-Jean Dumont of the Istina Centre for ecumenical studies in Paris. Almost immediately, the Istina Centre sought the permission of the Holy Office in Rome for a small group of Catholic theologians to meet with representatives of the WCC.<fnref n="42" /> The subject of their conversation was

<footnote n="37">³⁷ GRIBOMONT, *Du sacrament de l'Église*, p. 359.</footnote>

<footnote n="38">³⁸ GRIBOMONT, *Du sacrament de l'Église*, p. 360-361.</footnote>

<footnote n="39">³⁹ GRIBOMONT, *Du sacrament de l'Église*, p. 363.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ GRIBOMONT, *Du sacrament de l'Église*, p. 364-365.</footnote>

<footnote n="41">⁴¹ *Schema constitutionis dogmaticae de Ecclesia*, XI, 51, note 6, p. 88.</footnote>

<footnote n="42">⁴² Willem Adolf VISSER 'T HOOFT, *Memoirs*, Geneva, 1973, p. 317-20. Ten WCC representatives were joined by ten Catholics, including Dumont, Yves Congar, Jean Daniélou, Jérôme Hamer, Maurice Villain, and Jean Guitton.</footnote>
the draft text of the Toronto Statement on "The Church, the Churches, and the World Council of Churches" that would be adopted by the Central Committee of the World Council in July of 1950.<fnref n="43" /> World Council leaders have not hesitated to suggest a debt of the Toronto Statement to this exchange.<fnref n="44" /> The Toronto Statement sought to establish an ecclesiological "baseline", a minimum requirement for churches wishing to belong to the WCC. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches were not the only churches to identify themselves with the one church of Christ. Nonetheless, the Statement could affirm:

> All the Christian churches, including the Church of Rome, hold that there is no complete identity between the membership of the Church Universal and the membership of their own church. They recognize that there are church members "extra muros", that these belong "aliquo modo" to the Church, or even that there is an "ecclesia extra ecclesiam". This recognition finds expression in the fact that with very few exceptions the Christian churches accept the baptism administered by other churches as valid. But the question arises what consequences are to be drawn from this teaching.<fnref n="45" />

Reflecting further on the implications of the recognition of baptism, the Statement sought to articulate the grounds for an understanding of the corporate ecclesial reality of in those other churches belonging to the fellowship of the WCC. In seeking a language to express this reality, two terms came to the surface: first, Congar's notion of the "elements of the church", and second, the notion of the *vestigia ecclesia* first adopted by John Calvin in reference to the decadent Roman Church of the sixteenth century. In accordance with the Toronto Statement:

> The member churches of the World Council recognize in other churches elements of the true Church. They consider that this mutual recognition obliges them to enter into a serious conversation with each other in the hope that these elements of truth will lead to the recognition of the full truth and to unity based on the full truth.

> It is generally taught in the different churches that other churches have certain elements of the true Church, in some traditions called "vestigia ecclesiae". Such elements are the preaching of the Word, the teaching of the Holy Scriptures and the administration of the sacraments. These elements are more than pale shadows of the life of the true Church. They are a fact of real promise and provide an opportunity to strive by frank and brotherly intercourse for the realization of a fuller unity.<fnref n="46" />

These words point to the emergence of a significant ecumenical consensus, one which was deeply indebted to Catholic efforts to re-appropriate a common theological tradition.

<footnote n="43">43 WCC, *Central Committee*, "Toronto Statement (1950)," At: http://www.oikoumene.org/resources/documents/central-committee/toronto-1950/toronto-statement.html.</footnote>

<footnote n="44">44 "Son élaboration peut être considérée comme une œuvre commune." Oliver TOMKINS, *Rencontre de Présinge* [*Rapport*], p. 9. Archives Monastery of Chevetogne (henceforth AMC), Papers Willebrands, no. 40. See also Oliver TOMKINS, *The Church, the Churches, and the Council*, in *Ecumenical Review*, 3 (1952), p. 261-262.</footnote>

<footnote n="45">45 WCC, *Central Committee*, Toronto Statement, IV, 3.</footnote>

<footnote n="46">46 WCC, *Central Committee*, Toronto Statement, IV, 5.</footnote>
A Call for Catholic Contributions : Christophe-Jean Dumont

Dumont saw in this document a significant basis for dialogue with Catholic ecumenists who sought to elaborate an ecclesiological framework for a positive recognition of the ecclesiality of other Christian communities. His editorial for the fall 1950 issue of *Vers l'Unité Chrétienne*, written on the heels of the publication of the Toronto Statement (though without any explicit reference to it), takes up the notion of the elements of the church to argue the need for a more positive recognition in Catholic theology of all that is “of the church” in other Christian communities. Such a development, he suggests, could make a significant contribution to “the progress of the dialogue which has begun in favour of Christian unity”.<fnref n="47" /> Several months later, Dumont used the platform of *Vers l'Unité Chrétienne* to issue a call for a concerted study of the notion of the *vestigia ecclesia* by Catholic theologians. He wrote, “However separated from the church, the diverse confessions preserve, in diverse proportions and ways, something of the realities which belong properly to the church.” These realities, including the Scripture, baptism, other sacraments, and ministry are “elements of the inheritance entrusted by Christ to his church. (...) It seems obvious”, he wrote, “that the Catholic theologian ought to recognize, within the other confessions, though in differing degrees and with a value yet to be specified, ‘vestigia Ecclesiae.’”<fnref n="48" /> He committed the Istina Centre to bringing together Catholic theologians and invited their contribution to a project of concerted study whose aim it would be to elaborate a positive and constructive theological understanding of the non-catholic churches. To guide their reflection, he proposed a detailed questionnaire inviting a careful survey of the scriptures, the church fathers, the teaching of the magisterium, and reflections in contemporary theology for the resources to ground such an ecclesiology. It asked them to consider the value of the many realities or elements of the church found in other confessions. “How”, he asked, “in each case, can we qualify the positive relationship subsisting between these confessions and the Church, due to the permanence of these *vestigia*?”.<fnref n="49" />

One of the first responses to Dumont's invitation was a brief paper by Yves Congar which appeared in the January 1951 edition of *Vers l'Unité Chrétienne*.<fnref n="50" /> Congar proceeds by first distinguishing between the church as a community of grace and the church as institution, with its array of means of salvation. He indicates that the *vestigia* or “elements”, of the church, as he prefers to call them, belong to the latter, external dimension of the church:

> The means of grace are many. They form a cluster the integrity of which is found only in the church of Christ and of the apostles (and so the fullness of the reality of grace is also found only in this ecclesial body), but of which some element or another can be separated inasmuch as it has an objective consistency – taking advantage of the solution to the Donatist crisis. Thus, wherever any ecclesial means of grace is present, one can speak of a

<footnote n="47">47 Unité de l’Église et l’unité chrétienne, in *Vers l’Unité Chrétienne*, 26 (1950),p. 1-4.</footnote>

<footnote n="48">48 Christophe-Jean DUMONT, *Vestigia Ecclesiae*, in *Vers l'Unité Chrétienne*, 32 (1951), p. 6-7.</footnote>

<footnote n="49">49 DUMONT, *Vestigia Ecclesiae*, p. 7.</footnote>

<footnote n="50">50 Yves CONGAR, À propos des ‘Vestigia Ecclesiae,’ in *Vers l'Unité Chrétienne*, 39 (1952), p. 3-5.</footnote>
"vestige of the church": I would prefer to say, "element of the church." This would be a certain element of the institution, apt of itself to procure something of the reality of grace.<fnref n="51" />

While desirous of engaging Protestant thinkers in a genuine dialogue on the notion of *vestigia ecclesiae*, Congar displays a reserve concerning the inherently negative judgment that underlies the approaches of both Luther and Calvin, and points to a fundamental difference in Protestant and Catholic approaches to the mediation of grace in and through the structures of the church. Luther does not use the term *vestigia*, but favours the use of the expression *reliquias* (relics) and similar expressions to designate the Roman Church. Congar observes that Luther prefers the term "community" or "Christendom" to that of "Church", no doubt because he privileges the idea of the church as the *communio sanctorum*. While he acknowledges many "signs" of the church among the papists, including baptism, eucharist, the power of keys, the Symbol of faith, and the Scriptures, Congar notes that Luther is hesitant to recognize any inherent Christian value in them.<fnref n="52" /> Turning to Calvin's use of the term *vestigia ecclesiae*,<fnref n="53" /> he observes that while this can be negatively construed as the church "in a state of ruin", Calvin also recognizes the persistence of ensigns (*enseignes*) or substantial marks of the true church which endure despite being damaged or besmirched by the transgressions of many.

## The Présinge Meeting in 1951

Both the Toronto Statement and Congar's contribution provided the basis for discussion at a subsequent meeting between Catholic theologians and representatives of the WCC held in Présinge, Switzerland in November of 1951.<fnref n="54" /> The manner in which the theme of the meeting was framed indicates a desire on the part of the WCC to engage Catholic theologians in thinking through some of its own theological self-understanding as well as to better understand the Catholic position:

<footnote n="51">⁵¹ CONGAR, À propos des 'Vestigia Ecclesiae,' p. 3.</footnote>

<footnote n="52">⁵² CONGAR, À propos des 'Vestigia Ecclesiae,' p. 5; See also Yves CONGAR, *Vraie et fausse réforme dans l'Église*, Paris, 1950, p. 410f. The recent common statement of the Lutheran Catholic Commission on Unity, *The Apostolicity of the Church*, refers to the importance of Luther's recognition of these marks of the church: "Luther himself rarely spoke of the "apostolic church". But he understood the reality that we designate the church's apostolicity as continuity in proclaiming the same message as the apostles and as continuity in practicing baptism, the Lord's Supper, the office of the keys, the call to ministry, public gathering for worship in praise and confession of faith, and the bearing of the cross as Christ's disciples. These are the marks of the church by which one can recognize it, since they are the means by which the Holy Spirit creates faith and the church. Among these marks, the gospel message, however, is the decisive criterion of continuity in practice with the apostolic church." See II. 2.4.1., no. 95. http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_ap-03.html. I am indebted to Jared Wicks for drawing this to my attention.</footnote>

<footnote n="53">⁵³ John CALVIN, *Institutes of the Christian Religion*, Book IV, II, 11 and 12; Also: Commentary on Acts, XXIII, 7; and Lettre à Sadolet, Edition 'Je Sers,' p. 71; Confession de la Rochelle, article 28.</footnote>

<footnote n="54">⁵⁴ Participants included the Dominicans Dumont, Congar, and Jérôme Hamer, Dom Olivier Rousseau of Chèvetogne, Frans Thijssen, and Mgr. Charles Journet. Among the WCC representatives were Visser t'Hooft, Jean Bosc, Oliver Tomkins, Heinrich Kraemer, Suzanne de Dietrich, Paul Evdokimov, and Max Thurian. See *Rencontre de Présinge*, a report in French and Dutch. 24 typed pages. AMC, Papers Willebrands, nos. 32-54. This report includes an extensive citation of Congar's paper, *À propose des 'Vestigia Ecclesiae'* and Dumont's questionnaire from *Vers l'Unité Chétienne* fall of 1950. VISSER 'T Hooft, *Memoirs*, p. 320.</footnote>
Given the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church in the matter of ecclesiology, what meaning and what value does catholic theology attribute to realities of an ecclesial nature (such as, for example, a valid priesthood and episcopate by virtue of the apostolic succession) which subsist in certain confession separated from the Roman See? —We could have formulated it in other terms: What is the position of Catholic theology in the face of the opposition between the so called “Catholic” and “Protestant” tendencies which appeared to dominate in the Assembly of the World Council of Churches?<fnref n="55" />

The contribution of Oliver Tomkins at this meeting reveals a desire on the part of the World Council to dissipate any misperceptions of the ecclesiological presuppositions of the WCC. The Toronto Statement establishes a minimum criterion of ecclesiality, and considers as “churches” all those bodies who share a common faith in Jesus Christ. It sought not to assess the value of the various churches, but rather to find a minimum of common ground among the diverse notions of ecclesiality held by the churches. “The main problem” the Toronto Statement aimed to address “is how one can formulate the ecclesiological implications of a body in which so many different conceptions of the Church are represented, without using the categories or language of one particular conception of the Church”.<fnref n="56" /> It would be impossible to generalize concerning the ecclesiological self understandings of all the member churches of the WCC, but he suggests, they willingly use the terms “church” and “churches” in a manner that does not conform to what would be considered legitimate from a Catholic perspective.

## The Catholic Conference for Ecumenical Questions 1952

To organize and coordinate the works of Catholic ecumenists, Johannes Willebrands and Frans Thijssen established the Catholic Conference on Ecumenical Questions. Its first international meeting was held at Fribourg, Switzerland, in August of 1952. The Steering Group for this new “Catholic ecumenical Council”<fnref n="57" /> included Dumont and Thijssen, both of whom had been party to conversations with WCC representatives on the ecclesiology of the *vestigia* or “elements of the church.” Congar gave a keynote address to the 1952 meeting on the state of investigations into the notion of the “elements of the church” and its potential to orient Catholic ecclesiological thought.<fnref n="58" /> He noted that Catholic theology had failed to develop fully the consequences of its constant recognition that the working of God’s grace extended beyond the canonical structures of the visible church, and of the validity of baptism among separated Christians. An overly deductive and juridical approach had led Catholic ecclesiology to neglect the subjective and historical reality of the churches,

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵ *Rencontre de Présinge, 2* typed pages outlining the planned meeting. AMC, Papers Willebrands, nos. 368-370.</footnote>

<footnote n="56">⁵⁶ WCC Central Committee, *Toronto Statement*, II.</footnote>

<footnote n="57">⁵⁷ *Projet d'un conseil catholique œcuménique*, or *Katholieke Oecumenische Raad*, 7 typed pages. Accompanying documents and invitation to a «Réunion catholique œcuménique à Fribourg, 11-13 août 1952.» AMC, Papers Willebrands.</footnote>

<footnote n="58">⁵⁸ Yves CONGAR, *Les éléments de l'Église parmi les chrétiens réformés et la réflexion ecclésiologique. Comment peuvent-ils orienter la théologie catholique?*, Five typed pages in the notes of the Conférence Catholique sur les questions œcuméniques, 11-13 August 1952. AMC, Papers Willebrands.</footnote>