Tilburg University

# La théologie catholique entre intransigeance et renouveau

Routhier, Gilles; Roy, Philippe; Schelkens, K.

DOI:
10.5752/3187

Publication date:
2011

Document Version

Version created as part of publication process; publisher's layout; not normally made publicly available

Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal

Citation for published version (APA):

Routhier, G., Roy, P., & Schelkens, K. (2011). *La théologie catholique entre intransigeance et renouveau: La réception des mouvements préconciliaires à Vatican II*. (Bibliothèque de la Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique; No. 95). Brepols. https://doi.org/10.5752/3187

**General rights**

Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

* Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.

* You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain

* You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

**Take down policy**

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
INTRODUCTION

Le concile Vatican II occupe une place si considérable dans l'histoire du catholicisme
au 20e s. qu'il a retenu, plus que tout autre événement du siècle dernier, l'attention des
historiens de l'Église. Ainsi, la période qui en précéda l'ouverture n'a pas bénéficié de
toute l'attention qu'il aurait fallu lui accorder. Cette période, tantôt considérée comme
une longue préparation du concile<fnref n="1" />, est aussi regardée comme l'antithèse du concile.
Plus souvent, elle est définie comme « l'époque des mouvements » : mouvements
liturgique, biblique, patristique, catéchétique, marial, œcuménique, missionnaire,
intransigeant, sans exclure bien évidemment la « Nouvelle Théologie » et l'Action
Catholique. Des monographies ont été consacrées à plusieurs de ces mouvements,
mais on connaît encore trop peu de choses sur les interactions qui existaient entre
tous ces mouvements, sans compter que, au-delà de l'affirmation sans cesse reprise qui
veut qu'ils préparent et conduisent à Vatican II, bien peu d'études ont été réalisées sur
le lien précis et effectif qu'ils entretiennent avec Vatican II et sa préparation au cours
de la phase préparatoire. Pourtant, déjà en 1985, Giuseppe Alberigo affirmait qu'« Une
connaissance historique adéquate des mouvements préconciliaires constituera un
point de référence décisif pour comprendre le développement du Concile, surtout
s'il est possible de mettre en lumière le point où chaque mouvement avait porté
l'élaboration des points de force respectifs<fnref n="2" /> ». Il s'agissait-là d'une invitation à dépasser
l'affirmation impressionniste suivant laquelle le concile était débiteur des mouvements
préconciliaires. Encore faut-il arriver à voir avec assez de précision comment chaque
mouvement a été reçu par le concile et ce qui a résulté de cette réception.

De plus, il nous est très tôt apparu qu'il ne fallait pas simplement considérer les
mouvements de renouveau préconciliaires si nous voulions comprendre quelque chose
à ce qui s'est joué au concile et comprendre également la modalité (la juxtaposition
d'énoncés pas toujours conciliables) par laquelle le concile est parvenu à dégager
la grande unanimité que l'on sait sur l'ensemble de ses documents. Ignorer les
mouvements intransigeants, c'est se condamner à ne pas comprendre le concile et
sa dynamique propre, ses textes, témoins des compromis auxquels on est parvenu à
la suite de patients efforts et de longues discussions, et la réception de Vatican II,
marquée elle aussi par des tensions. Ces tensions, nous le pensons, sont déjà présentes
avant le concile, au cours de sa phase préparatoire, se manifestent de manière parfois

<footnote n="1">1 Voir l'ouvrage récent sur le pontificat de Pie XII et de son magistère, sous la direction de Philippe CHENAUX (dir.), *L'Eredità del Magistero di Pio XII*, Rome, 2010.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² CHENAUX, L'Eredità, p. 19, n. 24.</footnote>
dramatique au concile, et sont toujours là au cours de la réception de Vatican II. Trop souvent, dans l'historiographie actuelle, il semble entendu que les schémas préparatoires ne sont que l'expression du courant théologique intransigeant de la première moitié du 20e s., alors que le concile, à la suite de sa seconde préparation au cours de la première intersession, est la reprise des idées développées de manière souterraine dans les autres mouvements. De plus, dans une construction schématique et bipolaire, on a pris l'habitude de passer de l'avant concile au concile, comme si la période préparatoire n'avait pas contribué à l'évolution des idées et à une première réception des « idées nouvelles » élaborées au cours de la première moitié du 20e siècle.

S'il est évident que le concile Vatican II (1962-1965) a constitué un moment clé dans le renouvellement de la théologie catholique contemporaine<fnref n="3" />, il nous semble que, contrairement à ce que l'on est parfois tenté de croire, la longue préparation du concile (1959-1962) ne se résume pas à trois années perdues. Déjà au cours de cette période, plusieurs projets théologiques<fnref n="4" /> et façons d'exprimer le christianisme dans l'Église catholique au cours du 20e s. se rencontrent, se mesurent et se confrontent.

<footnote n="3">³ Voir notamment Yves CONGAR, *La théologie au Concile. Le 'théologiser' du Concile*, dans *Situation et tâches présentes de la théologie*, Paris, 1967, p. 41-56.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Plusieurs auteurs, au moment du concile, caractérisaient la théologie de l'époque de manière binaire, parlant de deux théologies ou de deux tendances. Voir Gérard PHILIPS, *Deux tendances dans la théologie contemporaine. En marge du IIe Concile du Vatican*, dans *Nouvelle Revue théologique*, 85 (1963), p. 225-238. Ailleurs il distinguera entre «la théologie juridique notionnelle et une théologie de la révélation ouverte qui tient compte du travail scientifique moderne» ou deux conceptions: «la conception angoissée qui veut à tout prix conserver les positions établies, et la tendance qui veut apporter le message évangélique aux hommes». Voir Karim SCHELKENS (dir.), *Carnets conciliaires de Mgr Gérard Philips secrétaire adjoint de la Commission doctrinale*, Leuven, 2006, p. 114. Pour sa part, H. de Lubac distinguait les groupes de la manière suivante: «On peut dire, [...], qu'il y a deux sortes de théologiens; les uns disent: relisons l'Écriture, saint Paul, etc.; scrutons la Tradition; écoutons les grands théologiens classiques; n'oublions pas de faire attention aux Grecs; ne négligeons pas l'histoire; situons dans ce vaste contexte et comprenons d'après lui les textes ecclésiastiques; ne manquons pas non plus de nous informer des problèmes, des besoins, des difficultés d'aujourd'hui, etc. – les autres disent: Relisons tous les textes ecclésiastiques de ces cent dernières années, encycliques, lettres, discours de circonstance, décisions prises contre tel ou tel, monita du Saint-Office, etc.; de tout cela, sans en rien laisser perdre ni en corriger le moindre mot, faisons une marqueterie, poussons un peu plus loin la pensée, donnons à chaque assertion une valeur plus forte; surtout, ne regardons rien au dehors; ne nous perdons pas dans de nouvelles recherches sur l'Écriture ou la Tradition, ni a fortiori sur des pensées récentes, qui nous feraient risquer de relativiser notre absolu. – Seul le théologien de la seconde espèce est considéré comme 'sûr' dans un certain milieu. (Carnets du concile, T. 1, Paris, Cerf, 2007, p. 53) Un autre témoin, P. Vallain, distinguait entre une «théologie conceptuelle, rationnelle, rationaliste meme», et une «théologie vivante, renouvelée par les sources... cohérente avec la mentalité d'aujourd'hui, plus traditionnelle... (Rythmes du monde, 1 [1963], p. 53) 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 ressancement, 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 ressancement et ceux qui n'y entrent pas (L'enjeu du concile. Bilan de la première session, Paris, 1963, p. 29-34). Nous croyons cependant que, malgré un regroupement possible en deux grandes tendances, les courants étaient plus nombreux qu'il n'y paraît à première vue.</footnote>
Il fallait donc étudier et préciser la présence concurrente de ces deux tendances, intransigeante (intégraliste) et mouvements de renouveau, regroupant plusieurs courants, au cours de la phase préparatoire, comme on a pu le faire au cours de la phase conciliaire.

Il s'agissait d'abord de mettre en relation les années pré-conciliaires (1907-1959) et la phase préparatoire du concile (1960-1962) de manière à mieux situer le concile dans la « longue durée » et à l'étudier « comme fait de réception<fnref n="5" /> » de développements qui évoluent concurement dans le corps ecclésial au cours d'une période assez longue, que l'on peut faire commencer avec la crise moderniste qui déchira l'Église à l'aube du 20ᵉ s., mais qui remonte sans doute plus haut encore jusqu'au pontificat de Pie IX. Ainsi, comme le suggèrent les études récentes du théologien Christoph Theobald ou John W. O'Malley<fnref n="6" />, l'étude du concile Vatican II et de sa réception ne peut commencer que par une meilleure compréhension de la place exacte qu'occupe ce concile dans l'histoire du christianisme et plus particulièrement dans l'histoire du catholicisme contemporain.

Le présent ouvrage, nous en avons bien conscience, ne fait qu'ouvrir la recherche sur le concile Vatican II comme fait de réception et sur la réception des mouvements qui travaillaient l'Église catholique au cours de la première moitié du 20ᵉ s. Ainsi, on examinera tour à tour la réception de divers mouvements : le mouvement patristique, d'abord, en examinant attentivement le traitement que fait Vatican II des textes d'Augustin ; le mouvement biblique, ensuite, à travers la rédaction du schéma *De fontibus revelationis* ; le mouvement liturgique, en troisième lieu, à partir de quatre sites d'observation (l'Allemagne, la Belgique, les Pays-Bas et les États-Unis) ; la « nouvelle théologie » et le renouveau de l'ecclésiologie, ainsi que le mouvement œcuménique et le renouveau des relations entre les Juifs et les catholiques. Certes, plusieurs mouvements ne sont pas pris en compte ici, en particulier le mouvement missionnaire et celui de l'apostolat des laïcs. Cette étude n'examine pas non plus la réception du mouvement marial au cours de la phase préparatoire et de la phase conciliaire. Nous avons voulu cependant faire une place significative à la réception des mouvements intransigeants à Vatican II, en tâchant de reconstituer, dans un premier temps, cette nébuleuse difficile à circonscrire, de manière à en identifier les composantes et son fonctionnement en réseau avant d'en examiner, de manière plus précise, le rôle joué par sa composante brésilienne.

Ce premier travail nous a convaincu de la nécessité de poursuivre cette entreprise qui montre toute la complexité du milieu catholique qui est tout, sauf homogène. Ce premier travail, qui appelle plusieurs autres études, est indispensable si l'on veut comprendre Vatican II et sa dynamique interne. Un observateur de premier plan, Giuseppe Alberigo, remarquait que le concile Vatican II a largement été tributaire des années qui l'on précédé.

<footnote n="5">5 Voir Gilles ROUTHIER, *Orientamenti per lo studio del Vaticano II come fatto di ricezione*, dans Maria Teresia FATTORI et Alberto MELLONI (dir.), *L'Evento e le decisioni. Studi sulle dinamiche del concilio Vaticano II*, Bologne, 1998, p. 465-500.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ Voir son chapitre très élaboré sur le long 19ᵉ s.: John W. O'MALLEY, *What happened at Vatican II*, Cambridge MA, 2008, p. 53-92.</footnote>
Sa productivité [observe-t-il] a été forte tant qu'elle a affronté des aspects et des perspec-
tives thématiques, élaborés et même expérimentés par des mouvements préconciliaires
(domaine liturgique, biblique, œcuménique) ou des requêtes mûries en contrepoint à l'in-
flation des prérogatives papales, à la suite de Vatican II (valorisation de l'épiscopat). Quand
il s'est agit de transcender les frontières des élaborations préconciliaires pour passer de la
reconnaissance de la collégialité épiscopale à une ecclésiologie de communion, de la légि-
timation de l'œcuménisme au dépassement de l'uniatisme oriental, de l'immobilisme de la
« societas perfecta » à la confrontation ouverte avec l'histoire des hommes, la même majo-
rité s'est trouvée en difficulté. L'Élaboration antérieure était insuffisante, mais plus grave
encore était la limite culturelle du noyau actif de cette même majorité tout entière centre-
européenne et, en grande partie, de formation antérieure au second conflit mondial<fnref n="7" />.

Les acteurs au concile avaient eux aussi conscience que le concile reposait en
grande partie sur la fermentation des idées qui l'avait précédé. Au moment où
commençait sa préparation, Congar écrivait :

Au point de vue théologique, et surtout unionique, il apparaissait que le concile venait
vingt ans trop tôt. En effet, il y avait trop peu d'années que cela bougeait. Déjà bien des
idées avaient changé. Mais dans vingt ans, on eût eu un épiscopat fait d'hommes ayant
grandi dans des idées bibliquement et traditionnellement ressourcées, dans une conscience
missionnaire et pastorale réaliste. On n'en était pas là. Pourtant, bien des idées avaient
déjà fait leur chemin et l'annonce même du concile, avec sa téléfinalité unionique, dans le
climat plus humain et plus chrétien du pontificat de Jean XXIII, pouvait accélérer certains
processus. [...] Il pourrait passer de « bonnes idées » en deux ans plus qu'en vingt ans de
travail tout juste toléré : sauf qu'il ne passerait aujourd'hui dans la faveur du Pouvoir, que ce
qu'on avait élaboré et semé dans les larmes<fnref n="8" />.

En octobre 1963, alors que le débat sur l'épiscopat s'enlisait et qu'on se disputait
sans fin sur le lien entre l'autorité de l'évêque et sa consécration, c.-à-d. sur la doctrine
de la sacramentalité de l'épiscopat, Congar notait :

Malheureusement, si étrange que la chose puisse paraître, on manque des travaux
historiques nécessaires pour apprécier pleinement la tradition théologique en ces matières.
La théologie, depuis un siècle surtout, s'est exprimée d'une façon très unilatérale. Elle doit
se retrouver ou réinventer plusieurs données de son propre héritage. Le Concile a été déjà
et il sera encore, pour cela, une incitation puissante. Il eût fallu qu'il pût être bénéficiaire
de publications dont le temps n'a permis qu'une partie <fnref n="9" />.

Ces quelques exemples montrent à souhait la nécessité d'étudier la réception des
mouvements préconciliaires par le concile : à travers quelles médiations, à travers
quelles interactions, à quel rythme, etc. Ce faisant, non seulement on aura mieux
articulé le concile aux années qui le précédèrent, mais, au plan théologique cette
fois, on aura compris plus en profondeur l'articulation de l'assemblée conciliaire au
corps ecclésial dans sa totalité. Certes, le concile n'émane pas de l'Église comme une

<footnote n="7">7 Giuseppe ALBERIGO, *La condition chrétienne après Vatican II*, dans Giuseppe ALBERIGO et Jean-Pierre JOSSUA, dir., *La réception de Vatican II*, Paris, 1985, p. 23.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ Yves CONGAR, *Mon Journal du concile*, Paris, 2002, p. 4-5.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ *Le bloc-notes du Père Congar*, dans ICI, 201 (1er octobre 1963), p. 3.</footnote>
assemblée représentative élue, au sens démocratique du terme<fnref n="10" />, et il ne constitue pas
un parlement auquel le peuple abandonne les pouvoirs législatifs dont il serait le sujet
propre. D'autre part, l'assemblée conciliaire des évêques représente vraiment l'Église,
dans un sens corporatif où un corps se représente et se personnifie dans sa tête, parce
qu'il confesse avec elle la même foi apostolique. En ce sens, le concile reçoit, à travers
les évêques réunis en assemblée, la foi de toutes les Églises locales et accueille les
ferments de vie qui habitent le corps ecclésial. Pour sa part, Francis A. Sullivan parle
d'une infaillibilité « a priori » des conciles, car la foi de toute l'Église s'y exprime,
l'infaillibilité de l'Église in credendo trouvant son mode d'expression dans l'infaillibilité
des conciles. Le sensus fidelium, cette conspiration des fidèles et des pasteurs dans la
foi, y trouvant une modalité particulière d'exercice. En ce sens il n'y a pas deux ou
trois sujets de l'infaillibilité, le pape seul, le concile et l'Église, mais un seul, l'Église
dans sa totalité, qui trouve sa voix dans l'expression des Pères conciliaires assemblés<fnref n="11" />.
Se trouvent ainsi articulés vie de l'Église et concile, mouvements préconciliaires et
enseignement conciliaire.

Certes, il nous faut étudier la réception du concile, mais on ne pourrait pas
comprendre celle-ci en ignorant la réception par le concile des mouvements de pensée
qui le précèdent. On acquiert alors aussi une compréhension plus approfondie de ce
qu'est un concile, un moment de discernement, à travers un processus de délibération.
En effet, le concile de retient pas tout : il fait un tri parmi tout ce qui se présente à lui
pour être reçu, choisissant consciemment de retenir ceci plutôt que cela.

Cet ouvrage, fruit de la collaboration entre la Faculté de théologie de la
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven et de la Faculté de théologie et de sciences religieuses
de l'Université Laval, montre à souhait l'ampleur du champ de recherche des études
sur Vatican II. C'est en somme à une compréhension du devenir du catholicisme dans
le monde que nous convoque la recherche sur Vatican II.

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ Yves CONGAR distingue fréquemment la «représentation» réalisée à travers une personnalité corporative et la «représentation» par délégation. On verra notamment son article Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari et approbari debet, dans Revue d'histoire du droit français et étranger, 36 (1958), p. 248-249.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ Francis A. SULLIVAN, *Magisterium. Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church*, New York NY, 1983, p. 106 ss.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
THE AUTHORITY OF AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO AT THE
SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF AUGUSTINE IN THE
PREPARATORY AND THE PROMULGATED DOCUMENTS

Despite the fact that the *Patres* were never actually absent from Catholic theology,<fnref n="12" /> one can generally state that a renewed interest arose to read and study them during

<footnote n="12">¹² In the Middle Ages the work of the Church Fathers were available in compilations, *florilegia*, e.g. Peter Lombard's *Liber Sententiarum*. The accent was put on synthesis, and no contradiction between or within the Patristic authors was perceived or accepted. The Fathers were, for example, also significantly represented in the work of Thomas Aquinas. The Renaissance and the Modern Era considered the *Patres* as *fontes*, less as *auctoritates* as before. Erasmus published in the 16th century critical editions, as a part of his program of reform and inner renewal. Theologians of the reformation —Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer— stressed continuity with the Fathers. They wished to go back to the Early Church, and studied the Early Church to correct the contemporary Church. The Council of Trent also appealed to Fathers, and claimed that only the Catholic Church is the true heir of the *consensus patrum*. In the 17th and 18th century the study of the Fathers was, both in Protestant and Catholic circles, an auxiliary discipline serving dogmatic theology: furnishing arguments and quotes for dogmatic theology. In Protestant Germany the study of the Fathers as a science, as such, slowly separated from dogmatic theology, because historical research of the Early Church revealed the concrete reality of the diversity of the Early Church (which was not really conforming the idealistic portrait of a unified Church and theology which was held at that time), gave the insight that Early and Patristic theology was influenced by (pagan) philosophy, and the understanding of the historical character of theology. In Catholic circles, the study of the Fathers was under suspicion, because Gallicans, Episcopalists, Jansensists etc. seemed to use the Fathers to criticize the *magisterium* and the primacy of Rome. The so-called modernists, with their historical and contextual approach of the Bible and the Fathers and their concept of the historical and cultural determination of dogmas, were condemned by Pius X. Later on, the *Nouvelle Théologie* and its appreciation of the Patristic sources were considered to have revived the modernist crisis. The Second Vatican Council however stimulated Patristic studies and Patrology. From the Renaissance onwards many editions of the Church Fathers saw light. Later on, the Maurists in the 18th century were very active in this field. Their results were later edited by J.-P. Migne in the popular edition of *Patrologiae Cursus Completus* in the 10th century. In the second half of the later century serials of critical editions were founded in Vienna (Latin Fathers, 1866), Berlin (Greek Fathers, 1897), Leuven-Washington (Eastern Fathers, 1903). Around the second half of 20th century all kind of handbooks and introductions were published (B. Altaner, A. A. Cayré, I. Quasten) and translations of the Church Fathers (*Bibliothek der Kirchenväter*, 1870; *Ancient Christian Writers*, 1946; *Sources Chrétiennes*, 1948). Also, in 1953 the first volume of *Corpus Christianorum* was published (Steenbrugge). Around this time, all kind of reviews studying the Patristic Era were established (*Sacris Erudiri*, 1948; *Vigiliae Christianae*, 1947; *Augustiniana*, 1950; *Revue des études augustiniennes*, 1954; *Augustinus*, 1956; *Augustinianum* 1960). For the presented historical overview of the history of the study of the *Patres*, see: Jürgen METTEPENNINGEN, *Más allá del Déficit de la Teología (1930-1965). La Nouvelle Théologie y el Redescubrimiento de Agustín*, in *Augustinus*, 55/1 (2010), p. 165-184; Gustave THILS, *Orientaties in de theologie*, Brugge, Utrecht, 1963 [*Orientations de la théologie*, Leuven, 1958], p. 52-61; Paul J. J. VAN GEEST, *De weerbarstigheid van kerkvaders en van de patristiek*, in Paul J. J. VAN GEEST, Eginhardt P. MEIJERING, Liuwe H. WESTRA (eds.), *De status van de Kerkvaders. Geschiedenis, thema's, perspectief*, Zoetermeer, 2009, p. 17-81.</footnote>
the 1940s and 1950s. It was around that same period that the scientific study of the Church Fathers —which actually slowly emerged around the turn of the previous century— came to a culmination point. Serials of critical editions and of translations of the writings of the theologians of the first six centuries were published. Handbooks, introductions and compendiums from the patristic era were composed. Also, very thorough and groundbreaking monographs were written, which scientifically studied the Church Fathers, and applied the historical critical method on their theology, writings and historical context.

This scientific *reveil* of the Church Fathers is also mirrored in the theological endeavours of that period. Again, the Church Fathers never disappeared from the scene of Catholic theology, however, a change in perspective occurred: they were no longer used as apologetical and auxiliary *auctoritates*, who provide citations to illustrate and substantiate dogmas —a very static and monolithic understanding of revelation—but as sources to revitalise and renew theology and its language—which is a more pluriform understanding of theology, of its historical context, and of the language it was expressed in throughout the history of Christianity. The theology of the *Patres* was studied and was considered as an important source for contemporary theology. Systematic studies of the theology of the Church Fathers were conducted by theologians involved in the theological discussions in the three decades before the Second Vatican Council —e.g. Jean Daniélou, Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar— who considered the Church Fathers as an alternative for the scholastic theology, as less technical and more dynamic, as revealing the essential aspects of Christian doctrine as this was discussed upon in the first centuries. Church Fathers were considered to have a greater feeling for synthesis, for the interconnectedness of the mysteries in the divine plan and for the historical character of this plan. Their way of presenting the message of Revelation was perceived to be religiously richer than the analytical and dialectical approach of later theology.

The return to the patristic sources was part of a greater framework, propagated especially by the so-called *Nouvelle Théologie*, a dynamic of *ressourcement*, a return *ad fontes*: Bible, Liturgy and Church Fathers:

> Renouveau biblique et mouvement liturgique devaient tout naturellement se compléter par une renaissance patristique car les œuvres des grands docteurs de l'antiquité chrétienne font revivre une époque où la liturgie était, avec la Bible, dont on ne la séparait pas en pratique, la grande source de vie. Le trait caractéristique de la renaissance patristique actuelle c'est qu'il ne s'agit plus seulement, comme il y a un demi-siècle, de chercher dans les oeuvres des Pères des arguments apologétiques pour prouver l'antiquité des doctrines professées ou des pratiques en usage dans l'Église catholique; on s'intéresse maintenant aux écrits des Pères pour ce qu'ils ont à nous apprendre de neuf ou, plus exactement, à nous réapprendre de ce que nous avions oublié depuis des siècles.<fnref n="13" />

In the beginning the Catholic *magisterium* was very suspicious concerning this *Patristic ressourcement*. A famous example is that the Jesuits Jean Daniélou and Henri de Lubac, who started in 1942 the *Patristic series* *Sources Chrétiennes*, had (around 1958) to take discrete distance from the serials because the accusations raised against

<footnote n="13">¹³ Roger AUBERT, *La théologie catholique au milieu du XXᵉ siècle*, Tournai-Paris, 1954, p. 38.</footnote>
the so-called *Nouvelle Théologie* could at that moment endanger the future of the project of *Sources Chrétiennes*.<fnref n="14" />

The general picture is that the Patristic renewal was conceived quite negatively by the *magisterium* —as is illustrated by the difficulties the *Nouvelle Théologie* experienced and the condemnation of ‘historical relativism’ by *Humani Generis* of 1950. Despite the fact that pope Pius XII stimulated in his encyclical a reflection on the Early Church, it seemed that the Patristic *ressourcement* had to wait for the Second Vatican Council and the documents it promulgated to be fully approved by the *magisterium*. These documents recognized the historical and contextual *Sitz-im-Leben* of the development of theological ideas, which made it possible to scientifically study the Fathers. More fundamentally, the Council documents themselves used the ideas and concepts of the *Patres* to formulate a contemporary theology, and especially a renewed ecclesiology.<fnref n="15" /> Moreover, these documents even exhorted to study the Fathers as a special and authentic source for theology and spirituality.<fnref n="16" />

One of the most prominent Fathers present in the promulgated documents is Augustine, bishop of Hippo (354-430), whose 15th century anniversary of his birth was celebrated with a lot of attention in 1954. Augustine is the most quoted Father at the Council. Of the circa 330 quotes of *Patres* and *Doctores*, he was quoted 57 times, while Thomas Aquinas only 25 times. This paper intends firstly to evaluate the Patristic nature of the Vatican II documents by studying the references made to Augustine: how is he present, when exactly is he referred to, how do the Council Fathers read and use him, do they take account of the original intention of Augustine's writings which they refer to? Several articles have already studied the Augustinian presence in the promulgated documents, and the majority came unanimously to the same positive conclusion: Augustine is a real source in Vatican II, his ideas are present throughout the documents, even in places where he is not mentioned.<fnref n="17" /> This conclusion will also

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ Étienne FOUILLOUX, *La collection “Sources Chrétiennes”*. Éditer les Pères de l’Église au XXe siècle, Paris, 1995.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ The influence of the Church Fathers on the reflection of the Trinitarian nature of the Church and of the people of God in *Lumen Gentium* is acknowledged: the Church as Trinity, as body of Christ, as community of the people of God. “L’ecclésiologie, qui prend sa véritable mesure autour du Concile Vatican II, tire ses racines de l’expérience des Pères. Les patrologues, qui ont été les acteurs du Concile, y ont largement contribué. De plus, notre monde n’est pas sans analogie avec celui de l’Antiquité tardive, et l’influence des Pères sur la Constitution *Lumen gentium* est tout à fait parlante”. Marie-Anne VANNIER, *L’influence de l’ecclésiologie des Pères sur celle de Vatican II*, in Marie-Anne VANNIER (ed.), *Les Pères et la naissance de l’ecclésiologie* (Patrimoines Christianisme), Paris, 2009, p. 11-20, p. 20. Cf. GILLES ROUTHIER, *Vatican II et le renouveau ecclésiologique de la Théologie Trinitaire*, in Emmanuel DURAND, Vincent HOLZER (eds.), *Les réalisations du renouveau trinitaire au XXe siècle*, Paris, 2010, p. 217-246.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ *Presbyterorum Ordinis* 3, 19. *Optatam Totius* 16.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ “Da un punto di vista generale possiamo parlare della presenza di Agostino nel Concilio, come di tutti gli altri Padri e Dottori, ricordando le idee essenziali, metodologiche e tematiche communi al Concilio ed ai Padri. Tra queste idee si annoverano: il linguaggio biblico e la fedeltà alla Sacra Scrittura, la teologia come storia della salvezza, cristocentrismo e storia organica e pedagogica dal Vecchio al Nuovo Testamento, l’alleanza tra la cultura e i valori della storia, il senso ottimistico di fronte ai valori terreni”. “In sintesi, possiamo dire che il Concilio Vaticano II ci ha offerto un Agostino per oggi. In sede di principii Agostino è stato il grande ispiratore, e come quello che conterà all’ora delle realizzazioni concrete saranno i principii, approfondendo la dottrina agostiniana si renderà il</footnote>
be evaluated. Our incentive for this re-evaluation is that we found two articles that appeared shortly after the Council but which were not really conceived in the study of Augustine and his presence at the Council. These articles stress the continuity of the Augustinian ideas present in the promulgated documents with the doctrinal teachings before the Council regarding ecclesiology and matrimony.¹⁸

Secondly, this paper will ask the question whether one really had to wait for the Council and its Constitutions, Decrees and Declarations before proper attention was paid —also by the *magisterium*— to the Church Fathers and to Augustine in particular. A second, very specific, case study will facilitate an answer to this question. We will namely, in the same way as we investigated the promulgated documents, study the presence of the *Doctor Gratiae* in the *Series Prima* (*De Fontibus Revelationis*,

più grande servizio alla Chiesa. La Chiesa del servizio, la Chiesa della carità, la Chiesa dell'unità, la Chiese della verità, la Chiesa della testimonianza, la Chiesa viva: ecco il pensiero fondamentale di Agostino ed il pensiero fondamentale della Chiesa d'oggi. Studiati da vicino i principii dei diversi documenti li troviamo in armonia con Agostino, e più ancora ci rendiamo conto che il Concilio è stato consapevole anche di questo fatto”. José MORÁN, *La presenza di S. Agostino nel Concilio Vaticano II*, in *Augustinianum* 6 (1966), p. 460-488, p. 461, p. 488.

"Debemos confesar con satisfacción que San Agustín estuvo muy presente como hilo conductor en los documentos principales del Vaticano II. Non obstante, es justo reconocer también que las citas del pensador africano son muchas veces ocasionales y sin aprovechar de ellas todo el sentido que el Santo les dio. Parece como si peritos y redactores sólo hubieran pretendido demostrar la verdad del concilio con la verdad del obispo de Hipona". Álvarez Maestro discusses each document of Vatican II: the presence of citations of Augustine and augustinian ideas (also in documents in which Augustine is not referred to). Jesús ÁLVAREZ MAESTRO, *Presencia de San Agustín en el Concilio Vaticano II*, in Isaac GONZÁLEZ MARCOS (ed.), *Concilio Vaticano II. 40 años después* (IX Jornadas Augustinianas, Residencia Fray Luis de Léon, Guadarrama (Madrid), 11-12 de marzo de 2006), Madrid, 2006, p. 231-281 (280).

Cf. also: Argimiro TURRADO, *Corpo di Cristo e salvezza nella dottrina di S. Agostino e del Vaticano II*, in *Chiesa e salvezza* (Attti della settimana agostiniana Pavese), Vol. 5, Pavia, 1975, p. 21-44; which studies the presence of Augustine's ecclesiology in Vatican II documents. This is not a study of the presence of explicit references to Augustine, and focusses on the teaching of Vatican II of the Church as body of Christ, as a community of grace and love between the Father and humankind in Christ, his Son, mediated by the H. Spirit (especially *Lumen Gentium* 2). Pedro LANGA AGUILAR, *San Augustín en el Concilio Vaticano II*, in José Demetrio JIMÉNEZ (ed.), *San Agustín, un hombre para hoy* (Congresso Agustiniano de Teología. 1650 aniversario del nacimiento de San Agustín. Buenos Aires, 26-28 de agosto de 2004), Vol. 1, Buenos Aires, 2006, p. 227-260; which offers an analysis especially of Augustine's presence in the ecclesiology of Vatican II: Church as community and as ministry of service, in particular *Lumen Gentium* and also *Gaudium et Spes*.

Cf. also Amedeo ERAMO, *Mariologia del Vaticano II vista in S. Agostino*, Roma, 1973.

¹⁸

Gaspape FAVARA, *La Chiesa comunione di Salvezza. Dottrina cattolica e pensiero agostiniano dopo il Concilio Vaticano II*, in *La Civiltà Cattolica*, 122/1 (1971), p. 439-452, stresses the necessity of the Church for Salvation, both in Augustine and *Lumen Gentium*: "La Chiesa appare così, come oggi si ama presentarla, la vera ed unica "communione di carità e di salvezza", e la dottrina agostiniana sulla Chiesa si ritrova in perfetta armonia, non solo con la moderna tendenza ecclesiologica che superando un esagerato giuridismo ha preparato l'enc. *Mystici Corporis* di Pio XII e la cost. Domm. *Lumen Gentium* del Concilio Vaticano II, ma anche con la posizione di quei moderni ecclesiologi i quali nelle fondamentali disposizioni cristiane *pistis e agape* vedono la giusta soluzione del problema dell'universale salvezza, la spiegazione adeguata del votum Ecclesiae ed il vero significato della Chiesa nella storia" (p. 451-452). John J. HUGO, *St. Augustine at Vatican II*, in *The Homiletic and Pastoral Review* 67/9 (June 1967), p. 765-772, analyses Augustine's writings as the chief source for the marriage teaching of Vatican II, which is morover in line with the teaching of popes Pius XI (esp. *Casti Connubii*) and Pius XII on this subject: conjugal love, in which sexual intercourse is only justified by love, and aimed at the fruitfulness of this love: procreation and parenthood, personal relationship in fidelity as communion.
De Deposito Fidei Pure Custodiendo, De Ordine Morali Christiano, De Castitate, Matrimonio, Familia, Virginitate, De Sacra Liturgia, De Instrumentis Communicationis Socialis, De Ecclesiae Unitate «Ut Omnes Unum Sint») and Series Secunda (De Ecclesia, De Beata Maria Virgine Matre Dei et Matre Hominum) of the preparatory documents for the Council, published in 1962. The first were sent to the Fathers before the opening of the Council, the second were distributed in november 1962. Five of the said nine schemata (on Liturgy, Revelation, Church, Oecumenism, Communication Media) were discussed during the first sessio, and were rejected by the Council Fathers as too static and Neothomistic, not Biblical and Patristic enough, etc. The specific presence of Augustine in the preparatory councilian schemas has not previously been investigated.

We will follow the chronological order, and first study the preparatory documents and then the promulgated. Afterwards our findings will be combined and compared. Both sets of documents will be presented in the same threefold way: (1) literal citations to Augustine, (2) non-literal references and allusions to Augustine, (3) very vague or even incorrect references to Augustine.

## SERIES PRIMA AND SERIES SECUNDA
OF THE SCHEMATA CONSTITUTIONUM ET DECRETUM OF 1962<sup>19</sup>

The preparatory documents contain 49 references to Augustine in 38 different notes.

### LITERAL CITATIONS OF AUGUSTINE

A first striking observance is that from the 49 references made to Augustine in the preparatory documents, 27 are literal citations, thus, citing a little more than half of the Augustine references as quotes.

De Fontibus Revelationis cites De consensu evangelistarum to contend that the gospel stands deservedly pre-eminent in the collection of the sacred writings.<fnref n="20" /> Priests

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ Sacrosanctum Oecumenicum Concilium Vaticanum Secundum. Schemata constitutionem et decretorum de quibus disceptabitur in Concilii sessionibus, Series Prima, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1962:</footnote>

<footnote>- Schema Constitutionis Dogmaticae De Fontibus Revelationis.</footnote>

<footnote>- Schema Constitutionis Dogmaticae De Deposito Fidei Pure Custodiendo.</footnote>

<footnote>- Schema Constitutionis Dogmaticae De Ordine Morali Christiano.</footnote>

<footnote>- Schema Constitutionis Dogmaticae De Castitate, Matrimonio, Familia, Virginitate.</footnote>

<footnote>- Schema Constitutionis De Sacra Liturgia.</footnote>

<footnote>- Schema Constitutionis De Instrumentis Communicationis Socialis.</footnote>

<footnote>- Schema Decreti De Ecclesiae Unitate «Ut Omnes Unum Sint».

Sacrosanctum Oecumenicum Concilium Vaticanum Secundum. Schemata constitutionem et decretorum de quibus disceptabitur in Concilii sessionibus, Series Secunda, De Ecclesia et de B. Maria Virgine, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1962:</footnote>

<footnote>- Schema Constitutionis Dogmaticae De Ecclesia.</footnote>

<footnote>- Schema Constitutionis Dogmaticae De Beata Maria Virgine Matre Dei et Matre Hominum.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰ Nota 1 (on p. 18): *De consensu evangelistarum 1, 1: PL 34, c. 1041-1042.* As reference to: "Neminem fugit inter omnes divinas Auctoritates, quae Sanctis Litteris continentur, Evangelium merito excellere" (p. 17; *Caput 4: De novo Testamento*; §1: *De Evangelis eorumque auctoribus*).</footnote>

<footnote>Augustine: "In the entire number of those divine records which are contained in the sacred writings, the gospel deservedly stands pre-eminent" (p. 77). S. D. F. SALMOND (trans.), M. B. Riddle (notes, ed.),</footnote>
not writing on revelation but on providence. Despite the different contexts/intents, the dogmatic schema is in line with the thoughts of Augustine, here in this specific writing and in general.

*De Deposito Fidei Pure Custodiendo* most frequently quotes one of Augustine's most important and elaborate dogmatic writings, *De civitate Dei*. God is in the words of Augustine indicated as "the cause which constituted the universe, the light by which the truth is perceived, the fount by which happiness is drunk".<fnref n="24" /> The use of this citation is true to the content of the message of Augustine, the original context however is somewhat different: Augustine is expressing why he prefers the Platonists above all other philosophers because they recognize a divine cause of the world. *De civitate Dei* is quoted to express that God is not only the cause, but also the aim of rational nature: rational nature is created by God in such an excellent way that its need is only satisfied by being perfectly blessed, and for the later nothing but God suffices,<fnref n="25" /> who is the end of our desires which will be reached in heaven.<fnref n="26" /> The schema

dealing with temporal matters, whether past or future, more by believing than by understanding, but it is our business to work out which human beings or books are to be trusted about the correct worship of God, in which lies the one salvation". BONIFACE, M. FIEDROWICZ (eds.), *On Christian Belief*, p. 59.

Augustine claims that the excellence of the Christian religion surpasses all the arts of the philosophers. Amongst the philosophers, he writes to prefer the Platonists. "This, therefore, is the reason why we prefer the Platonists to all others: because, while other philosophers have exhausted their ingenuity and zeal in seeking the causes of things and the right way to learn and live, these, by knowing God, have discovered where to find the cause by which the universe was established, and the light by which truth is to be perceived, and the fount at which we may drink of happiness". ROGER W. DYSON (trans., ed.), *Augustine. The City of God against the Pagans* (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought), Cambridge, 1998, p. 326-327.

Augustine: "Those things in the created universe which are not capable of blessedness are not, however, better merely because they cannot be miserable. For it cannot be said that the other members of the body are superior to the eyes because they cannot be blind. But just as the sentient nature, even when it suffers pain, is superior to that of a stone which cannot suffer pain, so the rational nature is more excellent even when it is miserable than is that from which reason or sensation is absent, and which can therefore experience no misery. Since this is so, then, it is clearly a fault in such a rational nature if it does not cleave to God. For it has been created with an excellence such that, though mutable in itself, it can nonetheless achieve its blessedness by cleaving to the immutable Good, the supreme God; nor is its need satisfied unless it can be perfectly blessed, for which purpose only God suffices". DYSON, *Augustine*, p. 499.

Augustine: "The reward of virtue will be God Himself, Who gives virtue, and Who has promised Himself to us, than Whom nothing is better or greater ... This, too, is the correct understanding of

<footnote n="24">²⁴ *Nota 3* (on p. 32): *De civitate Dei* 8, 10, 2: PL 41, c. 235. As reference to: "Profecto sancti Patres et Doctores Ecclesiae (*Nota 2*: Gregorius Nazianz., Ioannes Chrysost., Augustinus, Thomas, Pius XII) variis atque firmissimis argumentis demonstrarunt Deum esse et "causam constitutae universitatis, et lucem percipiendae veritatis et fontem bibendae felicitatis" (*Nota 3*)" (p. 30: *Caput 2*: De Deo; §8: *Argumentum ex perfectionibus mundi*).</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵ *Nota 9* (on p. 53): *De civitate Dei* 12, 1, 3: PL 41, c. 439: "... in tanta excellentia creata est (rationalis natura), ut ... (non) expleat indigentiam suam nisi utique beata sit, eique explendae non sufficiat nisi Deus". As reference to: "Homo enim ad imaginem Dei creatus, naturale gerit desiderium felicitatis quod in nullo bono finito ex tot quiescere potest (*Nota 8*), atque ultimam ac perfectam beatitudinem, qua adepta nihil remaneat appetendum, Dei visione consequitur (*Nota 9*)" (p. 52: *Caput 7: De ordine naturali et supernaturali*; §38: *Mysterium nostrae elevationis ad ordinem supernaturalem*).</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶ *Nota 7* (on p. 64): *De civitate Dei* 22, 30, 1: PL 41, c. 802. As reference to: "Deus enim «finis erit desideriorum nostrorum, qui sine fine videbitur, sine fastidio amabitur, sine fatigatione laudabitur»" (p. 62: *Caput 9: De novissimis*; §53: *Caelestis beatitudo est aeterna*).</footnote>
also declares that opposite to eternal beatitude, is eternal damnation, which is, as is explained by Augustine, equal to the blessed eternal life that is also without end.<fnref n="27" />

A second writing of Augustine frequently quoted in the schema *On the Deposit of the Faith* is his *De Trinitate*, specifically written to express that man is *imago Dei* and as such can partake and share in God’s nature.<fnref n="28" /> *De Trinitate*, together with a quote from *Contra Faustum*, is cited twice to stress the idea of *satisfactio Christi*: humanity is redeemed from its sin by Christ’s absolving death on the cross —Christ who died for our sins, being without any sin or guilt himself.<fnref n="29" />

what the apostle says, 'That God may be all in all.' (1Cor 15:28) God will be the end of our desires. He will be seen without end, loved without stint, praised without weariness. And this duty, this affection, this employment, will, like eternal life itself, be common to all." *DYSON, Augustine*, p. 1179.

Augustine: "Again, how can we suppose that 'eternal punishment' means 'fire continued for a long time', while believing that 'life eternal' means 'life without end'? After all, on the same occasion, Christ spoke of both in similar terms in one and the same sentence: 'These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.' If both 'eternal', then, we must understand both as either 'prolonged but eventually coming to an end', or as 'without end'. For 'eternal punishment' on the one hand and 'eternal life' on the other are parallel in meaning, and it would be most absurd to use them in one and the same sentence to mean, 'Eternal life will be without end, while eternal punishment will have an end.' Thus, because the eternal life of the saints will be without end, there is no doubt that the eternal punishment of those condemned to it will also have no end". *DYSON, Augustine*, p. 1084.

<footnote n="27">²⁷ *Nota 4* (on p. 64): *De civitate Dei* 21, 23: PL 41, c. 736. As reference to: "Fide enim catholica credendum est poenas a damnatis in inferno luendas, quas ipsi suis contra legem aeternam praevariationibus meruerunt, fore perpetuas. 'Et ibunt hi, ait Dominus, in suplicium aeternum, iusti autem in vitam aeternam' (Mt. 25, 46). 'Utrumque aeternum, inquit S. Augustinus, unde quia vita aeterna sanctorum sine fine erit, supplicium quoque aeternum quibus erit, finem procul dubio non habebit''' (p. 62: *Caput 9: De novissimis; §52: Poenae damnatorum sine fine erunt*).</footnote>

<footnote n="28">²⁸ *Nota 7* (p. 53): *De Trinitate* 14, 8, 11: PL 42, c. 1044: "Eo quippe ipso imago eius est, quo eius capax est eiusque particeps esse potest"; *De Trinitate* 14, 4, 6: PL 42, c. 1040: "quia summae naturae capax est, et esse participes potest, magna natura est [homo]". As reference to: "Eorundem tamen Patrum ac Doctorum praeente doctrina, agnoscenda est in humana natura non solum capacitas ad supernaturale hoc donum suscipiendum (Nota 7), verum etiam admirabilis convenientia" (p. 52: *Caput 7: De ordine naturali et supernaturali*; §38: *Mysterium nostrae elevationis ad ordinem supernaturalem*). Augustine: "But we must first consider the mind in itself before it is a partaker of God, and before His image is to be found in it. For we have said that, even though it has become impaired and disfigured by the loss of its participation in God, it remains nonetheless an image of God. For it is His image by the very fact that it is capable of Him, and can be a partaker of Him; and it cannot be so great a good except that it is His image". "Although man is disquieted in vain, yet he walks in an image." (cf. Ps. 38:7) For although it is a great nature, yet it could be corrupted because it is not the highest, and although it could be corrupted because it is not the highest, yet because it is capable of the highest nature and can be a sharer in it, it is a great nature". Sydney MCKENNA, *Saint Augustine. The Trinity* (The Fathers of the Church, 45), Washington DC, 1963, p. 426; 418.</footnote>

<footnote n="29">²⁹ *Nota 9* (on p. 67): *Contra Faustum* 14, 4: PL 42, c. 297: "Suscepit autem Christus sine reatu supplicium nostrum, ut inde solveret reatum nostrum et finiret etiam supplicium nostrum"; *De Trinitate* 4, 13, 17: PL 42, c. 899: "Morte sua quippe uno verissimo sacrificio pro nobis oblato, quidquid culparum erat unde nos principatus est potestates ad luenda supplicia iure detinebant, purgavit, aboleuit, exstinxit". *Nota 10* (on p. 69): *De Trinitate* 13, 10, 13: PL 42, c. 1024: "Non alium possibilem Deo defuisse...sed sanandae nostrae miserae convenientiorem modum alium non fuisse, nec esse oportuisse". As reference to: "Quapropter haec Sancta Synodus, doctrinam de humana redemptione ex purissimis divinae revelationis fontibus hauriens praelucente perenni Ecclesiae magisterio (Nota 9), reiicit opiniones illorum, qui falso aestimantes peccato nullam veri nominis offensam Deo inferri, affirmare praesumunt sacrificium Christi in cruce valorem tantummodo et efficaciam habuisse exempli, meriti et liberationis, non autem verae et proprie dictae satisfactionis pro humanis sceleribus, quasi hoc</footnote>
*Contra Iulianum* is quite often alluded to in this dogmatic schema, to substantiate the doctrine of original sin, and is quoted literally only once, to stress the truth of this dogma which was believed during antiquity throughout the whole Church.<fnref n="30" />

*De Castitate, Matrimonio, Familia, Virginitate* cites *De bono coniugali*, to indicate the three good aims of Christian marriage: *proles, fides, sacramentum*; and *De Genesi ad litteram* to explain that *proles* means that “children should be welcomed with love, brought up with kindness, given a religious education”.<fnref n="31" /> A general grace claim of

divinae iustitiae repugnaret, dum e contra tam misericordiae quam iustitiae aeterni Patris maxime congruit (Nota 10)" (p. 67: *Caput 10: De satisfactione Christi; §59 Reprobantur opiniones pervertentes notionem peccati prout est offensa Dei, et satisfactionis a Christo pro nobis exhibitae*).

Augustine: “But Christ took on our punishment without guilt so that he might in that way destroy our guilt and also end our punishment”. Roland J. Teske (trans., ed.), *Answer to Faustus, a Manichean* (The works of saint Augustine: a translation for the 21st century, 1/20), New York NY, 2007, p. 176-177.
Augustine: “For since He has offered the one wholly real sacrifice by His death, whatever fault there was, on account of which the Principalities and the Powers lawfully held us captive in order to make us atone for our guilt, He has washed away, abolished, and extinguished, and by His Resurrection He has predestined and called us to a new life, and justified those whom He called, and glorified those whom He justified”. McKenna, *Saint Augustine*, p. 152.

Augustine: “To those, therefore, who say: ‘What, was there no other way for God to liberate men from the misery of this mortality, that He should will the only-begotten Son, who is God and co-eternal with Himself, to become man by putting on a human soul and flesh, and so having been made mortal to suffer death?’ It is not enough so to refute them as to assert that this way, whereby God deigned to liberate us through the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus was both good and befitting the divine dignity; but we must also show that other possible means were not lacking on God’s part, to whose power all things are equally subordinate, and yet that there was no other way more fitting, and no other needed for healing our misery”. McKenna, *Saint Augustine*, p. 388.

Augustine discusses original sin: “But even if it is not investigated by reason and explained in words, what the true Catholic faith has proclaimed and believed from antiquity throughout the whole Church is nonetheless true. The Church would neither exorcise the children of the faithful nor subjet them to the rite of exsufflation, if it did not rescue them from the power of darkness and from the prince of death, as I stated in my book to which you pretend to make a reply”. Roland J. Teske (trans.), John E. Rotelle (notes, ed.), *Answer to the Pelagians. 2: Marriage and Desire; Answer to the Two Letters of the Pelagians; Answer to Julian* (The works of saint Augustine: a translation for the 21st century, 1/24), New York NY, 1998, p. 484.

As reference to: “Quae quidem bona veluti in summam collegit S. Augustinus hisce verbis: «Haec omnia bona sunt, propter quae nuptiae bonae sunt: proles, fides, sacramentum». (Nota 7) Circa ista tria bona divinitus data sunt iura et obligationes, a coniugibus debite servanda; et inter ea, attento fine, ob quem matrimonium a Deo institutum est, bonum prolis primum locum tenet. Ideoque oportet proles amanter suscipiatur, benigne nutriatur, religiose educetur, ut nervose dicit idem S. Augustinus (Nota 9) [...]” (p. 127-128: *Caput 2: De iuribus, obligationibus, virtutibus matrimonio christiano propriis; §16: Iura et obligationes quoad bonum prolis*).

Augustine gives a summary of the three goods of marriage: “These things, namely, offspring, fidelity and the sacrament, are all good, and because of them marriage is good”. Ray KEARNEY (trans.), David G. HUNTER, *John E. Rotelle (eds.), Marriage and Virginity. The Excellence of Marriage; Holy Virginity;*

<footnote n="30">³⁰ Nota 2 (on p. 59): *Contra Iulianum* 6, 5, 11: PL 44, c. 829. As reference to: “Igitur, etiam qui experiuntur difficultatem questionis, regantur oportet gubernaculo auctoritatis, quod est regula fidei; etsi enim natura peccati originalis non facili ratione pervideatur, nec expedite sermone explicetur, ‘verum tamen est quod antiquitus veraci fide catholica praedicatur et creditur per Ecclesiam totam’” (p. 54: *Caput 8: De peccato originali in filliis Adae; §43: Dogma de peccato originali mysterii velamine obectum est*).</footnote>

<footnote n="31">³¹ *Nota 7* (on p. 132): *De bono coniugali 24, 32: PL 40, c. 394: “Haec omnia bona sunt, propter quae nuptiae bona sunt: proles, fides, sacramentum”.*
*Nota 9* (on p. 132): *De Genesi ad litteram 9, 7, 12: PL 34, c. 397.*</footnote>
Augustine is applied on marriage by quoting *De natura et gratia*: “God, then, does not command what is impossible; rather, by his commandment, He warns you to do what you can and to ask for what you cannot”.<fnref n="32" />

*De Ecclesia* quotes of Augustine's *De abstinentia* (better known today as *De continentia*) to express that the Church, despite being Christ's body, is not *sine macula et ruga*, since it's members are not, because as long as they have carnal concupiscence, they sin.<fnref n="33" /> Furthermore, Augustine is cited to express the Church's obligatiton to preach, in order that “in the nations in which the Church does not yet exist it must come to be”.<fnref n="34" /> Augustine's anti-Donatist assertions to always consider the Donatists

*The Excellence of Widowhood; Adulterous Marriages; Continence* (The works of saint Augustine: a translation for the 21st century, 1/9), New York NY, 1999, p. 57.

Augustine: “And so I do not see what other help a wife was made to provide the man with, if you set aside the reason of having children; why in any case you should set it aside I cannot imagine. ... I mean, just because immoderate sexual activity is an evil, it does not follow that marriage, even between over-sexed persons, is not a good. Quite the contrary; not only does that evil not make this good blameworthy, this good makes that evil pardonable, since what is good in marriage can never be a sin. This good, in fact, is threefold: fidelity, offspring, sacrament. What fidelity means is that neither partner should sleep with another person outside the marriage bond; offspring means that children should be welcomed with love, brought up with kindness, given a religious education; sacrament means that the union should not be broken up, and that if either husband is sent away, neither should marry another even for the sake of having children. This is, so to say, the set-square of marriage, good either embellishing the fertility of nature, or putting straight the crookedness of lust”. Edmund Hill (trans.), John E. ROTELLE (ed.), *On Genesis. A Refutation of the Manichees; Unfinished Literal Commentary on Genesis; The Literal Meaning of Genesis* (The works of saint Augustine: a translation for the 21st century, 1/13), New York NY, 2002, p. 382.

Augustine: “God, then, does not command what is impossible; rather, by his commandment, he warns you to do what you can and to ask for what you cannot”. R. J. TESKE (trans.), J. E. ROTELLE (ed.), *Answer to the Pelagians: 1: The Punishment and Forgiveness of Sins and the Baptism of Little Ones; The Spirit and the Letter; Nature and Grace; The Perfection of Human Righteousness; The Deeds of Pelagius; The Grace of Christ and Original Sin* (The works of saint Augustine: a translation for the 21st century, 1/23), New York NY, 1997, p. 250.

<footnote n="32">³² *Nota 22* (on p. 134): *De natura et Gratia* 43, 50; PL 44, c. 271. As reference to: “Quos tamen actus coniuges, iuvante Dei gratia, praestare possunt. Deus enim impossibilia non iubet, sed iubendo monet et facere quod possis et petere quod non possis, et adiuvat ut possis, cum Deus id recte petentibus non deneget, nec patiatur nos, supra id quod possumus, tentari (cf. 1Co10,13)” (p. 129: *Caput 2: De iuribus, obligationibus, virtutibus matrimonio christiano propriis; §17: Iura, ligationes et virtutes quoad bonum fidei*).</footnote>

<footnote n="33">³³ *Nota 40* (on p. 13): *De abstinentia* 11: PL 40, c. 366: “Comparat Ecclesiam cum carne concupiscenti contra spiritum, quatenus nondum pacem ex infirmitate languoris in membris habet: ‘Deinde, cur non confiteamur in hominibus spiritualibus Ecclesiam subditam Christo, in carnalibus autem adhuc concupiscere adversus Christum [...] Has enim carnis concupiscentias Christus in suis sanat, sed in nullis amat. Unde sancta Ecclesia quamdiu habet etiam membra talia, nondum est sine macula et ruga’”. As reference to: “In eo (= in Christo Iesu) tamen non omnia membra sanctitate virescunt, quia aegrota in ipso membra constitunt quae nempe gratia et caritate privata, saltem virtute fidei cum Christo Capite iunguntur” (p. 11: *Caput 1: De ecclesiae militantis natura; §5: Enucleatio figurae corporis*). Augustine: “So then, why do we not proclaim that the Church is subject to Christ in spiritual persons, but in carnal persons it still has desires opposed to Christ? [...] Christ heals these desires of the flesh in those who belong to him, but he does not like them in anyone. Hence, as long as the Church has members who are like that, it is not yet without spot or wrinkle”. KEARNEY (trans.), HUNTER, ROTELLE (eds.), *Marriage and Virginity*, p. 209-210.</footnote>

<footnote n="34">³⁴ *Nota 5* (on p. 77): *Epistula* 199 (ad Hesychium) 12: PL 33, c. 922-924: “S. Aug. docet ad hoc spectare praedicationem evangelicam ut ubicumque stabiliatur Ecclesia reddens Deo cultum debitum; c. 923: ‘In quibus ergo gentibus nondum est Ecclesia, oportet ut sit’”. As reference to: “Ubicumque igitur</footnote>
as brothers who share the same heritage are cited to define the ecumenical attitude
the Church should keep.<fnref n="35" />

Although Augustine did not develop a systematic marialogy, *De Beata Maria Virgine Matre Dei et Matre Hominum* uses Augustine as a source to define the place of Mary within the Church: as physical mother of Christ, she is a very exceptional member of the body of Christ, by which she “cooperated with charity for the birth of

terrarum Ecclesia, independenter a quavis humana potestate, ius inalienabile habet praecones evangelicos mittendi, communitates christianas stabiliendi, homines sibi incorporandi per baptismum in eosque sibi subditos suam exercendi potestatem tam docendi quam regendi et sanctificandi” (p. 74: *Caput 10: De necessitate ecclesiae annuntiandi evangelium omnibus gentibus et ubique terrarum; §46: Natura muneris*).

Augustine's letter 199 stresses that before the end of the world the gospel must be preached to the whole world, and there are still many nations that have not heard the gospel (§46). The Lord promised that all the nations, not just the Romans, would be the offspring of Abraham (§47). Hence, the Church must spread to all the nations in order that such prophecies may be fulfilled (§48). When the Lord said that his disciples would be his witnesses to the ends of the world, He did not mean only those disciples to whom He was then speaking (§49). Both in the Old and in the New Testament the past tense is often used for events that lie in the future (§50-§51). In §48 Augustine writes: “In the nations in which the Church does not yet exist it must come to be – not in order that all who live there may believe, for God promised all the nations, but not all the human beings of all the nations”. Roland J. Teske (trans., notes), Boniface Ramsey (ed.), Letters 156-210 (The works of saint Augustine: a translation for the 21st century, 2/3), Hyde Park/New York NY, 2004, p. 351.

Augustine preaches on concord with the Donatists/concord among Christians, and in §4 of *Sermo 359* he says: “In a word, our tone is quite different from that brother’s, who appealed to Christ as he was walking this earth. Because we too are appealing to him in this case, as he is seated in heaven; and we are not saying, Lord, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me (Lk. 12:13); but, ‘Tell my brother to possess the inheritance with me’”. John E. Rotelle (ed.), Edmund Hill (trans., notes), *Sermons 3/10 (341-400)*, On Various Subjects (The works of saint Augustine: a translation for the 21st century, 3/10), Hyde Park/New York NY, 1995, p. 202-203.

Augustine: *Sermo ad Caesareensis 5:* “Filios autem ancillarum de Iacob, quia et illi ut nascerentur coniugia iusta uoluerunt, filios ergo ancillarum de Iacob nouimus in unam hereditatem aduocatos. Simul numerati sunt omnes patriarchae duodecim; nullum ab altero uteri diuersitas separuit, quia omnes caritas sociauit. Quid interest ergo ubi baptismum acceperis? Baptismus meus est, dicit tibi Sara, baptismus meus est, dicit tibi Rachel. Noli superbire, ueni ad hereditatem, maxime quia ipsa hereditas non est illa terra quae data est filiis Iacob. Filiis Israel data est terra; quanto a pluribus possidebatur, tanto plus angustabatur. Hereditas nostra pax uocatur; testamentum lego: pacem meam do uobis, pacem meam relinquo uobis (Io. 14:27). Simul teneamus quod diuidi non potest. Non eam angustat numerosus possessor, quanticumque uenerint, sicut promissum est: sic erit semen tuum tamquam stellae caeli et sicut arena quae est ad labium maris. In semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes [Gn. 22:17sq.].” (CSEL 53, p. 174.)

<footnote n="35">35 *Nota 8* (on p. 89): *Sermo 359, 4: MA 1, p. 575:* “Non ei dico: Domine (dic) fratri meo dividat mecum haereditatem; sed dico, Domine, dic fratri meo teneat mecum haereditatem”. *Sermo ad Caesareensis Ecclesiae plebem 5* PL 43, c. 694: “Veni ad haereditatem: maxime quia ipsa haereditas non est illa terra quae data est filiis Iacob. Filiis Israel data est terra: quanto a pluribus possidebatur, tanto plus angustabatur. Haereditas nostra pax vocatur Testamentum lego: Pacem meam do vobis, pacem meam relinquo vobis (Io. 14:27). Simul teneamus quod dividi non potest. Non eam angustat numerosus possessor, quanticumque venerint”. As reference to: “Monet propterea Sacra Synodus omnes fideles, ut fratribus separatis verbo et exemplo magis magisque ostendant plenitudinem Revelationis in sola Ecclesia Catholica vere et pure teneri, ita quidem ut tandem fratres nostri nobiscum iterum coniuncti, nobiscum etiam plenitudinem hereditatis Christi possideant” (p. 82: *Caput 11: De oecumenismo; §51: De habitudine Ecclesiae Catholicæ ad communitates christianæ separatas*).</footnote>
the faithful in the Church”,<fnref n="36" /> and she carried Christ in her heart “a greater privilege than doing so in her body”.<fnref n="37" /> Besides being a member, Mary is also a prefiguration of the Church, imitated by the Church as being a virgin and mother.<fnref n="38" /> While this preparatory document clearly states that Mary was concieved immaculate and that she lived without personal guilt, the passage from *De natura et gratia* is quoted in which Augustine refuses to state that Mary is, just like all men, a sinner, but neither is he ready to clearly claim that she was able to completely conquer sin.<fnref n="39" />

<footnote n="36">³⁶ *Nota 2* (on p. 101): *De sancta virginitate* 6, 6: PL 40, c. 399, CSEL 41, p. 240.</footnote>

<footnote>*Nota 3* (on p. 101): *Sermo 25, De verbis Evangelii Matthaei 12, 41-50, 7*: PL 46, c. 938: "Maria portio est Ecclesiae, sanctum membrum, excellens membrum, supereminens membrum, sed tamen totius corporis membrum".</footnote>

<footnote>As reference to: "Haec autem alma Parens, quae "cooperata est caritate ut fideles in Ecclesia nascerentur" (Nota 2), non modo "supereminens" (Nota 3) prorsusque singulare membrum Ecclesiae est, verum etiam eiusdem exemplar (Nota 4), immo et Mater dicitur" (p.93: §1: *De arcta necessitudine inter Christum et Mariam iuxta Dei beniplacitum*).</footnote>

<footnote>Augustine compares the virginity of Mary and the virginity of the Church. "So that woman, and she alone, was both a mother and a virgin, not only spiritually but also physically. She is not spiritually the mother of our head, as that is the Savior himself. On the contrary, she was born spiritually from him, as everyone who believes in him, including her, is rightly called a child of the bridegroom. On the other hand, clearly she is the mother of his members, which is ourselves, since she has cooperated with charity for the birth of the faithful in the Church. They are the members of that head, but she is physically the mother of the head himself. So it was fitting that by a unique miracle our head was born physically from a virgin, to signify that his members would be born spiritually from the virgin Church". KEARNEY (trans.), HUNTER, ROTELLE (eds.), *Marriage and Virginity*, p. 70-71.</footnote>

<footnote>Augustine: *Sermo Denis 25, 7 = Sermo 72A*: "Mary is holy, Mary is blessed, but the Church is something better than the Virgin Mary. Why? Because Mary is part of the Church, a holy member, a quite exceptional member, the supremely wonderful member, but still a member of the whole body. That being so, it follows that the body is something greater than the member. The Lord is the head, and the whole Christ is head and body. How shall I put it? We have a divine head, we have God as our head". ROTELLE (ed.), HILL (trans., notes), *Sermons 3 (51-94)*, *On the New Testament* (The works of saint Augustine: a translation for the 21st century, 3/3), Brooklyn/New York NY, 1991, p. 288.</footnote>

<footnote n="37">³⁷ *Nota 39* (on p. 120): *De sancta virginitate 3*: PL 40, c. 398. As reference to: "Nihil enim materna propinquitas Mariae profuisset, 'nisi felicius Christum corde quam carne gestasset''' (p.98: §5: *De cultu erga beatissimam Virginem Mariam*).</footnote>

<footnote>Augustine: "So even the close relationship of being his mother would have been no benefit to Mary, if she had not carried Christ in her heart, a greater privilege than doing so in her body". KEARNEY (trans.), HUNTER, ROTELLE (eds.), *Marriage and Virginity*, p. 69.</footnote>

<footnote n="38">³⁸ *Nota 4* (on p. 101): *Sermo 213, 7*: PL 38, c. 1064: "Mariae simillima est" Ecclesia; *Sermo 25, De verbis Ev. Matthaei 12, 41-50*: PL 46, c. 938: "In ipsius typo [Ecclesiae] Maria virgo praecessit". Augustine, *Sermo 213, 7*: "[The Church] is both virgin, and she gives birth. She imitates Mary, who gave birth to the Lord. Didn't the virgin, Saint Mary, both give birth and remain a virgin? So too the Church both gives birth and is a virgin". ROTELLE (ed.), HILL (trans., notes), *Sermons 3/6 (184-229Z)*, *On the Liturgical Seasons* (The works of saint Augustine: a translation for the 21st century, 3/6), New Rochelle/ New York NY, 1993, p. 145.</footnote>

<footnote>Augustine, *Sermo 25 Denis* = *Sermo 72A*, 8: "The virgin Mary came first as a representative figure of the Church". Augustine explains, namely as virgin and mother. ROTELLE (ed.), HILL (trans., notes), *Sermons 3 (51-94)*, *On the New Testament*, p. 288.</footnote>

<footnote n="39">³⁹ *Nota 24* (on p. 112): *De natura et gratia 36, 42*: PL 44, c. 267: "Excepta itaque sancta Virgine Maria, de qua propter honorem Domini nullam prorsus cum de peccatis agitur, haberi volo quaestionem: (unde enim scimus quid ei plus gratiae collatum fuerit ad vincendum ex omni parte peccatum, quae concipere ac parere meruit, quem constat nullum habuisse peccatum?)': hac ergo Virgine excepta, si omnes illos sanctos et sanctas, cum hic viverent, congregare possemus et interrogare utrum essent sine peccato, quid fuisse responsuros putamus?". As reference to: "Maria Virgo a Deo, qui ineffabili</footnote>
## ALLUSIONS TO AUGUSTINE

The documents drawn up by the preparatory commission contain 16 references to Augustine, which are not literal citations.

*De Fontibus Revelationis* refers to *De doctrina christiana* and explains that the historical context of composition and genres of the different books of the Bible have to be taken into account when the inspired and inerrent nature of the Scriptures is considered.<fnref n="40" />

In *De Deposito Fidei Pure Custodiendo* Augustine figures as one of the *sancti Patres et Doctores Ecclesiae* who have argued that God created the universe in a perfect way.<fnref n="41" /> Four allusions are made to four different writings (*Contra Iulianum*, *De Genesi ad litteram*, *De peccato originali*, *De civitate Dei*) of Augustine regarding one of his

eam prosecutus est amore, singularibus omnino privilegiis ornata est: mirabilis quippe fuit in suo ortu, ob immaculatam conceptionem; mirabilis in sua vita, cum expers omnis culpae personalis (*Nota 24*), insimul mater semperque, mente et corpore, virgo exstiterit; mirabilis denique in suo exitu, quia etsi secundum antiquam et venerabilem traditionem mortem subiit temporalem, quo plenius Filio suo assimilaretur, nexibus tamen mortis cum deprimi minime potuisset, corpore et anima gloriose in caelum assumpta est" (p. 96: §4: *De singularibus privilegiis Dei hominumque Matris*).

Augustine reports that Pelagius indicates as righteous Simeon, Joseph, John, Elizabeth, Mary. "Piety demands, he [Pelagius] says, that we admit that she [Mary] was without sin. Let us then leave aside the Holy Virgin Mary; on account of the honor due to the Lord, I do not want to raise here any question about her when we are dealing with sins. After all, how do we know what wealth of grace was given to her in order to conquer sin completely, since she merited to conceive and bear the one who certainly had no sin? Apart then from this virgin, if we could gather together all these holy men and women when they were living this life and could ask whether they were without sin, what are we to suppose that they would have answered". All the other biblical persons would, according to Augustine, refute the idea that they are without any sin. TESKE (trans.), ROTELLE (ed.), *Answer to the Pelagians*, p. 245-246.

Augustine: "Again one has to be on one's guard against supposing that whatever in the Old Testament, with respect to the condition of those times, is not an infamy nor a crime either, even when understood literally and not figuratively, can be transferred also to these times and put into practice in life today". Edmund HILL (trans.), John E. ROTELLE (notes, ed.), *Teaching Christianity* (The works of saint Augustine: a translation for the 21st century, 1/11), New York NY, 1996, p. 181.

Augustine preaches in *Sermo 141* on John 14:6 ("Christ is the way, the truth and the life") against the philosophers, who could have found "the creator through the creature, the producer through the product, the architect of the world through the world". According to Augustine, the pagan philosophers lost, out of pride, what they found through their research, because they thought that wisdom was their merit. ROTELLE (ed.), HILL (trans., notes), *Sermons 3/4 (94A-147A)*, *On the New Testament*, p. 409.

<footnote n="40">40 *Nota 8* (on p. 14): *De doctrina christiana* 2, 18, 26: PL 34, c. 75-76 (the schema wrongly indicated book 2, but it has to be book 3 to be correct with the indicated PL-reference). As reference to: "Haec tamen inerrantia diuicanda est ex modo quo veritas in libro sacro attingitur. Qui modus imprimis elucet ex indole generali libri, de qua, in casu dubii, definitivum iudicium soli competit Ecclesiae. Aliter enim veritas exprimur in libro historico vel didactico; aliter in prophetico, poetico, allegorico, parabolico. Quod autem ad singula spectat, modus attingendi veritatem diuicetur oportet etiam ex sensu quem in determinatis adiunctis pro sui temporis condicione expressit hagiographus" (p. 13-14: *Caput 2: De scripturae inspiratione, inerrantia et de compositione litteraria*; §13: *Quomodo inerrantia diuicanda sit*).</footnote>

<footnote n="41">41 *Nota 2* (on p. 32): *Confessiones* 11, 4, 6: PL 32, c. 811; *Sermo 141*: PL 38, c. 776-778. Augustine: "Heaven and earth plainly exist, and by the very fact that they undergo change and variation, they cry out that they were made. [...] It was you who made them, Lord: you are beautiful, so it must have been you, because they are beautiful; you who are good must have made them, because they are good; you who are, because they are". Maria BOULDING (trans.), *The Confessions* (The works of saint Augustine: a translation for the 21st century, 1/1), New York NY, 1996, p. 288.</footnote>
crucial theses: original sin, namely Adam's sin is transmitted to all of humanity and for this reason all of humanity needs to be liberated by Christ.<fnref n="42" />

*De ordine Morali Christiano* refers to *De spiritu et littera* to highlight the special nature of man's origin, namely created directly by God *ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei*.<fnref n="43" />

*De Castitate, Matrimonio, Familia, Virginitate* refers to the general principle of Augustine that God helps man to prevent sin from *De natura et gratia*, and applies this to the Christian endeavour to live chaste as unmarried singles (*soluti*).<fnref n="44" />

<footnote n="42">42 *Nota 8* (on p. 59): *Contra Iulianum* 1, 3, 9: PL 44, c. 645; *Contra Iulianum* 1, 5, 15: PL 44, c. 649.</footnote>

<footnote>*Nota 9* (on p. 60): "S. Augustinus aperte docet veritatem de unitate generis humani esse de fide: cf. August., *De Gen. ad litt.* 9, 11, 19: PL 34, c. 400 et *De pecc. orig.* 24, 28: PL 44, c. 398. Vide etiam *De Civ. Dei* 16, 8 et 16, 9: PL 41, c. 486-487, quibus in locis de distinctione stirpium et de antipodis".</footnote>

<footnote>As reference to: "Cum exstent, etiam inter Ecclesiae filios, qui nostris diebus, unitatem originis humani generis aut negent aut in dubium vocent, sacrosancta Vaticana Synodus secunda ad integritatem tutandam doctrinae supra expositae, qua credimus peccatum originale illud ab uno in omnes generatione transfundi (Nota 8), et adfovenda necessitudinis caritatisque vincula inter omnes populos, qui ad unam Christi gratiam vocantur quemadmodum ab uno fonte promanant, profitetur et docet, quod universa Ecclesia, divina innixa revelatione, semper tenuit et docuit, homines nempe hisce in terris (post Adam viventes), quamlibet gerant corporis formam vel colorem, communem suae naturae habere originem sicut communem salutis habent auctorem (Nota 9)" (p. 56: *Caput* 8: *De peccato originali in filliis Adae*; §48: *Doctrina de communi origine generis humani*).</footnote>

<footnote>Augustine, *Contra Iulianum*: quotes Olympius and Hilary of Poitiers to assert his claim, against Julian, that original sin comes from Adam and by Adam was transferred to all of humanity except Christ. *TESKE* (trans.), *ROTELLE* (notes, ed.), *Answer to the Pelagians*, p. 271-272.</footnote>

<footnote>Augustine, *De Genesi ad litteram*: "And so the woman, being made for the man, from the man, in that sex and shape and distinction of parts by which females are known, gave birth to Cain and Abel and all their brothers and sisters, from whom all human beings would be born. Among them she also gave birth to Seth, through whom we come to Abraham and the people of Israel and the nation now so widely known among all the nations, and to all nations through the sons of Noah. To doubt this is to undermine the foundations of everything we believe, something therefore the faithful should put entirely out of their minds". Edmund *HILL* (trans.), John E. *ROTELLE* (ed.), *On Genesis: a Refutation of the Manichees; Unfinished Literal Commentary on Genesis; The Literal Meaning of Genesis* (The works of saint Augustine: a translation for the 21st century 1/13), New York NY, 2002, p. 386.</footnote>

<footnote>Augustine, *De peccato originali* (= second book of *De gratia Christi et de peccato originali*) asserts that the Christian faith rests upon Adam (who sold us under the power of sin) and Christ (who redeemed us from sin): "The Christian faith, then, truly consists in the influence of these two men". *TESKE* (trans.), *ROTELLE* (ed.), *Answer to the Pelagians*, p. 447.</footnote>

<footnote>Augustine, *De civitate Dei* declares that all men descend from Adam (whatever their colour, shape, motion, sound, natural power is). 'Antipodes', people who live on the other side of the earth, do not exist. *DYSON* (trans., ed.), *Augustine*, p. 785-787.</footnote>

<footnote n="43">43 *Nota 1* (on p. 95): *De spiritu et littera* 28, 48: PL 44, c. 229. As reference to: "Humanae personae dignitas in eo sita est, quod homo ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei factus, et natura sua immediate ad Creatorem ordinatus, rationis lumen, liberae electionis potestatem, amoris flammam, rerumque corporalium dominium a Deo accepit" (p. 92: *Caput 5: De naturali et supernaturali dignitate personae humanae*; §23: *Homo factus ad imaginem Dei*).</footnote>

<footnote>Augustine: "Nonetheless, the image of God has not been removed from the human soul by the stain of earthly loves to such a point that not even the faintest outlines of it remain. [...] The very image of God, which godlessness had not completely wiped out, is renewed in the mind of those who believe through the New Testament—for it had remained true that the soul of a human being could not exist without being rational". *TESKE* (trans.), *ROTELLE* (ed.), *Answer to the Pelagians*, p. 181.</footnote>

<footnote n="44">44 *Nota 5* (on p. 108): *De natura et gratia* 48, 50: PL 44, c. 271. As reference to: "Immo etiam pravi contra castitatem interni actus deliberati severe prohibentur a Domino (cf. Mt. 5:28; 15:18-19). Neque dicatur haec, praesertim hodie, vitari non posse. Nam etiam soluti capaces sunt, humiliter implorante et</footnote>
Augustine's doctrine on unlawful human love – his example that in the community of the Church (body of Christ) the love for a prostitute leads to hell – is referred to in *De Ecclesia* to express that there are also sinners within the Church.<fnref n="45" /> Discussing the attitude towards 'separated' Christians, a footnote refers to the distinction Augustine makes between *ducere in via/Christo* and *ducere ad viam/Christum*. According to Augustine, non-Christians should be led to Christ. Once converted to Christianity they should be guided along the way of Christianity by Christ himself. The prepreatory schema applies this distinction on non-Catholic Christians and Catholic Christians.<fnref n="46" /> The conclusion of Augustine's *Regula* is alluded to in order to express that hierarchical relations within the Church should be inspired by love.<fnref n="47" />

iuvante Dei gratia, servandi castitatem, ut de ipsis iam declaravit S. Tridentina Synodus, et semper
docuit Ecclesia (Nota 5)" (p. 104: *Caput 2: De castitate solutorum*; §5: *De castitate in solutis*).

Augustine: “He [Pelagius] would not be correct in saying that not sinning depends only upon us, even though sinning would depend upon us. For even then there would be God’s help, and it would offer itself to those who want it, like a light to help healthy eyes to see. [...] And so, I am astonished at the disposition of his heart that allows him to think that not sinning is up to us, even without the help of the medicine of our savior, and to maintain that the ability not to sin comes from our nature. And yet, it is so obvious that our nature had been corrupted that the failure to see this is a mark of a still greater corruption”. *TESKE* (trans.), *ROTELLE* (ed.), *Answer to the Pelagians*, p. 253.

Augustine preaches in *Sermo 349* on charity, and distinguishes divine, lawful human, and unlawful human love. *Sermo 349, 2:* “So, to give a quick instance, the human charity by which one’s wife is loved is lawful; by which a prostitute, or someone else’s wife is loved, unlawful. Even in the streets and market place the lawful kind of charity is preferred to the prostitute variety; while in the house of God, in the temple of God, in the city of Christ, in the body of Christ, the love of a prostitute leads the lover straight to hell”. *ROTELLE* (ed.), *HILL* (trans., notes), *Sermons 3/10* (341-400), *On Various Subjects*, p. 101.

Augustine: “*Lead me in your way, Lord, and I will walk in your truth.* Your way and your truth are your life, which is Christ. The Body is on its way to him, but also draws its life from him: *I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life* (Jn 14:6). *Lead me in your way, Lord.* In what way? *I will walk in your truth.* It is one thing for him to bring you to the way, and another for him to lead you along it. Look at humankind – everywhere poor, everywhere in need of help. Those who are adrift from the way are not Christians, or are not yet Catholics; they must be led to the way. But once they have been guided to the way, and have become Catholics in Christ, they must be led along by him in the way itself, to make sure they do not fall. They are now walking in the way; there is no doubt of that. *Lead me in your way, Lord.* I am certainly on the way, Lord, your way, but lead me in it. *And I will walk in your truth:* with you to lead me I shall not go astray, but I will if you let go of me”. *Maria BOULDING* (trans.), *John E. ROTELLE* (ed., notes), *Expositions of the Psalms: 73-98* (The works of saint Augustine: a translation for the 21st century, 3/18), *New York, 2002*, p. 235.

<footnote n="45">45 *Nota 40* (on p. 13): *Sermo 349, 2: PL 39, c. 1530*. As reference to: “In eo (= in Christo Iesu) tamen non omnia membra sanctitate virescunt, quia aegrota in ipso membra constituant quae nempe gratia et caritate privata, saltem virtute fidei cum Christo Capite iunguntur* (p. 11: *Caput 1: De ecclesiae militantis natura; §5: Enucleatio figurae corporis*).</footnote>

<footnote n="46">46 *Nota 17* (on p. 19): “Nota distinctionem S. Augustini: *“Ducere in via et ad viam; ducere in Christo et ad Christum”*. Cf. *In Ps. 85, 15: PL 37, c. 1092*”. As reference to: “Nam fidei illi communi in Christum accedit eiusdem consecrationis baptismalis participatio; orationum, expiationum et beneficiorum spiritualium aliqua saltem communio; immo aliqua in Spiritu Sancto coniunctio, quippe qui non solum donis et gratiis in ipso mystico Corpore operatur, sed sua virtute, non exclusa gratia sanctificante, etiam extra venerandum illud Corpus agit, ut fratres separati, modo a Christo statuto, eidem incorporentur”* (p. 16 *Caput 2: De membris ecclesiae militantis eiusdemque necessitate ad salutem*; §10: *Unio cum separatis*).</footnote>

<footnote n="47">47 *Nota 6* (on p. 63): *Regula ad Servos Dei 11: PL 32, c. 1348*. As reference to: “Christi auctoritate ornati, sciant etiam se induere debere imaginem boni Pastoris; subditos sincera caritate diligant, et studeant plus amari quam timeri (Nota 6), semper memores subditorum et praepositorum unum esse Dominum</footnote>
*De Beata Maria Virgine Matre Dei et Matre Hominum* furnishes it’s central propositions with allusions to Augustine. Christ is born from a woman in order that both sexes are involved in mankind’s salvation.<fnref n="48" /> Augustine serves as an example for the doctrine of the virginal birth of Christ.<fnref n="49" />

VAGUE AND INCORRECT USE OF AUGUSTINE

Some six references to Augustine in the preparatory documents seem to be incorrect, or are at least very vague.

*De Fontibus Revelationis* substantiates the idea of perfection of the world by quoting *De libero arbitrio*, while the latter only deals with God’s perfection.<fnref n="50" /> *De Deposito Fidei Pure Custodiendo* refers to a paragraph in *Contra Iulianum* which deals with Adam and Eve’s shame for their nakedness as punishment for their first sin. This reference functions as a note to the general chapter title *De peccato originali in filliis Adae*, which

in caelis, apud quem nulla est acceptio personarum (cf. Eph. 6:9)” (p. 61: *Caput 8: De auctoritate et oboedientia in ecclesia; §38: De relatione inter praeepositos et subditos et de iure criticae liberae*).

Augustine: “When you heed these observances with fidelity and piety, in the name of Christ, you will make progress and we shall experience no little joy over your salvation. Amen”. George LAWLESS (trans.), *Augustine of Hippo and his Monastic Rule*, Oxford, 1987, p. 79.

Augustine: “Question 11: Why was Christ born of a woman? When God sets free, he does not free a part, but he frees the whole of that which chances to be in danger. Therefore the Wisdom and Power of God, who is called the only begotten Son, has declared mankind’s deliverance through the assumption of human nature. But mankind’s deliverance had to be evidenced among both sexes. Therefore, since it was needful to become a man, which is the more honorable sex, it reasonably followed that the deliverance of the female sex be seen that man’s birth from a woman”. Louise MOSHER, *Saint Augustine. Eighty-three Different Questions* (The Fathers of the Church, 70), Washington (DC) 1982, p. 42.

Despite the fact that Augustine, especially in his sermons, stresses the juxtaposition Eve-Mary: by Eve death came into the world (by giving in to sin, causing the fall and original sin) and by Mary life (by giving birth to Christ, who saves mankind from original sin). The schema does however not refer to one of these texts of Augustine.

Augustine: “For God is great not by mass but by power. [...] This power brought forth the members of the infant through the inviolated virginal womb of his mother, the same power that afterwards brought the members of the man through closed doors”. Roland J. TESKE (trans., notes), Boniface RAMSEY (notes, ed.), *Letters 100-155* (The works of saint Augustine: a translation for the 21st century, 2/2), Hyde Park/New York (NY), 2003, p. 216-217.

Augustine: “[...] each one of us has his own rational mind”. (p. 215.) “God exists truly and most perfectly. [...] I accept all this, overwhelmed as I am with an incredible joy which I am unable to express to you in words. I declare that it is absolutely certain. I do so, prompted by that inner voice which makes me want to hear the truth itself and to cling to it. I not only grant that this is good, but also that it is the highest good and the source of happiness”. (p. 149.) Robert P. RUSSELL (trans.), *The Free Choice of the Will* (The Fathers of the Church, 59), Washington (DC), 1968, p. 63-241, p. 125.

<footnote n="48">48 *Nota 6* (on p. 102): *Quaestiones Octoginta tres, q. 11: PL 40, c. 14.* As reference to: “Cum igitur aeterni Patris Verbum hominis naturam ex muliere sumere voluerit ut, quemadmodum per feminam mors, ita et vita nobis per feminam oriretur, et sic liberatio ope utriusque sexus haberetur (*Nota 6*), non id ante perficit quam designatae matris, ex praevisis meritis Christi sublimiore modo redemptae, libera acceptatio accessiset (cf. Lc. 1, 38), ut Filius Dei incarnatione eius quosque Filius ac novus Adam Salvatorque mundi fieret” (p.93-94: §2: *De munere beatissimae Virginis Mariae in oeconomia nostrae salutis*).</footnote>

<footnote n="49">49 *Nota 31* (on p. 115-116): *Epistula 137 ad Volusianum 2, 8.* As reference to: “Omnino quoque oportebat, ut Filius, qui peculiari dilectionis affectu Matrem prosequebatur – quippe voluit corporalem integritatem Matris in ipsomet partu incorruptam atque illibatam manere (*Nota 31*), [...]” (p. 97: §4: *De singularibus privilegiis Dei hominumque Matris*).</footnote>

<footnote n="50">50 *Nota 2* (on p. 32): *De libero arbitrio 2, 7, 15 usque 15, 39: PL 32, c. 1249-1262.*</footnote>
deals with original sin in globo. Augustine's text on shame which is referred to thus deals only with one specific aspect of Augustine's doctrine on the presence of original sin in Adam's progeny; and of the issue considered in this schema.<fnref n="51" />

*De Ecclesia* considers as *sensu proprio* members of the Church: baptised, in unity with the faith and the authority of the Church. In this context, the schema considers the place of catechumens as members of the Church by referring to a text from *De baptismo*, in which Augustine declares that he prefers a virtuous and pious catechumen above a baptised heretic, however, he does not state at this juncture whether this catechumen belongs to the Church, unlike in other places where he does state as such.<fnref n="52" /> The same document refers to *Epistula 209* as an example that in the past, sometimes, the bishop ordination was given to somebody who was not yet a priest, but this letter does not mention this fact.<fnref n="53" />

*De Beata Maria Virgine Matre Dei et Matre Hominum* refers to *Sermo 215* in order to discuss the part Mary had in her Son's redemptive work. This matter however is not really dealt with in the sermon in question, in which Augustine preaches that Mary

<footnote n="51">51 *Nota 1* (on p. 57): *Contra Iulianum 4, 16, 82.* As reference to the chapter title: *Caput 8: De peccato originali in filliis Adae* (p. 54).</footnote>

<footnote>Augustine deals in this passage with Adam and Eva's shame for their nakedness as punishment. *TESKE (trans.), ROTELLE (notes, ed.), Answer to the Pelagians*, p. 428-429.</footnote>

<footnote n="52">52 *Nota 12* (on p. 19): *De baptismo 4, 21, 28: PL 43, c. 172.* As reference to: "Voto autem ad Ecclesiam ordinantur non catechumeni dumtaxat (*Nota 12*), qui, Spiritu Sancto movente, conscio et explicito desiderio ad Ecclesiam aspirant, [...]" (p. 15: *Caput 2: De membris ecclesiae militantis eiusdemque necessitate ad salutem*; §9: *Quinam membra sensu proprio*).</footnote>

<footnote>Augustine: "Now, in this matter I do not hesitate for a moment to place the Catholic catechumen, who is burning with love for God, before the baptized heretic; nor yet do we thereby do dishonor to the sacrament of baptism which the latter has already received, the former not as yet; nor do we consider that the sacrament of the catechumen is to be preferred to the sacrament of baptism, when we acknowledge that some catechumens are better and more faithful than some baptized persons". However, Augustine complements, to be admitted to the Kingdom of heaven, one has to be a good person (truly converted), has to be baptised and in unity with the Catholic Church. J. R. KING (trans.), Chester D. HARTRANFT (notes, ed.), *Writings in Connection with the Donatist Controversy* (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 4), Edingburgh/Grand Rapids (MI), 1996 (reprint), p. 369-675, p. 460.</footnote>

<footnote>Cf. *Ad Gentes 2, 2* deals with the same topic, referring to *In lohannis evangelium tractatus 11, 4* which formulates clearer that cathechumens belong to the Church.</footnote>

<footnote n="53">53 *Nota 4* (on p. 21): *Epistula 209: PL 33, c. 953.* This reference is given as an example that: "Certum est saepe datum esse consecrationem episcopalem subiecto qui nondum erat sacerdos". As reference to the position that the sacrament of bishop ordination is administered by bishops: this is an established tradition, and one has to be priest before being ordained bishop (p. 20: *Caput 3: De episcopatu ut supremo gradu sacramenti ordinis et de sacerdotio; §11: Episcopatus ut Sacramentum*).</footnote>

<footnote>Augustine writes to pope Celestine for his help against bishop Antoninus of Fussala, made bishop by Augustine, but who was accused of serious crimes. In *Epistula 209*, 3 Augustine writes that he —before appointing Antonius— had someone else in mind: a priest, and to ordain him bishop he invited the primate of Numidia to perform the episcopal ordination. This man however changed his mind, and in order to prevent that the primate had to return without accomplishing the purpose he came to Hippo for, Augustine suggested Antonius. Antonius was, though this is not described in this letter, at the moment only a lector who was only twenty years old. Cf. *Serge LANCEL, Saint Augustine*, London, 2002, p. 252-257. Jane E. MERDINGER, *Antoninus of Fussala*, in Allan D. FITZGERALD (ed.), *Augustine through the Ages. An Encyclopedia*, Grand Rapids/Cambridge, 1999, p. 47-48; Ch. MUNIER, *Antoninus Fussalensis Episcopus*, in Constantin MAYER, Karl Heinz CHELIUS, *Augustinus-Lexikon*, Vol. I/3, Basel, 1988, p. 378-380.</footnote>
conceived Christ by believing in him.<fnref n="54" /> The same document alludes to *De Trinitate* 13, to express that God by making Mary (female) conceive Christ (male) wanted to indicate that both sexes will be saved, while Augustine in this passage does not write on the salvation of both sexes.<fnref n="55" />

## PROMULGATED CONSTITUTIONS, DECLARATIONS AND DECREES<fnref n="56" />

The Council documents contain fifty seven different explicit references (and four general references) to Augustine in fourty notes.<fnref n="57" />

### LITERAL CITATIONS OF AUGUSTINE

The promulgated documents contain sixteen literal citations of the bishop of Hippo.

The dogmatic constitution *Dei Verbum* contains two citations of Augustine, one to express the relation between the Old and the New Testament ("the New Testament be hidden in the Old and the Old be made manifest in the New")<fnref n="58" /> and one to exhort all who are active in the ministry of the word to read and study Scripture

<footnote n="54">54 *Nota 9* (on p. 104): "Cf. etiam *Sermo 215*, 4: PL 38, c. 1074. "Est consensus in Salvatorem incarnandum qui [Mt. 1, 21] 'salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum"'. As reference to: "Quo consensu, Maria, filia Adae, facta est non tantummodo mater Iesu, unici divini Mediatoris ac Remptoris, verum etiam cum eo et sub eo operam suam consociavit in humani generis redemptione peragenda" (p. 94: §2: *De munere beatissimae Virginis Mariae in oeconomia nostrae salutis*). Augustine: "[...] the blessed Mary herself conceived by believing the one whom she bore by believing". *ROTELLE* (ed.), *HILL* (trans., notes), *Sermons 3/6* (184-229Z), *On the Liturgical Seasons*, p. 162. Mt. 1:21 is quoted and explained many times by Augustine (in his *medicus*-typology), but not here in *Sermo 215*, 4.</footnote>

<footnote n="55">55 *Nota 6* (on p. 102): *De Trinitate* 13, 18, 23: PL 42, c. 1032. Augustine deals in *De Trinitate* 13, 18, 23 with the fact that Mary conceived with faith as a virgin (opposed to by sexual activity and with lust) but does not stress the fact that by the conception by Mary God wanted to express the salvation of both sexes.</footnote>

<footnote n="56">56 The quotations from the Vatican II documents are taken from http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm, accessed September 2010. Copyright 1965, by Libreria Editrice Vaticana.</footnote>

<footnote n="57">57 The presence of Augustine in specific documents is discussed in: *José MORÁN, La presenza di S. Agostino nel Concilio Vaticano II, in Augustinianum, 6* (1966), p. 460-488; *Lumen Gentium*: p. 463-475, *Ad Gentes*: p. 475-479, *Dei Verbum*: p. 479-481, *Sacrosanctum Concilium*: p. 481-482, *Gaudium et Spes*: p. 481, p. 484-487, *Presbyterorum Ordinis*: p. 481, *Optatam Totius*: p. 481, *Dignitatis Humanae*: p. 483-484; *Jesús ÁLVAREZ MAESTRO, Presencia de San Agustín en el Concilio Vaticano II, in Isaac GONZÁLEZ MARCOS* (ed.), *Concilio Vaticano II. 40 años después*, Madrid, 2006, p. 231-281; *Lumen Gentium*: p. 237-250, *Dei Verbum*: p. 250-252, *Sacrosanctum Concilium*: p. 252-254, *Gaudium et Spes*: p. 254-258, *Christus Dominus*: p. 258-259, *Presbyterorum Ordinis*: p. 259-261, *Optatam Totius*: p. 261-262, *Perfectae Caritatis*: p. 262-263, *Apostolicam Actuositatem*: p. 263-265, *Orientalium Ecclesiarum*: p. 265-266, *Ad Gentes*: p. 266-269, *Unitatis Redintegratio*: p. 269-271, *Inter Mirifica*: p. 271, *Dignitatis Humanae*: p. 271-272, *Gravissimum Educationis*: p. 272-273, *Nostra Aetate*: p. 273-274.</footnote>

<footnote n="58">58 *Note 2: Quaestiones in Heptateuchum 2, 73: PL 34, c. 623.* As reference to: "God, the inspirer and author of both Testaments, wisely arranged that the New Testament be hidden in the Old and the Old be made manifest in the New. (Note 2) For, though Christ established the new covenant in His blood (see Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25), still the books of the Old Testament with all their parts, caught up into the proclamation of the Gospel, (3) acquire and show forth their full meaning in the New Testament (see Matt. 5:17; Luke 24:27; Rom. 16:25-26; 2 Cor. 14:16) and in turn shed light on it and explain it" (Chapter 4: *The Old Testament*; Art. 16).</footnote>
themselves (“an empty preacher of the word of God outwardly, who is not a listener to it inwardly”).<fnref n="59" />

*Lumen Gentium* contains several citations from Augustine. This document addresses the Augustinian triple aim of the sacrament of matrimony (expressing the unity between Christ and his Church, to sustain each other, to raise children) and states that not only celibacy but also chastity of married people is a gift from God.<fnref n="60" />

Regarding the mystery of the Church, the constitution of which belongs to God's predestination, the document declares: "In the present era of time the Church was constituted and, by the outpouring of the Spirit, was made manifest. At the end of time it will gloriously achieve completion, when, as is read in the Fathers, all the just, from Adam and 'from Abel, the just one, to the last of the elect,' (Note 2) will be gathered together with the Father in the universal Church".<fnref n="61" /> However, there is a slight

Augustine: “Loquere tu nobis, et non loquatur ad nos Deus, ne quando moriamur [Ex. 20:19]. Multum et solide significatur ad utetus testamentum timorem potius pertinere sicut ad nouum dilectionem, quamquam et in utere nouum lateat et in nouo utetus pateat. Quomodo autem tali populo tribuatur uidere uocem Dei, si hoc accipiumed est intellegere, cum sibi loqui Deum timeant ne moriantur, non satis elucet”(CCL 33 p. 106/1276; 1282).

Augustine holds this sermon on Jas. 1:19 (“but let each of you be quick to hear, but slow to speak”), and Jas. 1:22 (“but be doers of the word, and not hearers only”). These verses bear significance for preachers: “So on the strength of this utterance flowing from the wellspring of truth, through the absolutely truthful mouth of the apostle, I too make bold to add my own exhortation to you; and while I’m exhorting you, to take a look at myself. After all, it’s a futile preacher outwardly of God’s words, who isn’t also inwardly a listener”. For this reason the preacher also needs the prayers of his listeners. *ROTELLE* (ed.), *HILL* (trans., notes), *Sermons 3/5 (148-183)*, *On the New Testament*, p. 298.

As reference to: “Those of the faithful who are consecrated by Holy Orders are appointed to feed the Church in Christ’s name with the word and the grace of God. Finally, Christian spouses, in virtue of the sacrament of Matrimony, whereby they signify and partake of the mystery of that unity and fruitful love which exists between Christ and His Church, help each other to attain to holiness in their married life and in the rearing and education of their children. By reason of their state and rank in life they have their own special gift among the people of God” (*Chapter 2: On the people of God*; §11). Augustine stresses that both celibacy and chastity of married people are God’s gifts. “There [1Cor 7:7] he showed well enough that not only celibacy, but also the chastity of married people is a gift of God”. *TESKE* (trans.), *Answer to the Pelagians. 4: To the Monks of Hadrumetum and Provence*, p. 215-216.

Augustine's *Sermo 341* deals with the presence of Christ in the Scriptures, against the Arians. *Sermo 341, 11* has the idea of the *Totus Christus* as topic: Christ and the Church together as head and body. “All of us together are the members of Christ and his body; not only those of us who are in this place, but throughout the whole world; and not only those of us who are alive at this time, but what shall I say? From Abel the just right up to the end of the world, as long as people beget and are begotten,

<footnote n="59">59 Note 4: *Sermo* 179, 1: PL 38, c. 966. As reference to: “Therefore, all the clergy must hold fast to the Sacred Scriptures through diligent sacred reading and careful study, especially the priests of Christ and others, such as deacons and catechists who are legitimately active in the ministry of the word. This is to be done so that none of them will become “an empty preacher of the word of God outwardly, who is not a listener to it inwardly” (Note 4) since they must share the abundant wealth of the divine word with the faithful committed to them, especially in the sacred liturgy. The sacred synod also earnestly and especially urges all the Christian faithful, especially Religious, to learn by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures the “excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 3:8)” (*Chapter* 6: *Sacred Scripture in the life of the Church*; *Art. 25*).</footnote>

<footnote n="60">60 Note 7: “I Cor. 7, 7: Unusquisque proprium donum (idion charisma) habet ex Deo: alius quidem sic alius vero sic. Cfr. S. Augustinus, *De Dono Persev*. 14, 37: PL 45, 1015. Non tantum continenti Dei donum est, sed coniugatorum etiam castitas”.</footnote>

<footnote n="61">61 Note 2: *Sermo 341, 9, 11*: PL 39, c. 1499. As reference to: cf. above in full text (*Chapter 1: The mystery of the Church*; §2).</footnote>
difference in context. While the Church's doctrine of predestination is constructed by and on Augustine's teaching, the original context in Augustine's *Sermo* 341 of the sentence quoted by *Lumen Gentium* is not that of predestination, but the stress that all believers —from the present, past and future— belong to one and the same body of Christ, the so-called *Totus Christus*. Augustine, moreover, very rarely deals with the topic of predestination in his sermons. *De civitate Dei* is also quoted to help to define the Church, which is “like a stranger in a foreign land, presses forward amid the persecutions of the world and the consolations of God”.<fnref n="62" /> Again, the context is somewhat different. While, according to *Lumen Gentium*, the Church suffers from the fact that sinners exist (and the Church embraces those sinners), Augustine does not have in mind sinners in general but very specifically heretics. Another sermon, *Sermo* 340, is quoted to express the pastoral ministry of bishops: “What I am for you terrifies me; what I am with you consoles me. For you I am a bishop; but with you I am a Christian. The former is a duty; the latter a grace. The former is a danger; the latter, salvation”.<fnref n="63" />

The Council Fathers quoted Augustine in *Lumen Gentium* in order to understand the relationship between Mary and the Church: as physical mother of Christ she helped the faithful, the members of the Church, to be born in the Church – the body

of the just who make this passage through this life, all that now —that is, not in this place but in this life— all that are going to be born after us, all constitute the one body of Christ; while they are each individual members of Christ”. ROTELLE (ed.), HILL (trans., notes), *Sermons 3/10 (341-400)*, *On Various Subjects*, p. 26.

Augustine: “Above all, great consolations come when those who err are corrected; for those consolations flood the souls of the pious with a joy as great as were the pains that tormented them at the thought that those who erred might be lost. In this fashion the Church proceeds on her pilgrimage in this world, in these evil days: a pilgrimage which began not simply in the time of the corporeal presence of Christ and His apostles, but with Abel himself, the first righteous man, slain by his ungodly brother; and which extends from that time even to the end of this world, amid the persecutions of the world and the consolations of God”. R. W. DYSON (trans., ed.), *Augustine. The City of God against the Pagans* (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought), Cambridge, 1998, p. 900.

<footnote n="62">⁶² Note 14: *De civitate Dei* 18, 51, 2: PL 41, c. 614. As reference to: “The Church, “like a stranger in a foreign land, presses forward amid the persecutions of the world and the consolations of God” (Note 14), announcing the cross and death of the Lord until He comes. By the power of the risen Lord it is given strength that it might, in patience and in love, overcome its sorrows and its challenges, both within itself and from without, and that it might reveal to the world, faithfully though darkly, the mystery of its Lord until, in the end, it will be manifested in full light” (Chapter 1: *The mystery of the Church*; §8).</footnote>

<footnote n="63">⁶³ Note 1: *Sermo* 340, 1: PL 38, c. 1483. As reference to: “Therefore, from divine choice the laity have Christ for their brothers who though He is the Lord of all, came not to be served but to serve. They also have for their brothers those in the sacred ministry who by teaching, by sanctifying and by ruling with the authority of Christ feed the family of God so that the new commandment of charity may be fulfilled by all. St. Augustine puts this very beautifully when he says: “What I am for you terrifies me; what I am with you consoles me. For you I am a bishop; but with you I am a Christian. The former is a duty; the latter a grace. The former is a danger; the latter, salvation”” (Chapter 4: *The Laity*; §32). Augustine preached *Sermo* 340 at the anniversary of his bishop ordination and he talked on the burden of the episcopal office. He asks his community to pray for him. He opens the sermon as follows: “Where I’m terrified by what I am for you, I am given comfort by what I am with you. For you I am a bishop, with you, after all, I am a Christian. The first is the name of an office undertaken, the second a name of grace; that one means danger, this one salvation”. ROTELLE (ed.), HILL (trans., notes), *Sermons 3/9 (306-340A)*, *On the Saints*, p. 292.</footnote>
of Christ—,<fnref n="64" /> and she is a model for the Church to keep, similar to a vir original purity, “integral faith, solid hope, sincere love”.<fnref n="65" />

Gaudium *et Spes* declares that the dignity of the human vocation and the desires of the human heart are rooted in it’s being created by God towards God. Here the famous opening sentence of the *Confessiones* is given: “Thou hast made us for Thyself, ..., and our hearts are restless till they rest in Thee”.<fnref n="66" />

Three citations to Augustine occur in the decree on mission activity in the Church, *Ad Gentes*. First, the mission activities of the apostles, who founded the Church and

<footnote n="64">⁶⁴ Note 3: *De sancta virginitate* 6: PL 40, c. 399. As reference to: “Redeemed by reason of the merits of her Son and united to Him by a close and indissoluble tie, she is endowed with the high office and dignity of being the Mother of the Son of God, by which account she is also the beloved daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit. Because of this gift of sublime grace she far surpasses all creatures, both in heaven and on earth. At the same time, however, because she belongs to the offspring of Adam she is one with all those who are to be saved. She is “the mother of the members of Christ . . . having cooperated by charity that faithful might be born in the Church, who are members of that Head”. (Note 3) Wherefore she is hailed as a pre-eminent and singular member of the Church, and as its type and excellent exemplar in faith and charity. The Catholic Church, taught by the Holy Spirit, honors her with filial affection and piety as a most beloved mother” (Chapter 8: *The blessed virgin Mary, Mother of God in the mystery of Christ and the Church*; §1: *Introduction*).</footnote>

<footnote>Augustine: “So that woman, and she alone, was both a mother and a virgin, not only spiritually but also physically. She is not spiritually the mother of our head, as that is the Savior himself. On the contrary, she was born spiritually from him, as everyone who believes in him, including her, is rightly called a child of the bridegroom. On the other hand, clearly she is the mother of his members, which is ourselves, since she has cooperated with charity for the birth of the faithful in the Church. They are the members of that head, but she is physically the mother of the head himself”. KEARNEY (trans.), HUNTER, JROTELLE (eds.), *Marriage and Virginity*, p. 70-71.</footnote>

<footnote n="65">⁶⁵ Note 20: *In lohannis evangelium tractatus* 13, 12: PL 35, c. 1499. As reference to: “The Church indeed, contemplating her hidden sanctity, imitating her charity and faithfully fulfilling the Father’s will, by receiving the word of God in faith becomes herself a mother. By her preaching she brings forth to a new and immortal life the sons who are born to her in baptism, conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of God. She herself is a virgin, who keeps the faith given to her by her Spouse whole and entire. Imitating the mother of her Lord, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, she keeps with virginal purity an entire faith, a firm hope and a sincere charity” (Chapter 8: *The blessed virgin Mary, Mother of God in the mystery of Christ and the Church*; §3: *On the Blessed Virgin and the Church*; §24).</footnote>

<footnote>Augustine preaches in *Tractate* 13, 12 on John 3:29, and quotes 2Cor 11:2-3: “For I betrothed you to one man, to present you to Christ as a chaste virgin. [...] But I fear, [...], that just as the serpent led Eve astray with his cunning, so your senses may be corrupted from the chastity which is in Christ”. Augustine comments: “The whole Church is being called a virgin. The members of the Church are diverse”. Some live as virgins. “And these are the Church’s more honorable members. Other members have not kept virginity in the body, but all keep virginity of the mind. What is virginity of the mind? Integral faith, solid hope, sincere love”. Edmund HILL (trans.), ALLAN D. FITZGERALD (ed.), *Homilies on the Gospel of John* 1-40 (The works of saint Augustine: a translation for the 21st century, 3/12), New York NY, 2009, p. 254.</footnote>

<footnote n="66">⁶⁶ Note 19: *Confessiones* 1, 1: PL 32, c. 661. As reference to: “Above all the Church knows that her message is in harmony with the most secret desires of the human heart when she champions the dignity of the human vocation, restoring hope to those who have already despaired of anything higher than their present lot. Far from diminishing man, her message brings to his development light, life and freedom. Apart from this message nothing will avail to fill up the heart of man: ‘Thou hast made us for Thyself,’ O Lord, ‘and our hearts are restless till they rest in Thee!’” (Part 1: *The Church and man’s calling; Chapter 1: The dignity of the human person*; §21).</footnote>

<footnote>Augustine: “You arouse us so that praising you may bring us joy, because you have made us and drawn us to yourself, and our heart is unquiet until it rests in you”. BOULDING (trans.), *The Confessions*, p. 39.</footnote>
who followed the example of Christ, are described in Augustine's words.<fnref n="67" /> Second, a citation from Sermo 267 is used in a note to explain the operation of the Spirit within the Church as the working of the human soul in the body.<fnref n="68" /> Thirdly, in another note, concerning the aim of the Church's missionary activity – namely that all humanity together could pray the “Our Father”—, Augustine is cited to formulate this hope.<fnref n="69" /> The contexts are somewhat different, while Augustine is writing on the correct love for temporal things, Ad Gentes applies this citation on missionary activity.

The documents pertaining to priests frequently refer to Augustine. The decree *Presbyterorum Ordinis* uses Augustine as an authority to explain that the sacrifice of

<footnote n="67">⁶⁷ *Note 2: Enarratio in Psalmum 44, 23:* PL 36, c. 508; CChr 38, p. 510. As reference to: “The Apostles themselves, on whom the Church was founded, following in the footsteps of Christ, “preached the word of truth and begot churches”. (*Note 2*) It is the duty of their successors to make this task endure “so that the word of God may run and be glorified” (2 Thess. 3:1) and the kingdom of God be proclaimed and established throughout the world” (*Preface*; §1).</footnote>

<footnote>Augustine: “The churches are the apostles’ daughters, kings’ daughters. Christ is the “King of kings” (Rev. 19:16) and under him the apostles too are kings, for to them it was said, “You will sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Mt. 19:28). They preached the word of truth, and through it they begot churches, not for themselves but for him”. *BOULDING* (trans.), *ROTELLE* (ed., notes), *Expositions of the Psalms: 33-50*, p. 301. Cf. *Presbyterorum Ordinis 2*, 1, §4, *Note 1*.</footnote>

<footnote n="68">⁶⁸ *Note 10: Sermo 267, 4* (PL 38, c. 1231): “The Holy Spirit does in the whole Church what the soul does in all the members of one body”. Cf. Const. Dogm. *Lumen Gentium*, 7 (together with *Note 8*). As reference to: “Throughout all ages, the Holy Spirit makes the entire Church “one in communion and in ministering; He equips her with various gifts of a hierarchical and charismatic nature,” a giving life, soul —like, to ecclesiastical institutions (*Note 10*) and instilling into the hearts of the faithful the same mission spirit which impelled Christ Himself. Sometimes He even visibly anticipates the Apostles’ acting, just as He unceasingly accompanies and directs it in different ways” (*Chapter 1*; §6). Augustine delivers Sermo 267 on Pentecost day, and he preaches that the Holy Spirit is to the Church what the soul is to the human body. “In fact, what the soul is to the human body, the Holy Spirit is to the body of Christ, which is the Church. The Holy Spirit does in the whole Church what the soul does in all the parts of one body”. Thus, seperated from the Church (as the Donatists are), one is like an amputated body part, one lacks life. *ROTELLE* (ed.), *HILL* (trans., notes), *Sermons 3/7* (230-272B), *On the Liturgical Seasons*, p. 276.</footnote>

<footnote n="69">⁶⁹ *Note 19: De Sermone Domini in monte 1, 41:* “Let us love what can lead us to that kingdom where no one says, ‘My Father,’ but all say to the one God: ‘Our Father’ (PL 34, c. 1250)”. As reference to: “Finally, by means of this missionary activity, God is fully glorified, ... And so at last, there will be realized the plan of our Creator who formed man to His own image and likeness, when all who share one human nature, regenerated in Christ through the Holy Spirit and beholding the glory of God, will be able to say with one accord: “Our Father.” (*note 19*)” (*Chapter 1*; §7).</footnote>

<footnote>Augustine writes on love of temporal relationships: one should love in his wife and parents that what one will love after resurrection. “Thus it is characteristic of a good Christian to love in one woman the creature of God whom he desires to be transformed and renewed, but to hate corruptible and mortal intimacy and copulation —that is, to love the human being in her but to hate that which makes her a wife”. “The same is to be understood for father and mother and the other ties of blood, that in them we hate the lot of humankind to be born and to die, while loving what can be taken with us to that kingdom where no one says ‘my father,’ but all say *our Father* (Matt 6:9) to the one God; not ‘my mother,’ but all say *our Mother* to *that Jerusalem* (Gal. 4:26); not ‘my brother,’ but ‘our brother’ indifferently to all. Yes, our marriage with Him, once we have all been brought into one will be as to one spouse (2Cor 11:2; Eph/ 5:22) who by the shedding of His blood freed us from the prostitution of this world. The disciple of Christ, therefore, must hate the transient in them whom he wants to come with him into the everlasting. And this hatred will be in proportion to his love of them”. John J. JEPSON (trans., notes), St. Augustine. *The Lord’s Sermon on the Mount* (Ancient Christian Writers, 5), Cork, 1948, p. 51-52.</footnote>
small difference in nuance. While *Optatam Totius* is discussing the pastoral ministry of priests, Augustine intends to speak about the office of bishops.

## ALLUSIONS TO AUGUSTINE

Augustine is alluded or referred to in the Councilary documents 36 times.

Dei Verbum opens by expressing the wish: “to set forth authentic doctrine on divine revelation and how it is handed on, so that by hearing the message of salvation the whole world may believe, by believing it may hope, and by hoping it may love”. This wish is annotated by a reference to Augustine, which actually only deals with the latter aspect of this wish, namely love. According to Augustine the intention of incarnation is that man, by learning how God loves man, should come to love his/her neighbour and God.<fnref n="74" />

Dei Verbum refers to Augustine's writings to contend, on the one hand, with the divine inspiration and infallibility of Scripture,<fnref n="75" /> and on the other hand, the

fellow-priests, they bear witness to that unity that attracts men to Christ. They should learn to take part with a generous heart in the life of the whole Church in accord with what St. Augustine wrote: 'to the extent that one loves the Church of Christ, to that extent does he possess the Holy Spirit'. The students should understand most clearly that they are not destined for domination or for honors but are given over totally to the service of God and to the pastoral ministry. With a particular concern should they be so formed in priestly obedience, in a simple way of life and in the spirit of self-denial that they are accustomed to giving up willingly even those things which are permitted but are not expedient, and to conform themselves to Christ crucified" (Chapter 4: *The careful development of the spiritual training*; §9).

This quote originates from *In Iohannis evangelium tractatus* 32, 8, in which Augustine discusses John 7:37-39, against Donatism. "Therefore, we also receive the Holy Spirit if we love the Church, if we are joined together by love, if we rejoice in the Catholic name and faith. Let us believe, brothers, that as much as each one loves Christ's Church, so much does he have the Holy Spirit". "Therefore, we have the Holy Spirit if we love the Church; but we love if we are within its unity and love". Rettig, St. Augustine, p. 47-48.

Augustine: "If, therefore, Christ came chiefly for this reason that man might learn how much God loves him, and might learn this to the end that he might begin to glow with love of Him by whom he was first loved, and so might love his neighbor at the bidding and after the example of Him who made Himself man's neighbour by loving him, when instead of being His neighbor he was wandering far from Him; if moreover, all divine Scripture that was written before was written to foretell the coming of the Lord, and if whatever has since been committed to writing and established by divine authority tells of Christ and counsels love, then it is evident that on these two commandments of the love of God and the love of our neighbor depend not merely the whole law and the Prophets (which at the time when the Lord uttered these precepts were as yet only Holy Scripture), but also all the inspired books that have been written at a later period for our welfare and handed down to us". Joseph P. Christopher (trans., notes), *St. Augustine. The First Catechetical Instruction* (Ancient Christian Writers, 2), Westminster (Maryland)/London, 1946, p. 23-24.

<footnote n="74">74 Note 1: *De Catechizandis Rudibus* 4, 8: PL 40, c. 316. As reference to: *Preface*; *Article 1*.</footnote>

<footnote n="75">75 Note 5: *De Genesi ad litteram* 2, 9, 20: PL 34, c. 270-271; *Epistula* 82, 3: PL 33, c. 277; CSEL 34/2, p. 354. As reference to: "Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation" (Chapter 3: *Sacred Scripture, its inspiration and divine interpretation*; *Article 11*). Augustine deals with the question of the shape of material heaven in *De Genesi ad litteram*. Are natural sciences contradicted by the description of heaven in the Bible? The Bible never errs, but does not always intend to give scientific descriptions. "But the credibility of Scripture is at stake, and as I have indicated more than once, there is danger that a man uninstructed in divine revelation, discovering something in Scripture or hearing from it something that seems to be at variance with</footnote>
contextuality from which several books of the Bible were composed.<fnref n="76" /> Here we have to note a small difference: in the passages referred to in *Dei Verbum* Augustine actually wrote that the authors of the Scriptures did not err, something quite different than the claim that Scripture does not err, while acknowledging, at the same time, that Scripture is a human expression of God.

*Lumen Gentium* expresses the working of the H. Spirit in the Church (like a soul in a body) by referring to Augustine’s *Sermo 268*, which is quoted in *Ad Gentes*. This comparison by Augustine is intended to be anti-heretical: all who are outside the Church do not have the Spirit, and are dead, just as a separated body member does not have the soul anymore which makes a body(part) alive. This polemical intent is not present in *Lumen Gentium*.<fnref n="77" /> The dogmatic constitution on the Church explains

the knowledge he has acquired, may resolutely withhold his assent in other matters where Scripture presents useful admonitions, narratives, or declarations. Hence, I must say briefly that in the matter of the shape of heaven the sacred writers knew the truth, but that the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men these facts that would be of no avail for their salvation”. (p. 59). John Hammond TAYLOR (trans., notes), *St. Augustine. The Litteral Meaning of Genesis* (Ancient Christian Writers, 41), New York/Mahwah, 1982, p. 58-60.

*Epistula 82* is a letter from Augustine to Jerome: “For I admit to Your Charity, I learned to show this reverence and respect only to those books of the scriptures that are now called canonical so that I most firmly believe that none of their authors erred in writing anything”. “[...] [books] of the prophets and the apostles, for with regard to their writings it is wicked to doubt that they are free from all error”. *TESKE* (trans.), *ROTELLE* (notes, ed.), *Letters 1-99*, p. 316.

Augustine explains in *De civitate Dei* that the promises of the Old Testament apply to what they prefigure, and not to what it literally was connected with. When the Old Testament promises eternity for the priesthood, this does not apply to the Jewish priesthood and kingdom, but to the priesthood and kingdom it prefigures. Christ. DYSON (trans., ed.), *Augustine*, p. 785-787.

This is rather a practical application of the general exegetical principle explained in *Dei Verbum*.

Augustine offers rules and considerations for exegesis in *De doctrina christiana*. “Again one has to be on one’s guard against supposing that whatever in the Old Testament, with respect to the condition of those times, is not an infamy nor a crime either, even when understood literally and not figuratively, can be transferred also to these times and put into practice in life today”. HILL (trans.), *ROTELLE* (notes, ed.), *Teaching Christianity*, p. 181.

Augustine: “What our spirit, that is our soul, is to the parts or members of our body, that the Holy Spirit is to the members of Christ, to the body of Christ”. Augustine here quotes Eph 4:4: “one body and one spirit”. As our body is not coordinated and is actually dead without our soul, people who are separated from the Church lack the Spirit. They have the sacraments, baptism, the creed, but not the

<footnote n="76">76 *Note 6: De civitate Dei 17, 6, 2:* PL 41, c. 537; CSEL 40/2, p. 228; and *Note 7: De doctrina christiana 3, 18, 26*; PL 34, c. 75-76. As reference to: “However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (*Note 6*) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words. To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to ‘literary forms’. For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture (*Note 7*)” (*Chapter 3: Sacred Scripture, its inspiration and divine interpretation; Article 12*).</footnote>

<footnote n="77">77 *Note 8: Sermo 268, 2:* PL 38, c. 232, “et alibi”. As reference to: “In order that we might be unceasingly renewed in Him, He has shared with us His Spirit who, existing as one and the same being in the Head and in the members, gives life to, unifies and moves through the whole body. This He does in such a way that His work could be compared by the holy Fathers with the function which the principle of life, that is, the soul, fulfills in the human body” (*Chapter 1: The mystery of the Church*; 87).</footnote>
that members of the Church who sin, who do not persevere in charity, only belong bodily to the Church and not in their heart. This is a very Augustinian theme, and is hence substantiated with several references to the bishop of Hippo. Again we have to observe that the Vatican II document rather refers to sinners in general, while Augustine specifically envisaged heretics, i.e. Donatists.<fnref n="78" />

Another very Augustinian idea is that, however all Christians are called to a perfect and holy life, they all are sinners, in constant need for God's grace and merciful forgiveness.<fnref n="79" /> Augustine is referred to in the remark that charity should rule

Spirit. They have the outward form, but not the inward Spirit. Augustine is clearly refering to the Donatists. ROTELLE (ed.), HILL (trans., notes), *Sermons 3/7 (230-272B)*, *On the Liturgical Seasons*, p. 279.

Augustine reacts explicitly against Donatism in *De baptismo*. In 5, 28, 39 he stresses that baptism is only effective in the Church: “Certainly it is clear that, when we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body, since all who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark through the same water, through which all who are in heart without, whether they are also in body without or not, die as enemies of unity”. (p. 478.) In 3, 19, 26 he writes that also in the Church, there are sinners (p. 444-445). He repeats in 5, 18, 24 that also in the Church there are baptised people, who however sin: because of these sins, they are dead, but still their baptism is alive. (p. 472.) KING (trans.), HARTRANFT (ed., notes), *Writings in Connection with the Donatist controversy*, p. 367-651.

Augustine preaches on John 13:21-26 in *In Iohannis evangelium tractatus* 51, 2: “And so Jesus was disturbed in spirit, and he bore witness and said, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, one of you will betray me.’” “One of you” in number, not in merit; in appearance, not in virtue; by bodily commingling, not by spiritual bond; a companion by the joining of his flesh, not by unity of heart; accordingly one who is of you, but will depart from you. For how will what the Lord bore witness to and said, “One of you,” be true if that is true which the very same man says in his Epistle whose Gospel this is: “They have departed from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would surely have remained with us”? (1John 2:19.) Therefore Judas was not of them; for he would have remained with them if he were of them. What then is “One of you will betray me” except one of you, who will betray me, will depart from you? For so too he who says, “If they had been of us, they would surely have stayed with us,” had already said, “they have departed from us”. And in this way both are true, both “of us” and “not of us,” in one respect “of us,” in another respect “not of us,” in respect to the sharing of sacraments, “of us” in respect to the proper designation of their crimes, “not of us”. RETTIG (trans.), St. Augustine. *Tractates on the Gospel of John* 55-111, p. 35.

Augustine revises his own *De baptismo*: “But wherever in these books I have mentioned ‘the Church not having spot or wrinkle,’ (Eph 5:27) it should not be interpreted as if it were such now, but rather what is being prepared to be when, indeed, it will appear glorious. For now, because of certain

<footnote n="78">78 Note 12: “Cfr. S. Augustinus, *Bapt. c. Donat*. 5, 28, 39; PL 43, c. 197: Certe manifestum est, id quod dicitur, in Ecclesia intus et foris, in corde, non in corpore cogitandum. Cfr. *ib.*, 3, 19, 26: col. 152; 5, 18, 24: col. 189; *In Io. Tr.* 61, 2: PL 35, c. 1800, et alibi saepe”. As reference to: “They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a ‘bodily’ manner and not ‘in his heart’. (Note 12) All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged” (*Chapter 2: On the people of God*; §14).</footnote>

<footnote n="79">79 Note 3: *Retractationes* 2, 18: PL 32, c. 637. As reference to: “The followers of Christ [...], by God’s gift, they must hold on to and complete in their lives this holiness they have received. [...] Since truly we all offend in many things we all need God’s mercies continually and we all must daily pray: ‘Forgive us our debts’ (Note 3)” (*Chapter 5: The universal call to holiness in the Church*, §40).</footnote>
over all attempts to lead a holy life,<fnref n="80" /> and that the counsels given in the Gospel by Christ are a special way for the Church to reach holiness.<fnref n="81" /> This constitution also refers to Augustine and his description of Christ as the cornerstone of the Chuch, and the apostles as its foundations.<fnref n="82" /> Deceased Christians intercede with the Father in heaven and this is substantiated with a reference to Augustine (who actually was not speaking about all deceased, but only of martyrs).<fnref n="83" /> The constitution, like Augustine, compares the Church with Mary: both are virgin and mother.⁸⁴

ignorances and infirmities of its members, its condition is such that every day the entire Church says: 'Forgive us our debts' (Mt 6:12)". Mary Inez BOGAN (trans.), *St. Augustine. The Retractions* (The Fathers of the Church, 60), Washington D.C., 1968, p. 156. This is a remarkable choice of text. Augustine here corrects his own anti-Donatist writing. The same claim he repeats very frequently in other writings, esp. with an anti-Pelagian intent.

Augustine teaches that the final part of the commandment is charity (1Tm 1:5). "Thus charity is the end of every commandment, that is, every commandment concerns charity. But what is done in fear of punishment or for any carnal reason, and not with reference to that charity which the Holy Spirit pours out in our hearts, is not yet being done as it should be done, although it seems to being done". Ramsey BONIFACE, Michael FIEDROWICZ (eds.), *On Christian Belief* (The works of saint Augustine: a translation for the 21st century, 1/8) Hyde Park/New York (NY), 2005, p. 342-343.

Augustine explains 1Cor. 7:27: virginity is a counsel/advice, not a commandment, while the prohibition to divorce is a commandment (not obeying it, is a sin). KEARNEY (trans.), HUNTER, ROTELLE (eds.), *Marriage and Virginity*, p. 75-76.

This is not really the content intended by Lumen Gentium, rather a practical application of it.

Augustine explains Ps. 82:4 in *Enarratio in Psalmum* 86, 4: The apostles are the foundations of the Church. The twelve gates of Jerusalem (cf. Rev. 21:12) represent the twelve apostles, united in Christ, the one gate (because Christ is in those twelve gates). (p. 249-250.) The previous paragraph is more relevant than the indicated one. En. Ps. 86, 3: on Ps. 82:2-3: Christ as the chief cornerstone, in whom the two walls (the two peoples: circumcised and uncircumcised) are joined together. As cornerstone of the two walls, he is also the cornerstone of the foundations (the apostles and the prophets), and as such He is the foundation of the foundation. (p. 248-249.) BOULDING (trans.), ROTELLE (ed., notes), *Expositions of the Psalms*: 73-98.

<footnote n="80">80 *Note 12: Enchiridion* 121, 32: PL 40, c. 288. As reference to: "For charity, as the bond of perfection and the fullness of the law, rules over all the means of attaining holiness and gives life to these same means. (Note 12) It is charity which guides us to our final end. It is the love of God and the love of one's neighbor which points out the true disciple of Christ". (*Chapter 5: The universal call to holiness in the Church*; §42).</footnote>

<footnote n="81">81 *Note 13: De sancta virginitate* 15, 15: PL 40, c. 403. As reference to: "Likewise, the holiness of the Church is fostered in a special way by the observance of the counsels proposed in the Gospel by Our Lord to His disciples. (Note 13) An eminent position among these is held by virginity or the celibate state". (*Chapter 5: The universal call to holiness in the Church*, §42).</footnote>

<footnote n="82">82 *Note 3: Enarratio in Psalmum* 86, 4: PL 37, c. 1103. As reference to: "And the apostles, by preaching the Gospel everywhere, and it being accepted by their hearers under the influence of the Holy Spirit, gather together the universal Church, which the Lord established on the apostles and built upon blessed Peter, their chief, Christ Jesus Himself being the supreme cornerstone" (*Chapter 3: On the hierarchical structure of the Church and in particular on the Episcopate*; §19).</footnote>

<footnote n="83">83 *Note 4: Enarratio in Psalmum* 85, 24: PL 37, c. 1095. As reference to: "For by reason of the fact that those in heaven are more closely united with Christ, they establish the whole Church more firmly in holiness, lend nobility to the worship which the Church offers to God here on earth and in many ways contribute to its greater edification. For after they have been received into their heavenly home and are present to the Lord, through Him and with Him and in Him they do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, (Nota 4) showing forth the merits which they won on earth through the one Mediator between God and man, serving God in all things and filling up in their flesh those things which are lacking of the sufferings of Christ for His Body which is the Church". (*Chapter 7: The eschatological nature of the pilgrim Church and its union with the Church in heaven*; §49).</footnote>
*Sacrosanctum Concilium* stresses that it is Christ himself who baptises through the minister, that He is present in the sacrament, a doctrine Augustine established in his polemics with the Donatists.<fnref n="85" />

*Gaudium et Spes* refers to Augustine for two reasons. The first reason is his teaching concerning the three intrinsic values in marriage, a sacrament instituted by God, which provides mutual help, support, fidelity and the procreation and education of children.<fnref n="86" /> The Council Fathers also refer to Augustine regarding the relief of the poor. However, there is a slight difference. *Gaudium et Spes* asks to not merely give out

Augustine preaches on Ps. 85:17 (on resurrection). Paragraph 24 actually does not exist, paragraph 23 is about intercession of martyrs: "Blessed Cyprian was sorrowful in his passion, but consoled now in his crown. Yet even in his consolation there is for him a certain sadness, for our Lord Jesus Christ still intercedes for us, and all the martyrs in his company intercede for us too". *BOULDING (trans.)*, *ROTELLE* (ed., notes), *Expositions of the Psalms: 73-98*, p. 244.

Augustine preaches *Sermo* 191 on Christmas day. Paragraph 2 deals with Mary's virginity: "a virgin before conceiving, a virgin after given birth". (p. 42.) *Sermo* 191, 3 compares the Church with Mary as virgin and mother: "It was there (being born from a virgin's womb), you see, that the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to join human nature to himself, in order to link to himself as undefiled head an undefiled Church; a Church which the apostle Paul calls a virgin, contemplating not only those in it who are virgins also in the body, but craving the uncorrupted minds of all its members. "For I have betrothed you", he says, "to one husband, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ" (2Cor 11:2). So the Church imitates the Lord's mother —not in the bodily sense, which it could not do—but in mind it is both mother and virgin". (p. 43.) *ROTELLE* (ed.), *HILL (trans., notes)*, *Sermons 3/6 (184-229Z)*, *On the Liturgical Seasons*.

Augustine, his sermon on John 1:32, is about Christ's baptism by John. When it is Peter, Paul, and Judas who baptise, it is actually Christ who is baptising. The general context here is Augustine's anti-Donatist sacramentology: holiness of baptism does not depend on the holiness of the minister, since it is Christ who actually is administering the baptism. *HILL (trans.)*, *FITZGERALD* (ed.), *Homilies on the Gospel of John 1-40*, p. 126-127.

<footnote n="84">84 *Note 20: Sermo 191, 2, 3: PL 38, c. 1010; “etc.”*. As reference to: “The Church indeed, contemplating her hidden sanctity, imitating her charity and faithfully fulfilling the Father’s will, by receiving the word of God in faith becomes herself a mother. By her preaching she brings forth to a new and immortal life the sons who are born to her in baptism, conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of God. She herself is a virgin, who keeps the faith given to her by her Spouse whole and entire. Imitating the mother of her Lord, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, she keeps with virginal purity an entire faith, a firm hope and a sincere charity” (*Chapter 8: The blessed virgin Mary, Mother of God in the mystery of Christ and the Church*; §3; *On the Blessed Virgin and the Church*; §24).</footnote>

<footnote n="85">85 *Note 21: In Iohannis evangelium tractatus 6, 7* [critical edition is not mentioned, CCL 36, p. 56-57]. As reference to: "By His power He is present in the sacraments, so that when a man baptizes it is really Christ Himself who baptizes" (*Chapter 1: General principles for the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy*; §7).</footnote>

<footnote n="86">86 *Note 1: De Bono coniugali 3:4; 28-32: PL 40, c. 375-376; 394*. As reference to: "For, God Himself is the author of matrimony, endowed as it is with various benefits and purposes. (Note 1) All of these have a very decisive bearing on the continuation of the human race, on the personal development and eternal destiny of the individual members of a family, and on the dignity, stability, peace and prosperity of the family itself and of human society as a whole. By their very nature, the institution of matrimony itself and conjugal love are ordained for the procreation and education of children, and find in them their ultimate crown. Thus a man and a woman, who by their compact of conjugal love 'are no longer two, but one flesh' (Matt. 19:6), render mutual help and service to each other through an intimate union of their persons and of their actions. Through this union they experience the meaning of their oneness and attain to it with growing perfection day by day. As a mutual gift of two persons, this intimate union and the good of the children impose total fidelity on the spouses and argue for an unbreakable oneness between them" (*Part 2: Some problems of special urgency*; *Chapter 1: Fostering the nobility of marriage and the family*; §48).</footnote>
of one's superfluous goods, while they refer to texts of Augustine in which he appeals to distribute one's superfluities.<fnref n="87" />

*Dignitatis Humanae* states that nobody can be forced to become a Christian, and refers to many examples of this doctrine found in the Fathers of the Church, amongst others, Augustine.<fnref n="88" />

Augustine deals in §3 with the various benefits of marriage: “... the Lord confirmed that marriage is something of value, ... It seems to me to be not only because of the procreation of children, but also because of the natural sociability between the different sexes”. KEARNEY (trans.), HUNTER, ROTELLE (eds.), *Marriage and Virginity*, p. 34.

The benefit of mutual fidelity is discussed upon in §4, the good virtues of marriage in §28. A summary of the three goods of marriage is given in §32: “These things, namely, offspring, fidelity and the sacrament, are all good, and because of them marriage is good”. KEARNEY (trans.), HUNTER, ROTELLE (eds.), *Marriage and Virginity*, p. 57.

Augustine gives in *In Iohannis evangelium tractatus* 50, 6, on John 11:55 – 12:11, an explanation of the symbolic meaning of Maria’s anointing of Jesus’ feet and wiping his feet with her hair. “Wipe with your hair: if you have more than enough, give to the poor and you have wiped the Lord’s feet. For hairs seem to be the body’s superfluity. For you they are superfluous, but for the Lord’s feet, they are necessary. Perhaps on earth the Lord’s feet are in need. For about whom except about his members will he say in the end, “When you did it for one of the least of mine, you did it for me”?* (Mt 25:40.) You spent your superfluity, but you gave service to my feet”. *RETTIG, St. Augustine*, p. 263-264.

Augustine urges, in *Enarratio in Psalmum* 147, 12 on Ps. 147:3, to have merciful generosity towards the needy: “Ask yourself how much he has given you and then pick out what you need; all the rest of your things lie there as superfluities, but for other people they are necessities. The superfluity of the rich is necessary to the poor. If you hold onto superfluous items, then, you are keeping what belongs to someone else”. *BOULDING (trans.), RAMSEY (ed.), Expositions of the Psalms: 121-150*, p. 454.

Augustine answer to Petilianus: “We neither persecute you, except so far as truth persecutes falsehood; nor has it anything to do with us if any one has persecuted you in other ways, just as it has nothing to do with you if any of your party do likewise; nor do we compel you to defile yourselves, but we persuade you to be cured”. *KING (trans.), HARTRANFT (ed., notes), Writings in Connection with the Donatist controversy*, p. 572.

Augustine writes in *Epistula* 23, 6-8, to the Donatist bishop Maximinus, that Augustine postpones to negotiate with the Donatists until the army left Hippo, so in order to have a free discussion without coercion.

Augustine writes in *Epistula* 34, 1-3, to Eusebius, a Catholic layman and Roman official in Hippo, on the Donatist controversy: “God, who sees the secrets of the human heart, knows that, as much as I desire peace among Christians, I am troubled by the sacrilegious actions of those who persevere in its disruption in an unworthy and impious fashion. God knows that this attitude of my mind is directed toward peace and that I am not trying to force anyone involuntarily into the Catholic communion, but to reveal the plain truth to all who are in error. Then, once our ministry has made it evident with God’s help, the very truth may be enough to persuade them to embrace and follow her”. *TESKE (trans.), ROTELLE (notes, ed.)*, *Letters 1-99*, p. 118.

<footnote n="87">87 *Note 10: In Iohannis evangelium tractatus* 50, 6: PL 35, c. 1760; *Enarratio in Psalmum* 147, 12: PL 37, c. 192. As reference to: “On the other hand, the right of having a share of earthly goods sufficient for oneself and one’s family belongs to everyone. The Fathers and Doctors of the Church held this opinion, teaching that men are obliged to come to the relief of the poor and to do so not merely out of their superfluous goods” (*Part 2: Some problems of special urgency; Chapter 3: Economic and social life*; §48).</footnote>

<footnote n="88">88 *Note 7: Contra Litteras Petiliani* 2, 83; CSEL 52, p. 112; PL 43, c. 315; cf. C. 23, q. 5, c. 33, (ed. Friedberg, col. 939); *Epistula* 23, 6-8: PL 33, c. 98; *Epistula* 34, 1-3: PL 33, c. 132; *Epistula* 35, 2-4: PL 33, c. 135. As reference to: “It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man’s response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will. This doctrine is contained in the word of God and it was constantly proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church” (§10).</footnote>
Ad Gentes introduces the topic of Christ's ministry with a reflection on Christ being the mediator between God and humanity, on his divine and human nature. The purpose of the Incarnation is that Christ made humanity to participate in God's nature. For this reason: "The Fathers of the Church proclaim without hesitation that what has not been taken up by Christ is not made whole".<fnref n="89" /> The reference made here to *In Iohannis evangelium tractatus* 23, 6,<fnref n="90" /> does fit here, but only vaguely.<fnref n="91" /> This *Tractate*, on John 5:30-40, deals with resurrection of body and spirit, and with the whole Christ (as Word, with a rational mind and flesh): "That is the whole Christ; let your soul than rise from wickedness through that which is God, let your body rise again from corruption through that which is man".<fnref n="92" /> The same footnote contains a reference to Augustine's *De agone Christi* 22, 24,<fnref n="93" /> in order to substantiate that "above all in this way it is evident that the Holy Spirit has not redeemed us, since He has not become flesh".<fnref n="94" /> The missionary decree stresses the importance of Pentecost in the mission activity of the Church: a Church which unites all languages and supersedes the divisiveness of Babel.<fnref n="95" /> Missionary activity is meant to heal whatever is already present of good, truth and grace, to lift it up to God. Augustine writes something

Here we have to place a critical note. The Council Fathers refer to Augustine's anti-Donatist writings. In the beginning of this controversy he was convinced that all kinds of coercion in religious matters should be avoided. Later on in this controversy, he changed of opinion, and accepted a moderate form of coercion to bring heretical Christians, such as the Donatists, back to the Church (the so-called: *compelle/coge intrare*). Augustine explains in *Epistula* 35, 2-4, to Eusebius, on the Donatist controversy, his position to not accept back in the Catholic communion a Donatist who is unwilling to return. *Epistula* 35, 4: Augustine refuses to accept a girl forced by her father to come back to the Catholic unity, as long as she does not do this from her own free will.

<footnote n="89">⁸⁹ *Chapter* 1, §3.</footnote>

<footnote n="90">⁹⁰ PL 35, c. 1585; CChr 36, p. 236.</footnote>

<footnote n="91">⁹¹ *Note* 4.</footnote>

<footnote n="92">⁹² HILL (trans.), *Homilies on the Gospel of John* 1-40, p. 409-411, p. 411.</footnote>

<footnote n="93">⁹³ PL 40, c. 302.</footnote>

<footnote n="94">⁹⁴ *Note* 4. *Chapter* 1, §3. Augustine reacts against heresies, which argue that Christ did not really have a body, but only a bodily appearance like the H. Spirit only had a bodily appearance. Augustine explains that the Spirit, as dove, assumed the body of a dove but was not born from an egg like Christ was born of a woman. "Now, the reason why the Holy Spirit was not born of a dove, whereas Christ was born of a woman, is this: The Holy Spirit did not come to liberate doves, but to declare unto men innocence and spiritual love, which were outwardly symbolized in the form of a dove. The Lord Jesus Christ, having come to liberate human beings, including both men and women destined for salvation, was not ashamed of the male nature, for He took it upon Himself; or of the female, for He was born of a woman". Robert P. RUSSELL (trans.), *The Christian Combat* (The Fathers of the Church, 2), Washington DC, 1947, p. 309-353, p. 339.</footnote>

<footnote n="95">⁹⁵ *Note* 6: *Enarratio in Psalmum* 54, 11: PL 36, c. 636; CChr 39, p. 664 ff.; *Sermo* 271: PL 38, c. 1245; *Sermones* 267, 268, 269: PL 38, c. 1225, c. 1237; *Sermo* 175, 3: PL 38, c. 946. As reference to: "Yet on the day of Pentecost, He came down upon the disciples to remain with them forever (cf. John 14:16). The Church was publicly displayed to the multitude, the Gospel began to spread among the nations by means of preaching, and there was presaged that union of all peoples in the catholicity of the faith by means of the Church of the New Covenant, a Church which speaks all tongues, understands and accepts all tongues in her love, and so supersedes the divisiveness of Babel" (*Chapter* 1, §4).
Augustine opposes in *Enarratio in Psalmum* 54, on Ps. 54:10, Pentecost to Babel: "Through proud persons human languages were diversified, and through the humble apostles, languages were harmonized; the spirit of pride fragmented language, and the Holy Spirit gathered dispersed languages into one". *BOULDING* (trans.), *ROTELLE* (ed., notes), *Expositions of the psalms*: 51-72, p. 65.</footnote>
similar on the Heavenly City, which does not rescind or destroy the differences among the nations, but directs them all to the same end of earthly peace.<fnref n="96" /> Finally, Ad Gentes refers to Augustine’s notion to place catechumens in the household of God.<fnref n="97" />

Augustine delivered *Sermo 271* on the feast of Pentecost. The pentecostal tongues prefigured the Church as the ultimate answer to the tower of Babel: “I mean, just as after the flood the ungodly pride of men built a high tower against the Lord, and the human race was deservedly divided by languages, so that each nation would speak its own language and thus not be understood by the others; so in a similar way the devout humility of the faithful has brought to the unity of the Church the variety of their different languages; so that what discord had dissipated charity might gather together, and the scattered members of the human race, as of one body, might be attached to their one head, Christ, and so reunited, and fused together into the unity of the holy body by the fire of love”. *ROTELLE* (ed.), *HILL* (trans., notes), *Sermons 3/7 (230-272B)*, *On the Liturgical Seasons*, p. 298-299.

*Sermones 267-268-269* (with an anti-Donatist tendency) are also delivered on the day of Pentecost: the unity of the Church is expressed in the tongues of all nations, the unity of the Church among all nations is prefigured in the gift of the tongues of all nations on Pentecost.

*Sermo 175* is devoted to Christ as *medicus*. “The Lord [...] applied his death to the preparation of the cure [...]”. (p. 266.) After the resurrection, Christ sent the Holy Spirit: “[...] the Holy Spirit came, he filled the disciples, they started speaking with the tongues of all nations; a sign of unity was being enacted in them. I mean, one person spoke then all languages, because the unity of the Church was going to speak in all languages”. *ROTELLE* (ed.), *HILL* (trans., notes), *Sermons 3/5 (148-183)*, *On the New Testament*, p. 267.

Augustine: “Therefore, for as long as this Heavenly City is a pilgrim on earth, she summons citizens of all nations and every tongue, and brings together a society of pilgrims in which no attention is paid to any differences in the customs, laws and institutions by which earthly peace is achieved or maintained. She does not rescind or destroy these things, however. For whatever differences there are among the various nations, these all tend towards the same end of earthly peace. Thus, she preserves and follows them, provided only that they do not impede the religion by which we are taught that the one supreme and true God is to be worshipped. And so even the Heavenly City makes use of earthly peace during her pilgrimage, and desires and maintains the co-operation of men’s wills in attaining those things which belong to the mortal nature of man, in so far as this may be allowed without prejudice to true godliness and religion. Indeed, she directs that earthly peace towards heavenly peace: towards the peace which is so truly such that —at least so far as rational creatures are concerned— only it can really be held to be peace and called such. For this peace is a perfectly ordered and perfectly harmonious fellowship in the enjoyment of God, and of one another in God. When we have reached that peace, our life will no longer be a mortal one; rather, we shall then be fully and certainly alive”. *DYSON* (trans., ed.), *Augustine*, p. 946-947.

Augustine writes that the catechumens already have the sign of the cross on their forehead, and belong to the household of the Church, but still have to be baptised in order to partake in the eucharist, and that they are —in a way of illustration— like the people of Israel that first had to be brought across the Red Sea before eating manna. “Yes, the fact that catechumens have the sign of the cross on their foreheads means that they now belong to a great household; but let them, from being slaves, become sons”. *HILL* (trans.), *Homilies on the Gospel of John 1-40*, p. 213-215.

<footnote n="96">⁹⁶ *Note 24: De civitate Dei* 19, 17: PL 41, c. 646. As reference to: “But whatever truth and grace are to be found among the nations, as a sort of secret presence of God, He frees from all taint of evil and restores to Christ its maker, who overthrows the devil’s domain and wards off the manifold malice of vice. And so, whatever good is found to be sown in the hearts and minds of men, or in the rites and cultures peculiar to various peoples, not only is not lost, but is healed, uplifted, and perfected for the glory of God, the shame of the demon, and the bliss of men” (*Chapter 1*, §9).</footnote>

<footnote n="97">⁹⁷ *Note 7: In Iohannis evangelium tractatus* 11, 4: PL 35, c. 1476. As reference to: “Finally, the juridic status of catechumens should be clearly defined in the new code of Canon law. For since they are joined to the Church, they are already of the household of Christ, (Note 7) and not seldom they are already leading a life of faith, hope, and charity” (*Chapter 2: Mission work itself; Article 2: Preaching the Gospel and Gathering together the People of God*; §14).</footnote>
The decree on ecumenism *Unitatis Redintegratio* refers to Augustine’s plea to continually consider the Donatists as brothers and sisters, to call non-Catholic Christians, Christian and to accept them as brothers.<fnref n="98" />

## VAGUE AND INCORRECT USES OF AUGUSTINE

Besides the differences in nuance and intention between the texts of Augustine himself and the references made by conciliar documents to them —as observed above—, there are also five references made to Augustine in the promulgated documents that are very difficult to link with the original text of his writings.

Lumen Gentium refers to Sermo 71 within the context of the Church as “a people made one with the unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”, while Augustine preaches in that sermon on the blasphemy against the H. Spirit. Augustine mentions that the H. Spirit gathers the faithful in the unity of the Church, but the context is that the Spirit keeps all blasphemers against the Spirit outside the Church.<fnref n="99" /> While Lumen Gentium addresses the internal unity of the Church, Augustine is thinking in external terms: heresies versus the Church. Regarding the participation of the people of God in Christ’s prophetic office, the concept of sensus fidelium is introduced. Augustine’s De praedestinatione sanctorum is quoted, but this citation is not used correctly. Lumen Gentium explains the sensus fidelium in the following way, with a reference to Augustine: “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when ‘from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful’ they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals”.<fnref n="100" /> Augustine actually refers in this quote to the authority

<footnote n="98">⁹⁸ Note 22: *Enarratio in Psalmum* 2, 29: PL 36, c. 299. As reference to: “it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church” (*Chapter 1: Catholic principles on ecumenism*; §3).</footnote>

<footnote>Augustine pleads against the Donatists, who wrongly do not consider Catholics as their brethren. Augustine urges to grieve over the Donatists—who are sisters and brothers (who celebrate the same sacraments, reply with the same ‘Amen’), however separated— and to pray for them in order that they would realise their error. BOULDING (trans.), ROTELLE (ed., notes), *Expositions of the Psalms: 1-32*, p. 423-424.</footnote>

<footnote n="99">⁹⁹ Note 4: Sermo 71, 20, 33: PL 38, c. 463. As reference to: “Thus, the Church has been seen as ‘a people made one with the unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit’” (*Chapter 1: The mystery of the Church*; §4).</footnote>

<footnote>Augustine preached in Sermo 71, with Mt. 12:32 as Gospel lecture, on the sin against the H. Spirit. Definition of this sin is in Sermo 71, 20: impenitence, being unrepentent. Blasphemy against the H. Spirit is a sin that will not be forgiven. Not the indicated paragraph 20, but the previous paragraph 19 contains the idea of unity by the Spirit: “For it is by the Holy Spirit, who gathers the people of God together into one, that the unclean spirit is cast out, who is divided against himself”. “But, as I have already said more than once, the reason why forgiveness of sins, by which the reign of the spirit divided against himself is overthrown and terminated, the reason why companionship in the unity of the Church of God, outside which no forgiveness of sins occurs, is seen as the proper work of the Holy Spirit (with the Father and the Son, of course, cooperating), is that the Holy Spirit is himself somehow or other the companionship of the Father and the Son”. ROTELLE (ed.), HILL (trans., notes), *Sermons 3 (51-94)*, *On the New Testament*, p. 258 et 267.</footnote>

<footnote n="100">¹⁰⁰ Note 8: *De praedestinatione sanctorum* 14, 27: PL 44, c. 980. As reference to: “The holy people of God shares also in Christ’s prophetic office; it spreads abroad a living witness to Him, especially by means</footnote>
of the book of Wisdom. Augustine wants to prove this authority since he quoted
Wis 4:11 ("He was carried off so that evil would not change his mind") to prove
the impossibility to remain without sins and others rejected this Biblical argument
because they consider the book of Wisdom to be noncanonical. Augustine replies:
"Since this is so, the statement from the Book of Wisdom ought not to have been
rejected, for that book has merited to be proclaimed by the rank of lectors in the
Church of Christ for so many years and merited to be heard by all Christians, from
bishops to the least of the lay believers, penitents and cathecumens, with veneration
for the authority of God".<fnref n="101" /> The perspective is somewhat different. While *Lumen Gentium* deals with doctrinal consensus amongst all the members of the Church, Augustine writes that the book of Wisdom deserved to be heard by all members of the Church. One can argue that the canonicity of the book of Wisdom is based on such a *sensus fidelium*, Augustine however does not state this explicitly.

*Lumen Gentium* stresses the presence of Christ in small local communities of
Christians gathered around the Eucharist under the ministry of their bishop. *Contra Faustum* and *Sermo 57* are quoted to substantiate this assertion. These texts indeed
—however very generally spoken— refer to the Eucharistic unity of the Church in
general (and not to local churches), but do not, however, connect this unity to the
episcopal office.<fnref n="102" />

*Sacrosanctum Concilium*, on the institution of the Eucharist during the Last
Supper, calls the Eucharistic Sacrifice “a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond

of a life of faith and charity and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the tribute of lips which give
praise to His name. The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err
in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples' supernatural
discernment in matters of faith when 'from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful' they show
universal agreement in matters of faith and morals" (Chapter 2: *On the people of God*; §12).

<footnote n="101">¹⁰¹ TESKE (trans.), *Answer to the Pelagians*. 4: *To the Monks of Hadrumetum and Provence*, p. 171.</footnote>

<footnote n="102">¹⁰² Note 54: *Contra Faustum* 12, 20: PL 42, c. 26; *Sermo* 57, 7: PL 38, c. 389; “etc.”. As reference to: “In any community of the altar, under the sacred ministry of the bishop, there is exhibited a symbol of that charity and ‘unity of the mystical Body, without which there can be no salvation’. In these communities, though frequently small and poor, or living in the Diaspora, Christ is present, and in virtue of His presence there is brought together one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” (*Chapter 3: On the hierarchical structure of the Church and in particular on the Episcopate*; §26).</footnote>

<footnote>Augustine, *Contra Faustum*: on Gn. 8:6-11 (Ark of Noah). “The dove was sent out after another seven days and did not return. This signifies the end of the world, when the rest of the saints will no longer be found in the sacrament of hope, by which the Church is united in the present time, when we drink what flowed from Christ’s side, but will already be in the perfection of eternal salvation, when the kingdom will be handed over to him who is God and Father, so that in that clear contemplation of immutable truth we shall not need bodily sacraments”. TESKE, BONIFACE (eds.), *Answer to Faustus, a Manichean*, p. 138.</footnote>

<footnote>Augustine, *Sermo 57*: on Matt. 6:9-13 (the Lord's Prayer), and *Sermo 57, 7* on Matt. 6:11: “Give us this day our daily bread”. This prayer does according to Augustine not only refer to material (food, clothing), but also to spiritual needs: daily bread necessary for life refers to the Eucharist. For receiving this Eucharist, one has to have the correct disposition, namely unity. “So the Eucharist is our daily bread; but we should receive it in such a way that our minds and not just our bellies find refreshment. You see, the special property to be understood in its unity, so that by being digested into this body and turned into his members we may be what we receive. Then it will really be our daily bread”. ROTELLE (ed.), HILL (trans., notes), *Sermons 3 (51-94)*, *On the New Testament*, p. 112.</footnote>
of charity” and refers here to *In Iohannis evangelium tractatus* 6, 13.<sup>103</sup> The general context of *Tractatus* 6, dealing with John 1:32, is the anti-Donatist claim that the holiness of baptism does not depend on the holiness of the minister, since it is Christ who actually is administering the baptism. Paragraph 13, which is referred to in *Sacrosanctum Concilium*, does however not deal with the content indicated. The following paragraph 14 however connects baptism, the sacraments and charity, but not in the elaborated sense discussing Christ’s cross and the Church and with the centrality of the Eucharist in all this, as is done in *Sacrosanctum Concilium*.<sup>104</sup>

COMPARISONS AND OBSERVATIONS

Still a lot of work has to be done. The study of the 9 schemata, which were sent and given to the Council Fathers, has to be complemented with a study of the other schemas the Preparatory Central Committee had composed. The 9 schemata we analysed, however, were crucial schemata discussing the most important doctrinal issues, rendering a comparison between these preparatory and the promulgated documents valid. In this perspective, our comparisons, observations and conclusions are however still somewhat provisional. Interesting also for further research would be to reconstruct which theologians in the respective sets of documents were responsible for inserting quotes of Augustine, introducing his ideas (e.g. Henri de Lubac in De Deposito Fidei Pure Custodiendo and Joseph Ratzinger in Dei Verbum). Further detailed study also has to be devoted to the precise textual and stillistic context of references to Augustine: is it a merely illustrative use or is the theological concept dealt with fundamentally caused by Augustine’s thinking. When the preparatory and promulgated documents present two different ‘theological styles’, how does the presence of Augustine function in all this? Also more thematic comparisons would be interesting, e.g. how is Augustine quoted in the context of ecclesiology, sacramentology, revelation, Scripture, etc. in both sets of documents.

Augustine occurs in both sets of documents in approximately the same number of notes. One could say there was the same degree of need to substantiate the content of the documents with the writings of Augustine. In the promulgated documents, Augustine is completely absent in 7 (of 16), and in the preparatory only in 3 (of 9). As such, he is more equally spread throughout the preparatory documents than throughout the promulgated.<fnref n="105" />

<footnote n="103">¹⁰³ *Note 36: In Iohannis evangelium tractatus* 6, 13. As reference to: "At the Last Supper, on the night when He was betrayed, our Saviour instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries until He should come again, and so to entrust to His beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of His death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity (*Note* 36), a paschal banquet in which Christ is eaten, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us" (*Chapter 2: The most sacred mystery of the Eucharist*; §47).</footnote>

<footnote n="104">¹⁰⁴ HILL (trans.), FITZGERALD (ed.), *Homilies on the Gospel of John* 1-40, p. 133-134.</footnote>

<footnote n="105">¹⁰⁵ The three following schemas (of in total 9 schemas) do not contain references to Augustine:</footnote>

<footnote>- Schema Constitutionis De Sacra Liturgia.</footnote>

<footnote>- Schema Constitutionis De Instrumentis Communicationis Socialis.</footnote>

<footnote>- Schema Decreti De Ecclesiae Unitate «Ut Omnes Unum Sint».</footnote>

<footnote>Augustine is not referred to in the following seven documents (of in total 16 documents):</footnote>

<footnote>- *Gravissimum Educationis.*</footnote>
The preparatory schemas and the promulgated documents refer to Augustine for several topics which are thematically quite similar: God's necessary grace, the grace of Christ's cross, exegetical principles, the importance to study Scripture, teaching on marriage (three bona), ecclesiology (body of Christ, presence of sinners in the Church, catechumens as Church members), ecumenism (plea to consider non-Catholic Christians as brothers and sisters), mariology. We also observed some differences in accents. The preparatory documents use Augustine in contexts as original sin, hell, humanity as imago Dei, and epistemology, while the promulgated placed Augustine with more emphasis on areas of ministry, evangelisation and mission.

The two sets of documents have, strikingly enough, only four citations in common. *De Fontibus Revelationis* and its later equivalent *Dei Verbum* both quote sermo 179, 1 with the same intention: ministers of the word have to listen to God's word themselves.<fnref n="106" /> Augustine's doctrine of marriage regarding the three bona nuptiae (especially his synthesis in *De bono coniugali 24, 32*) is referred to with the same appreciation in *De Castitate, Matrimonio, Familia, Virginitate* and *Gaudium et Spes*.<fnref n="107" /> *De Fontibus Revelationis*<fnref n="108" /> and *Dei Verbum*<fnref n="109" /> mention *De doctrina christiana*,<fnref n="110" /> in order to substantiate the historical contextuality of the composition of the books of the Bible. *De Beata Maria Virgine Matre Dei et Matre Hominum*<fnref n="111" /> and *Lumen Gentium*<fnref n="112" /> both quote *De sancta virginitate* 6 to express that Mary, being a member of the body of Christ by giving birth to Christ, is also the mother of the members of Christ.

In the preparatory documents, 27 out of 49 are literal citations, whereas in the promulgated documents only 16 out of 56 are literal citations. Compared with the promulgated documents, the preparatory documents seem to be more faithful to Augustine's original context and his intention of the text passages that are referred to. Besides the five very clear examples of 2.3, we observed in our analysis of the promulgated documents at least 11 additional instances where the use of Augustine seems to deviate from his texts.<fnref n="113" /> In sum, 15 references are somewhat out of place,

- Nostra Aetate.

- Apostolicam Actuositatem.

- Perfectae Caritatis.

- Christus Dominus.

- Orientalium Ecclesiarum.

- Inter Mirifica.

His absence is striking in the documents *Gravissimum Educationis, Perfectae Caritatis* [which moreover contains only one Patristic source: Ambrose, *De Virginitate*, 1, 2, c. 2, n. 15], *Christus Dominus*, because he wrote elaborately on Christian education, the religious life and the episcopal office; perhaps however this absence can be explained by the rather canonical nature of the latter two documents.

<footnote n="106">¹⁰⁶ *De Fontibus Revelationis*, 26, *Nota 6*. *Dei Verbum* 6, 25, *Note 4*.</footnote>

<footnote n="107">¹⁰⁷ *De Castitate, Matrimonio, Familia, Virginitate 2*, §16, *Nota 7*. *Gaudium et Spes 2*, 1, §48, *Note 1*.</footnote>

<footnote n="108">¹⁰⁸ *De Fontibus Revelationis 2*, §13, *Nota 8*.</footnote>

<footnote n="109">¹⁰⁹ *Dei Verbum 3, 12*, *Nota 7*.</footnote>

<footnote n="110">¹¹⁰ *De doctrina christiana 3*, 18, 26.</footnote>

<footnote n="111">¹¹¹ *De Beata Maria Virgine Matre Dei et Matre Hominum* §1, *Nota 2*.</footnote>

<footnote n="112">¹¹² *Lumen Gentium 8*, §1, *Note 3*.</footnote>

<footnote n="113">¹¹³ *Dei Verbum Preface, Art. 1, Note 1* deals with faith, hope and love, while *De Catechizandis Rudibus 4*, 8 only deals with love. *Dei Verbum 3, Art. 12, Note 6* declares that Scripture is inspired and does not</footnote>
while in the preparatory documents this was only the case for 6 references.<fnref n="114" /> From this point of view, one could also conclude that the preparatory schemas remained sometimes closer to Augustine than the promulgated documents.

At this level there is no serious difference in the presence of Augustine in the two collections of documents. He was certainly not absent in the preparatory schemas, on the contrary, he was present, in the same significant way, in the preparatory documents, and sometimes his presence there was more accurate than some very vague allusions made in the promulgated documents. Otherwise put, regarding Augustine, there is a strong continuity between the documents of 1962 and 1965.

On a larger scale, in the 9 here studied preparatory documents there are ca. 230 different references to *Patres* and *Doctores* (of which 49 to Augustine), in the promulgated ca. 330 (of which 57 to Augustine). To make a comparison, Thomas of Aquinas is mentioned 38 times in these preparatory documents, and 25 in the promulgated. Furthermore, Pius XII occurs 451 times in the discussed preparatory schemas and 148 in the promulgated documents. Otherwise put, despite a certain continuity we observed regarding Augustine, in the bigger picture, especially the relation between the respective numbers of Patristic references and references made to, for example, pope Pius XII, certain changes can be discerned.

Regarding the genres of Augustine's writings used in the two sets of documents we can only but observe a very significant difference. In the preparatory schemas, Augustine's dogmatic and polemical writings are clearly in the majority (36 out of 49 references, with four quoted the most frequently, *De civitate Dei* [6 times], *De Trinitate* [5], *Contra Iulianum* [4], *De natura et gratia* [3]), and the pastoral writings in minority (10 references to sermons (*Sermones*, *Enarrationes*, *Tractatus*) and 3 to the *Epistulae*).<fnref n="115" /> In the promulgated documents however we see the complete opposite:

err, *De civitate Dei* 17, 6, 2 makes this assertion for the authors of Scripture. *Lumen Gentium* 1, §1, *Note* 2 deals with predestination and *Sermo* 341, 9, 11 with *Totus Christus*. *Lumen Gentium* 1, §7, *Note* 8 develops an ecclesiology according to which the Spirit is to the Church as a soul to a body, while Augustine envisages with this comparison in *Sermo* 268, 2 the claim that heretics do not have life anymore. *Lumen Gentium* 1, §8, *Note* 14/*Lumen Gentium* 2, §14, *Note* 12 refer to sinners and *De civitate Dei* 18, 51, 2/*De baptismo* 5 28, 39 to heretics. *Lumen Gentium* 7, §49, *Note* 4 explains the intercession made by the deceased, and Augustine in *Enarratio in Psalmum* 85, 24 refers to the intercession of the martyrs. *Ad Gentes* 1, §3, *Note* 4 describes Christ's healing and completing of mankind and *In lohannis evangelium tractatus* 23, 6 the concept of *Totus Christus*. *Ad Gentes* 1, §7, *Note* 19 has mission as topic, *De sermone Domini in monte* 1, 15, 42 refers to correct love. *Optatam Totius* 4, §9 talks about the ministry of priests, *In lohannis evangelium tractatus* 32, 8 is about bishops. *Gaudium et Spes* 2, 3, §48, *Note* 10 urges to give more than superfluities, *In lohannis evangelium tractatus* 50, 6 and *Enarratio in Psalmum* 147, 12 urges to give from one's superfluities.

<footnote n="114">¹¹⁴ As indicated above, the promulgated documents contain also some errors in the correct technical bibliographic references to Augustine.</footnote>

<footnote n="115">¹¹⁵ Preparatory documents: 49 references to Augustine: *Schema Constitutionis Dogmaticae De Fontibus Revelationis: De doctrina christiana* 2, 18, 26; *De consensu evangelistorum* 1, 1; *Sermo* 179, 1; *Schema Constitutionis Dogmaticae De Deposito Fidei Pure Custodiendo: De vera religione* 39, 73; *Confessiones* 9, 4, 6; *Sermo* 141; *De libero arbitrio* 2, 7, 15-15, 39; *De civitate Dei* 8, 10, 2; *De vera religione* 25, 46; *De Trinitate* 14, 8, 11; *De Trinitate* 15, 4, 6; *Confessiones* 1, 1, 1; *De civitate Dei* 12, 1, 3; *Contra Iulianum* 4, 16, 82; *Contra Iulianum* 6, 5, 11; *Contra Iulianum* 1, 3, 9; *Contra Iulianum* 1, 5, 15; *De Genesi ad litteram* 9, 11, 19; *De peccato originali* 24, 28; *De civitate Dei* 16, 8; *De civitate Dei* 16, 9; *De civitate Dei* 21, 23; *De civitate Dei* 22, 30, 1; *Contra Faustum* 14, 4; *De Trinitate* 4, 13, 17; *De Trinitate* 13, 10, 13; *Schema Constitutionis Dogmaticae De Ordine Morali Christiano: De spiritu et littera* 28, 48; *Schema Constitutionis Dogmaticae*</footnote>
the pastoral genre (28 references to sermons and 4 to letters) are in majority, and the doctrinal/polemical writings in minority (25 out of 57, with four most frequently quoted: *De civitate Dei* [4], *De baptismo* [3], *De bono coniugali* [2], *De sancta virginitate* [2]).<fnref n="116" /> Otherwise put, regarding the number of references, Augustine is approximately present, in a similar way, in the preparatory and promulgated documents. His presence however is different: another Augustine is present, the Council Fathers opted to use other aspects of Augustine as a source, substantiation and illustration. Here we notice the most important shift: the promulgated documents no longer primarily consider Augustine as the systematic theologian or even the sharp polemist, but as pastor, ministering to the people of God. The presence of the pastoral writings of Augustine is significant in the promulgated documents. The use of Augustine was conformed to the wish of John XXIII for this Council, namely to be a pastoral Council. Here we have a serious form of discontinuity.

To conclude, our analysis of Augustine's presence at Vatican II offers a splendid case study in the interplay of continuity and discontinuity. In the preparatory documents Augustine and the Fathers were certainly not neglected, but were quoted, in a respectful way, with respect for the original texts and intentions of the authors. In the promulgated documents Augustine remains present, approximately with the same amount of references, however these references sometimes deviate from Augustine's intention or from the original context of the reference. However, both the background and the approach changed: besides Augustine, other Fathers are also referred to in the promulgated documents and in a large number, which is even more

*De Castitate, Matrimonio, Familia, Virginitate: De natura et gratia* 48, 50; *De bono coniugali* 24, 32; *De Genesi ad litteram* 9, 7, 12; *De natura et gratia* 43, 50; *Schema Constitutionis De Sacra Liturgia*: -; *Schema Constitutionis De Instrumentis Communicationis Socialis*: -; *Schema Decreti De Ecclesiae Unitate «Ut Omnes Unum Sint»*: -; *Schema Constitutionis Dogmaticae De Ecclesia*: Sermo 349, 2; *De baptismo* 4, 21, 28; *Enarratio in Psalmum* 85, 15; *Epistula* 209; *Regula ad Servos Dei* 9; *Epistula* 199, 12, 48; Sermo 359, 4; Sermo ad Caesareensis 5; *Schema Constitutionis Dogmaticae De Beata Maria Virgine Matre Dei et Matre Hominum*: De sancta virginitate 6, 6; Sermo Denis 25 (72A), 7; Sermo 213, 7; Sermo Denis 25 (72A), 8; Quaestiones Octoginta tres 11; *De Trinitate* 1, 13, 18; Sermo 215, 4; *De natura et gratia* 36, 42; *Epistula* 137, 2, 8; *De sancta virginitate* 3.

<footnote n="116">¹¹⁶ Vatican II-documents: 57 references: *Dei Verbum: De Catechizandis Rudibus* 4, 8; *De Genesi ad litteram* 2, 9, 20; *Epistula* 82, 3; *De civitate Dei* 17, 6, 2; *De doctrina christiana* 3, 18, 26; *Questiones in Heptateuchum* 2, 73; *Sermo* 179, 1; *Lumen Gentium*: "S. Augustinus, *passim*"; *Sermo* 341, 9, 11; *Sermo* 71, 20, 33; *Sermo* 268, 2; *De civitate Dei* 18, 51, 2; *De dono perseverantia* 14, 37; *De praedicatione sanctorum* 14, 27; *De baptismo* 5, 28, 39; *De baptismo* 3, 19, 26; *De baptismo* 5, 18, 24; *In lohannis evangelium tractatus* 61, 2; "et alibi saepe"; *Enarratio in Psalmum* 86, 4; *Contra Faustum* 12, 20; *Sermo* 57, 7; *Sermo* 340, 1; *Retractatatitones* 2, 18; *Enchiridion* 121, 32; *De sancta virginitate* 15, 15; *Enarratio in Psalmum* 85, 24; *De sancta virginitate* 6; *In lohannis evangelium tractatus* 13, 12; *Sermo* 191, 2, 3; *Sacrosanctum Concilium*: *In lohannis evangelium tractatus* 6, 7; *In lohannis evangelium tractatus* 6, 13; *Gaudium et Spes: Confessiones* 1, 1; *De bono coniugali* 3-4, 3-4; *De bono coniugali* 23-24, 28-32; *In lohannis evangelium tractatus* 50, 6; *Enarratio in Psalmum* 147, 12; *Gravissimum Educationis*: -; *Nostra Aetate*: -; *Dignitatis Humanae: Contra Litteras Petiliani* 2, 83; *Epistula* 23, 6-8; *Epistula* 34, 1-3; *Epistula* 35, 2-4; *Ad Gentes: Enarratio in Psalmum* 44, 23; *In lohannis evangelium tractatus* 23, 6; *De Agone Christi* 22, 24; *Enarratio in Psalmum* 54, 11; *Sermo* 271; *Sermo* 267; *Sermo* 268; *Sermo* 269; *Sermo* 175, 3; *Sermo* 267, 4; *De sermone Domini in monte* 1, 15, 42; *De civitate Dei* 19, 17; *In lohannis evangelium tractatus* 11, 4; *Presbyterorum ordinis: De civitate Dei* 10, 6; *Enarratio in Psalmum* 4, 23; *In lohannis evangelium tractatus* 123, 5; *Apostolicam Actuositatem*: -; *Optatam Totius: In lohannis evangelium tractatus* 32, 8; *Perfectae Caritatis*: -; *Christus Dominus*: -; *Unitatis Redintegratio: Enarratio in Psalmum* 32, 2, 29; *Orientalium Ecclesiarum*: -; *Inter Mirifica*: -.</footnote>
significant compared with the lesser presence of, for example, pope Pius XII. Also, different genres of Augustine's writings are opted for, namely his pastoral writings.

Anthony DUPONT
K.U.Leuven
# FROM PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS TO DEI VERBUM

## THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL MOVEMENT AND THE COUNCIL RECONSIDERED

### INTRODUCTION

A while ago, when I looked back at the title and subject I had given for this paper, I became a little desperate. For I noticed that I was due to address the Biblical Movement in its entire period between 1907 and 1965. It is commonly known that entire libraries can be filled with this subject, so I decided to limit it a bit. The current paper will mainly focus on the enduring tension between co-existing intransigent and *ressourcement* endeavours during this period. The word 'co-existing' is of central importance. Within the context of this book, I particularly wish to point to the ambivalence inherent to the Catholic Biblical Movement before Vatican II, as a factor that might help to understand the ambiguities in conciliar doctrine. Secondly, this paper will not focus on the Catholic Biblical Movement in its doctrinal complexity —for that, I refer to the paper offered by François Nault in this very book—but will rather emphasise both the reports between intransigentism and renewal, and the topic of Catholicism's gradual acceptance of historical-critical method and the role of the Catholic exegete.

The Vatican II debate on exegesis and on the role of the Catholic exegete can hardly be addressed as a *creatio ex nihilo*. It has its roots in the Modernist Crisis at the beginning of the twentieth century<fnref n="117" /> and its continuation in the crisis surrounding the *nouvelle théologie* and the neo-modernist controversy of the early 1960s.<fnref n="118" /> All of these will have to be addressed in this paper.

In fact, my review of the exegetical debate begins in 1893 with the promulgation of Leo XIII's encyclical, *Providentissimus Deus*.<fnref n="119" /> The goal of that encyclical was to

<footnote n="117">¹¹⁷ Amidst the abundant literature available, we wish to point to some crucial studies by Émile POULAT, such as *Histoire, dogme et critique dans la crise moderniste* (Bibliothèque de l'Évolution de l'humanité, 18), Paris, 1996³ and the aforementioned one by Étienne FOUILLOUX, *Une église en quête de liberté*; More attention to the Anglo-Saxon side of the modernist problematic is found in Thomas M. LOOME, *Liberal Catholicism, Reform Catholicism, Modernism. A Contribution to a New Orientation in Modernist Research*, Mainz, 1979.</footnote>

<footnote n="118">¹¹⁸ On this crisis, and on the role of Louvain professors such as Cerfaux in it, see my monograph, Karim SCHELKENS, *Catholic Theology of Revelation on the Eve of Vatican II* (Brill's Studies in Church History, 41), Leiden and Boston, 2010.</footnote>

<footnote n="119">¹¹⁹ *Enchiridion Biblicum. Documenti della Chiesa sulla Sacra Scrittura*, (ed.), Alfio FILIPPI and Erminio LORA (Bologna, 1994²) (henceforth EB), § 81-134. More background is found in Anthony J. COTTER, *The Antecedents of the Encyclical Providentissimus Deus*, in CBQ, 5 (1943), p. 117-124. See also John HAYES (ed.), *Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation*, Vol. 1, p. 324.</footnote>
promote biblical studies and to provide a response to pressing questions surrounding the value of historical-critical research methods. At the same time, the encyclical addressed a number of dogmatic questions, including the inspiration of the Scriptures, their divine authorship and their infallibility, which I will not address here.<fnref n="120" /> On the other hand, the relationship between theologians and the magisterium also constituted a point of discussion. The core question of the modernist era *a fortiori* had to do with the (in)compatibility of the historical-critical approach to the Bible on the one hand, and the “theological” interpretation of the Scriptures on the other.<fnref n="121" /> The emergence of historical-critical research in the course of the nineteenth century<fnref n="122" /> obliged Roman Catholic authorities to determine their position, especially since it had consequences for theology’s very foundations. The Catholic Church’s response was grafted to the principles of neo-scholasticism.<fnref n="123" /> As exegetical *Leitprinzip*, it was presupposed that the Scriptures were (a) inspired by the Holy Spirit and thus (b) infallible. This was then adjoined to (c) the doctrine that refers to God as the original author of the Scriptures,<fnref n="124" /> whereby (d) (in line with the scholastic understanding of instrumental causality) the role of the human authors was reduced to that of technical executors. The concepts of inspiration, infallibility and the principle of a *Deus auctor* were thus combined as panels in a triptych, but were clearly distinguished so as to avoid the ancient positions of Lessius and Hanneberg.<fnref n="125" /> Within this frame of mind, the Roman Catholic magisterium had evidently understood the emergence the historical-critical method as a threat to dogmatic certitude and understood it as being in line with enlightenment rationalist influences, which had been largely condemned under Pius IX.

While in the neo-scholastic framework the Scriptures were seen as a “collection” of inviolable truths, immune to contingency, an apologetic —often anti-Protestant— tendency led to consider them materially insufficient with respect to the Tradition. The consequences for biblical research are evident. Where exegesis was unable to deal with the contradictions it found in an infallible corpus of Scripture, it could only resort to a harmonising concordism<fnref n="126" /> and an exegesis that understood the *sensus*

<footnote n="120">¹²⁰ Christoph THEOBALD, *L'exégèse catholique au moment de la crise moderniste*, in Claude SAVART and Jacques-Noël ALETTI (ed.) *Le monde contemporain et la Bible* (Bible de tous les temps, 8), Paris, 1985, p. 387-439 (389-390).</footnote>

<footnote n="121">¹²¹ It is hardly surprising that Marie-Joseph LAGRANGE, *La méthode historique*, Paris, 1904, from the first page onward talks about the reconciliation of “l'exégèse critique et le dogme ecclésiastique”.</footnote>

<footnote n="122">¹²² Cf. Edouard HOCEDEZ, *Histoire de la théologie au xIXe siècle*, 3 vols. (Museum Lessianum. Section théologique 43-45), Brussels, 1947-1952, Vol. 3, p. 63-93; Patricia M. McDONALD, *Biblical Scholarship. When Tradition Met Method*, in John DEEDY (ed.), *The Catholic Church in the Twentieth Century. Renewing and Reimaging the City of God*, Collegeville MA, 2000, p. 113-130.</footnote>

<footnote n="123">¹²³ Neoscholasticism was already quite influential at the era of Vatican I, but gained a powerful influx by Leo XIII through the 1879 encyclical *Aeterni Patris*. See Francis COPLESTON, *A History of Philosophy*, 11 vols., New York, 1994, Vol. 9, p. 250, and HOCEDEZ, *Histoire de la théologie*, Vol. 3, p. 351ff.</footnote>

<footnote n="124">¹²⁴ Robert Bruce ROBINSON, *Roman Catholic Exegesis Since Divino Afflante Spiritu. Hermeneutical Implications*, Atlanta GA, 1982, p. 11.</footnote>

<footnote n="125">¹²⁵ Henri RONDET, *Vatican I*, Paris, 1962, p. 112-113.</footnote>

<footnote n="126">¹²⁶ Cf. Jean-Noël ALETTI, *Conclusions*, in Claude SAVART and Jean-Noël ALETTI (ed.), *Le monde contemporain*, p. 517-522.</footnote>
litteralis of Scripture as conveying the meaning of the scriptural text as it was intended by its divine author.<fnref n="127" /> *Providentissimus* remained on the surface on most of these domains, reconfirmed a few traditional standpoints and associated itself relatively closely with the doctrinal stipulations of Trent and Vatican I.<fnref n="128" /> Although Leo XIII reacted to a notorious article by the Parisian, Maurice d’Hulst,<fnref n="129" /> the Modernist Crisis only came into its own in the first decade of the twentieth century. Where Leo XIII had continued to speak of rationalism, Pius X introduced the new term “modernism” in the encyclical *Pascendi dominici gregis* of 1907¹³⁰ and in the earlier decree, *Lamentabili*,<fnref n="131" /> which had already condemned no less than 65 propositions as modernist and was regarded as a ‘new syllabus of errors’. The entire first decade of the 20th century was characterised by a ‘document storm’ on biblical matters.

In 1902, Leo XIII officially established the Pontifical Biblical Commission,<fnref n="132" /> which gradually came to function as the magisterium’s control apparatus, and strongly aligned itself with intransigent neo-thomist theological currents.<fnref n="133" /> The motu proprio *Praestantia Scripturae*<fnref n="134" /> followed in 1907, and from 1910 onwards, the magisterium imposed the ‘anti-modernist oath’ on all Catholic theologians, thereby reinforcing Roman centralism and forcing Catholic exegetes to identify fully with magisterial teaching and authority. Moreover, the oath forced Catholic members of clergy into an allegiance with neo-scholastic thinking and to align exegetical principles with hierarchical requirements. Two whole years earlier, Alfred Loisy, one of the crisis’s leading figures, had been condemned after longstanding investigations.<fnref n="135" /> Loisy’s

<footnote n="127">¹²⁷ Thomas Aquinas, *Summa Theologiae*, I, 1, 10: Quia vero sensus litteralis est quem auctor intendit, auctor autem Sacrae Scripturae Deus est.</footnote>

<footnote n="128">¹²⁸ EB, p. 180, § 124: Etenim libri omnes atque integri, quos Ecclesia tamquam sacros et canonicos recipit, cum omnibus suis partibus Spiritu Sancto dictante conscripti sunt; tantum vero abest ut divinae inspirationi error ullus subesse possit, ut ea per se ipsa, non modo errorem excludat omnem, sed tam necessario excludat et respuat, quam necessarium est, Deum, summam Veritatem, nullius omnino erroris auctorem esse.</footnote>

<footnote n="129">¹²⁹ As regards the article of Msgr Maurice d’Hulst (1841-1896), then rector at the Institut Catholique de Paris, see Maurice D’HULST, *La question biblique*, in Le Correspondant, 134 (1893), p. 201-251. also see FRANCESCO BERETTA, *Monseigneur d’Hulst et la science chrétienne. Portrait d’un intellectuel* (Textes dossiers documents 16), Paris, 1996, p.99-123. On Maurice d’Hulst’s article, also see Christoph THEOBALD, *La Question biblique. De la doctrine de Providentissimus Deus à la réception de l’exégèse historico-critique par Divino Afflante Spiritu*, in Bernard SESBOUÉ and Christoph THEOBALD (eds.), *La parole du salut* (Histoire des dogmes, 4), Paris, 1996, p. 345-382.</footnote>

<footnote n="130">¹³⁰ Pius X, *Litterae encyclicae Pascendi de modernistarum doctrinis*, in ASS, 40 (1907), p. 622-39.</footnote>

<footnote n="131">¹³¹ S. Congregatio Sacrae Romanae et Universalis Inquisitionis, *Decretum Lamentabili quo sub 65 propositionibus reprobantur et proscribuntur praecipui errores reformismi seu modernismi*, in ASS, 40 (1907), p. 470-478.</footnote>

<footnote n="132">¹³² On the establishing of the Commission in 1902 and its further history, see Albert VANHOYE, *Passé et présent de la Commission biblique*, in Gregorianum, 74 (1993), p. 261-75.</footnote>

<footnote n="133">¹³³ In 1905 Pius X replaced the then secretary of the Biblical Commission by the more traditional-minded Belgian benedictine Laurent Janssens (1855-1925). See Olivier ROUSSEAU, ‘Sa grandeur Mgr. Janssens O.S.B.,’ *Revue liturgique et monastique*, 10 (1925), p. 285-2892.</footnote>

<footnote n="134">¹³⁴ EB, p. 272-279, there 276: tum vero maxime quum modernistarum errores, id est omnium haereseon collectum.</footnote>

<footnote n="135">¹³⁵ See Claus ARNOLD and Giacomo LOSITO (eds.) *La censure d’Alfred Loisy (1903). Les documents des Congrégations de l’Index et du Saint Office*, Rome, 2009.</footnote>