History of Theology

152 Pages·1968·4.378 MB·English

by  Yves Congar

A HISTORY A History isb asoenthd e a rt"iTchlfeo b]yoF gri.e"
of Theology
Congwahrif c�ithar pp�dei anVr o�]�uX Vo fD ictionnaire de
TheolCaotghioelp iuqbulebi ysE hdeidtL ieotnos&u A zneey8, 7 ,
BoulReavsaprPadai r6li.,s
o
f
THEOLOGY
YvMe.sc;J o.n Og.Pa. r,
Translated and edited by Hunter Guthrie, S.f.
LiborfaC royn gCraetsaCsla orNgdu mb6e8r- 1 9008
TransCloaptyi©ro i1ng9 h6bt8yD oubl&eC doamyp aInn yc,.
Doubleday 6 Company1I nc. AlRli gRhetsse rved
Prinitnte hUden iStteadot fAes m e rica
1
Garden City New York
1¢8 FirEsdti tiinto hUnen iStteadot fAe mse r ica
Preface
Fore word
In an ecumenical age, this is an ecumenical work, both in This book substantially reproduces the article entitled
1 Dictionnaire de Theolo­
'Theologie" which appeared in the
content and composition.
gie Catholique
published at Paris in 1938-39. My manuscript
In content it presents a theology which is at once historical
was sent to the editor, Msgr. Amann, on the second of Sep­
and modern. In composition it is the original work of a
tember 1939, just as I was preparing to leave for the general
Dominican, translated and amicably edited by a Jesuit-
mobilization prior to World War II. Returning from the war
nothing could be more ecumenical.
at the end of May 1945, I was surprised to see that the editor
The work is truly a masterpiece. In this day of cloudy
had discarded about two-fifths of my text. It was a question
thinking it comes to grips with reality at every point that is at times of useful simplifications replacing long heavy argu­
important for man's relationship to himself and to eternity. ments, and in these cases I have let the changes stand. At
It is a work of scholarship and still a text geared to the stu­ other times, however, there were deletions that weakened the
dent's needs and his problems. It is a basic orientation course text and its documentation, and in such cases I have restored
the deleted passages. This fact alone is evidence that the
for the start of a college curriculum in theology. For it in­
present text is more complete than that published in the
troduces the student to all of the great names in Catholic
Dictionnaire.
thought, together with their methods and conclusions.
It has, moreover, another claim to relative perfection. I
In keeping with the ecumenical age, Martin Luther has
have tried to update the present work, particularly in its
his say and, indeed, a very good one.
historical section. Since 1939 there have been many books
From its pages those of all faiths, or none, can come to an
devoted to the object and method of theology. On these
adequate understanding of the march of Christian theological topics it was certainly my duty to provide a well-documented
thought during the last two thousand years. summary for my readers. I acknowledge the fact that the
result is somewhat short of what I envisaged. Several para­
May 1968 Hunter Guthrie, S.J.
graphs should have been rewritten, but time and opportunity
were simply not available. My excuse is that I bowed to the
friendly pleadings of eminent historians and of my editor.
I have, however, introduced rectifications and sufficient and
necessary additions, so that this revised edition meets the
exigencies of honesty and, hopefully, answers a real, current
need.
What has been published during the past thirty years on
8
PREFACE
PREFACE 9
the life of the world and of the Church deserves more than
Fr. Charlier had outlined a critique of the nature and validity
a simple up-to-date bibliography. The theological situation, in
of theological conclusions, which it must be admitted never
fact even the idea of theological endeavor, has changed in a
gained much support. Fr. Chenu's work examined the role
quarter of a century. Nevertheless, it is well to remember that
of spiritual experience in the orientation of theology and also
the continuities are more profound than the differences.
the value which the life of the Church has as a locus theo­
What has been called the "new theology" ( radical as it
logicus. The problem arose when, in a very questionable man­
may seem) is, in fact, more traditional than similar advances
ner, these ideas of a vitalist religious conception of theology
in otJier intellectual disciplines. Many eminent contemporary
were grouped together and published, each in its own per­
theologians are finding that their research turns up traditional
spective, by Fr. Th. Soiron, G. Koepgen, and Fr. Hans Urs
leads and data in the economy or history of salvation, in
von Balthasar.
eschatology, anthropology, etc. If we simply trace the evolu­
The choice of certain treatises translated in Sources chre­
tion of theological ideas since 1939 we will discover an in­
tiennes ( for example, the "Introduction" to one of Origen's
spired and profound renewal of traditional Christian thought.
works) strongly suggested that the typological, spiritual, and
This is not to say that no serious problems have arisen from
even allegorical exegesis of the Fathers was favored to the
the pact that Catholic theology seemed to have had with
detriment of the literal sense. A chapter in the Corpus mysti­
medieval or post-tridentine Scholasticism.
cum entitled "Du symbole a la dialectique" tried to encourage
Let us therefore have a look at what has taken place since
a return to a rich but wider interpretation in preference to
1939 and thus find out where we are today.
In
the conceptual analysis on which Scholasticism thrived. Fi­
France, 1944-46 were years of intense fermentation. H.
nally a sentence from Fr. Bouillard was cited: "When the
Two new collections of theological works appeared in print.
spirit evolves, a truth remains immutable thanks only to a
The first was Sources chretiennes ( 1942) which translated
simultaneous and correlative evolution of all its ideas and to
several books of the Greek Fathers, in particular those of
the fact that these preserve the same relation to each other.
Origen. The second series was called Theologie, which began
A theology which is no longer in tune with its time is a false
in 1944 with Conversion et grilce chez S. Thomas d'Aquin 2
theology." Now this could be interpreted as a profession
by Fr. H. Bouillard, and Corpus mysticum, and two years
later published Fr. H. de Lubac's Sumaturel. It was thought of historic and philosphic relativism, for it would seem that
that these publications were the beginnings and first expres­ the invariant dogma, which the faithful profess formally to
sions of a "new theology," whose manifesto seemed to have respect, remained foreign to ideas, that is, foreign to the
been an article published by Fr. Jean Danielou, "Les orienta­ concepts in which theology had given them a workable ex­
tions presentes de la pensee religieuse," in Etudes, avril-juin pression at some given date. Hence, it was left open to ques­
In
946. addition, new thinking on the nature of theology tion what was to become not only of St. Thomas' theology
�
itself was expressed by Fr. M. D. Chenu in an essay entitled but of theological science as he defined it. What in brief,
"Une Ecole de Theologie" and a book by Fr. L. Charlier was to be the value of dogmatic formulas? Some professional
le
Essdi sur Probl�me Theologique, published in 1938. Both Thomists, and particularly the Dominican Father R. Gar-
of these works were put on the Index on February 6, 1942.1 2Conversion et gri1ce chez S, Thomas d'Aquin, Paris, 1944, p. 219.
1 AAS, t. 1942, p. From this passage the usual quotation is simply the sentence I have
XXXIV, 37. underlined.
11
PREFACE
10
PREFACE
plified teaching of the schools and manuals, and even �e
rigou-Lagrange, soon gave expression to their disturbance
authority of St. Thomas himself, seemed to have been n­
�
and their questions. The authors, and even more forcefully fringed. Certain positions and formulations generally co s1d­
�
the Jesuit co1laborators of Sources chretiennes and Theologie,
ered settled-and almost canonized-had been brought mto
defended their position and explained it. They maintained
question. The anxiety aroused was for the �ost part artificia�.
that even though their position was basica1ly modernistic, it
At the time, however, a certain few fashioned the fantastic
was not necessarily destructive. It centered on two key points:
idea of a "new theology" which moreover they were incapabl
�
( 1) a distinction which was really a disjunction between
of defining-as this author has learned from personal expen­
faith and belief, the latter being the ideological structure in
ence a good hundred times between 1946 and 1950.
which faith finds expression; (2 ) the conception of the re­ . "
It is true that Pius XII had used the express10n new
lation between dogmatic pronouncements and religious reali­
theology" in his discourse of September 1946 to the general
ties as a relation of symbol to reality, not as an expression 4
proper Congregation of the Jesuits. The tenor of this discourse �ad
(however inadequate) to reality. .
been repeated to the general chapter of the Dommican
The writings of 1944-46, which dealt with certain points
of doctrinal history, had encountered to a certain extent the Fathers 11( without a repetition of the expression ''new �e­
ology") . Shortly after these two discourses, the En ychcal
same problem as the Modernists, viz., the variations in the :
Humani Generis specified the precise points about which the
representations and the intellectual construction of the affir­ 0
Holy Father foresaw the danger of certain "novelties."
mations of faith. But this, of course, is a problem encoun­
The dangers denounced arose from exce iv conce sions ade
tered in the pursuit of any historical knowledge. These authors � � � . �
to modern philosophies, dialectic matenahsm, existentialism,
solved the problem by distinguishing between an invariant of
historicism, or-as is very evident today-irenics. They fos­
affirmations, and the variable usage of technical notions to
tered a distrust of the use of reason in apologetics and theol­
translate essential truth in historic contexts differing cul­
turally and philosophically. For them, first of all, the in­ ogy, a weakening of speculative theology and of the value of
. .
variant was a set of affirmations having a real content of dogmatic formulas, a neglect of the ordina� 7:1agistenum,
truth. And secondly, in the differing notional translations and a failure to return to scriptural and patnstic sources.
which the theologians had given, there existed an analogy of
relations or a functional equivalence between the notions Today the crisis has passed, if indeed there was ever real�y
used to express that truth. In this way they escaped the ac­ a crisis. As always the problems remain. They are grounded m
cusation of ruinous anti-intellectualism and dogmatic relativ­ a situation whose component parts it may be useful to out­
ism justly brought against the Modernists. There remained line briefly. I distinguish three principal elements, to which
grounds, however, for suspecting that a penetrating philo­ 4 AAS, t. XXXVIII, 1946, pp. 384-86.
sophical analysis had furnished no clarification to the concept, 11 Ibid., pp. 386-88. .
reasoning, and systematization of theology.8 Indeed, the sim- 6 AAS, t. XLII, 1950, p. 56i sq.; Denz. 3875-9�. Fr. G. W. e1ge1 's
article, "The Historical Background of the Encyclical Humam Gen­
8 The discussion had not gone as far as a philosophical reinterro­ eris" (Theological Studies, t. XII, 1951, pp. 208-30) would dr�w
gation regarding the place of the concept in our perception of the fro� my pen certain reserves. But "Gleanings from th� Commentaries
truth, its nature and value. Some interesting reflections on this on Humani Generis" (pp. 520-49), a sort of bullet�n on the Ency­
subject by Fr. Ed. Schillebeeckx in Approches theologiques. I. Reve­ clical's commentaries, is well documented and mstructive.
lation et Theologie. Bruxelles, 1965, pp. 223-84, 340-45.
12 PREFACE 13
PREFACE
must be added the influence of ecumenism; but this latter stances, basically refer to the concept of �evelati.on itself.
is difficult to evaluate particularly with regard to the notion The gap between notionrs which w� have 1ust pomted out
of theology. exists primarily in that a ea. A one-sided approach to Revela­
r
The first is a enewal of the sources which nourish theologi­ tion has considered it to be a collection of statements ?rf a
cal thought, at least by giving it incentive and appeal. Pius philosophirc al type dealing with realitfes whrich almost e.nti el�
XIIr himself in the document where he undertook the defense escapre ou experience-as though 1t wer e . a collection o
of eason and speculative theology of the classical type theo ems whro se demonstration thre teacrhe simply would nort
recognized that "the study of the sources has always been a give. But fo the past sixty yea s the e has ?een a ?ett�
principle of rejuvenation for the sacred sciences, whereas understanding on the one hand of the economic �nd histo:1c
speculation which neglects to d7e lve again and again into the structure of Revelation, and on the other of its e�sential
deposit of faith proves sterile." Now the means of biblical aim of alliance, i.e., to establish an interpersonal �ela�on be:
and patristic source-research are incomparably better and tween God and His people. The dogmr atic Constitution Det
more abundant today than in the nineteenth century. The Verbrum of Vatican II (18 Novembe 1965) has finally �p­
deeprening of orur knowledge of history and philology have prop iated these values without the prejudice to a defimrte
trheseu rpreicmteadry i nsrtoeurecsets i nh ams orraei stehda no tohnere qquueessttiioonn.s Cdoeanltiancgt wwiitthh ionft eCllaerthctuoalilc ctohnetoelnotg.y ,T shiinsc eis itv esroyl viems pmoratnany t pfroorb ltehmes fourt uaet
the very natu e of theological work: Revelation takes place least enders them less problematic.
in the framework of history or of an "economy." But are a A second source of renewal which seems to be very effica­
conceptual-deductive method and an ordered plan of study cious is the rnew awareness which the theologians ha�e not
afomllaosws inang dm ceorrerleyl atthee aflol rmthael dseaqtau eonfc eRs, esvueffilactiioennt? 8 aAndn da pits nt'ot foaniltyh obf utth ael soe aolf stthaetier roofl et hwei twh orrelgda rfdro tmo tth�ies ssi.ttaunadti?oonm. Tt hoef
it true that many of the concepts borrowed by St. Thomas theorlogians rh ave always worked in rthe Chur�h .and for the
from Aristotle and used by Scholasticism do not really convey Chu ch. Fo ra long time, howeve , the ma1onty of them
agergxeaaapctte l,Sy c fithheosehl ac, sotknincco eswypnt,s t hhfoeeusseendsd ,a irjneu sStthiacecer ,eb diab nSldicc raiilpn ntduoerteeid?o n\Vtsh oeh fe craoell miinamn tcohene, pbpdoreisocutdoirnemugdceue dirsfa hotterhieodeic iginnat nahttdeioo o nlsto.uh gbeTy d aheisffixitsai rncmitgslua yti ssiatohisln elt d ho tohfau entg hdhsei. t tuohfvaaeeti. ti:woh no w rwl�md�1 .1c hchcha ed rt tthnhaeo�myt
notions of word, kingdom, and truth? There is definitely a schools and concerning certain questions ( for example, aspects
gap betwre en what we find under these headings in a good of Mariology). But a number of theologians have taken a
fitrnedat iisne tohea g greoaotd Slcehxiocloanst iocfs borib ilinc aol utrh ecolalossgiyc, manadn uwahlsa. t we breefltteecrt iovnie won offa itthh et ol itnhke Cwhhuicrhch b'si nddust yt ohfe oplroogpi. ocasiln gw ot�rke faa�1 tha
Finrally, the questions and the difficulties raised by the successfully to the men of this day and age. This lmk 1. ­
11Mo9g876io Hq6Sd.ue ueeema ' mndiynsan tis sstG, u ledaan nyeS dorai ncsar: ag"AAS LaDien o mc, itnporimp n1.ae ,9n5"46t 48i'n--e c64Mo96n; eoDhiimnne inqgeeuzns.e t' 3Mir8eet8.- lD6yle, . omCthohmeerne unc.t,i r'Pcounarmtios,-- pchloea srecifsay nion nrge ntthdheee r trhbeeayol isltocieigesin aotnif fi dcmaultilsiyes isom. nwtaehrryipc rhae cb�tinvagint syac neodnr d tt hhteheo elp osag�sirtcvoai�rlclaeyl
ministry. In the theology of the Incarnation of the Son, for
14
15
PREFACE
a1i(b ooognl tafosi efi vnnoRro snsnto fwe ntey m0 rok ttmdgco Tea,tmdtpe shchap h dttetahoir ttlte ehahh es Io h rtleaiiiaee or r t eeynxstyxcasgshnn oopnno pyee oIthclm soa s.haecpiw huproe tps t h eioweim madmtaw w ne gtedgieesersoooou w.tonIeh n;rhriy thrPgasem psoxffy hsuCs n,asnsheede eiy efr1riI t ri,escrcloie s dne elte la osh eOaw,tenth lhtpd ensoa ind,st ' nttC koeflu ot i a crma ?e.nrr hbyh rteiifh ednreeteldtdhnt"tehrsnihmsouxoncihah'c c ote ehx een ldu hh a etri otrithtto esm 1lamer c. aeV ei asir'vh mtbootrdsm sigcoo :0oe ha 1o b an-euo ggb;oaaa gana lnlniitnuepeeiulang lo nI s.nn0 ite ti eh�c sc dt ye ty t rn s e h r p:dmxee daymo h c e lnda . taoasay . dep fiYmS Iaa aaar n be nsnea t u ,n afiJs,;e nlt/un s t h rt e ttps aa�ca1t shos tr� he ncausr �'s i�ehn it Iam ;tls . iett arao h.leeI Ian dr.e i1e fi hhau e. d teolh nncm se tnao g o:i tatipqe. er fo ff qaix mctc hnronttoottaptesd f sui :honioouvee e.ih1p aso ie aogfm yeoe efle,nq modyre o t rtsls e m r snn. s t.mTtesssuo ) noteh: m obbpRda. thath ippn hvt·ge.nf ltthY id hci eah oe Ya?ehBeoarecesro etmce feq p rsray dnt ar ernnmivssoou t e prtrminntpunm· , t, pie e ekhs. aaoea an rottr raaigIehf n �hieiCttn omneer .t· ocfr onn�sl aiaeesthttihr g fglco tifil,o ssniaohheh d..ndrtsubee a1re o m.c ont shtio "0nie-s · sow e.od oe r n sruF.Wtn ei ruaess oooT msu mdiw oe o els e seni,toItss'dffn .o tit Tonarala h� qhp tolfe ti h1srb e·I ca -blb t i 1eta.fus tnr mti·hocah.w'noaormb hjcnhe bo.l,it rce ee of arrlihnfuta o ee·nedibee ekns ienec tmpblt ta t thtm tiroateee a ,ttishhityrur w ne t.csbooh e sln rbiswgeia maa.iye Dtron.ed usf enioe nri.r lcileion , scpooygeweer tevnf l eeBts s ilaa uiw s f-lsd ntltesvtir s n rae pp hlh gecis ebr h iae c eontr wknnahgthtoee l oeGcefl meeoqeeyprcttheniece nunyhto ainedehnanun dudeni eowderslj icltle afi nPsnee oiurocr litgdit hbsttr c itepsbchnwhgwegfliephsegie qiitpruoniganoi aonireooo' ceseei tyoailc aisugtrogcntslastiutnteddtnmteaodstyreeihyhnih nsscavladnni s­a. eed­-t­s- KCofMltttttl'cssapaadwctttmruholteaeahaihhehiohr drnREonnonuedoichoresdflcla reeeiletnirId ctmvetdnneatntnydu the"o s Ftoitifdi oretaie ogcki ancfiAtdrncr maucal.ion iosprn ir socntnCElslit ncglttsns ufae estmireehoeis.goia. t o e ta,o esossxw o ystth llfah"hlrns tie.nc naehhos oAina eoip eoieoewftili erc,t sga owiselebrbhrnxo 1 ecfegty eh tts oo:0yd ai hlar heilisoc o esca thstwe stl uorsanti.std strwoiiehhhuo"sa nbhpgticale.ionhea ne dcaes detannhybgeunfiefveTo nthaimp r I s .dio acc ,ltenstT "fblngt bd atiwl. lhhet"i lureds a tyeto.esraty r rt"ehiIha lhasiflrrI t gfli rn oh tiitlt alon sar ctaaaaaynshihfpS ttue tIea wwmnleiittn olwe ho ahlo tlocptm lir.be otii r ny tleov afaaehltaiatthhprdeownEy. iet nttesnt bs1 nootesehr puhh eg erntT hash d vglotn dbaoel poi ea,eitleacoeeayazii tcslhw l o a s se schlaa sn tiiocbootoesw eilettndaodnatgrerhi tli inhfhor afntiiceobn docnghh ii w o o,rfnoduenvi fl"gafo.t.olta,rir cus"n heryutai:cs ryguhaeirmntSo t tb ghoess,ssh gedc tuesh icu, e"k hhTbdnedeuohhnt at oobhgcaWt rp iw ihte)unagotht flhhohosoate oc o-r b ;tiecte e aatnennttritaaao f ge, sho,aeyotwssw m oc s ffd hln myws h xfdca oshtnect oahl eitnbsltioit yiotimshaaweeisthsnaelvcca atheegyft ,ett nnlaqaeatd rh ti ooeheCewhlae sswieta ln elbuwntur nt sc iil tudfts dhdihcheetyisnwhe n caStcohotlei hao n er riiieleo cibihcdtacusnute "innn ty nu rc,sahsst reyyha iglo ahgg aetmtl ggelne dftaat ohfffforl oce aa oi thoho et ffi omeooyroltffiotrssoeemtrndofoafar r s hsolnffcfh rrr eiugosoe.ktmtbg t essnte emt,thee fe hnwsy uuh iI tet aaae- rneetnsoe hthoaaewbnpte ndCriseti n ta eneeeefnp tntf iojppitoiao"anihtasheh nanff wndooc pot-lesr kcsStgecduouwe cgel onrush hqet(ay ct eg rcmmsosmtan riaosnrri ureolha u ivtottin cogyelnecrenhaeacrlehidhttoecnhonlgaalgaittsdwnnhy"odeoedcthee­f­­­­t,,­l­,
01 0o Sgeys sb . eIcIIo' m caep e. v4i:d Denetn!zy . u1o7nr9s 6a t(i. s3f0ai1cc6tao) z. ry. Tohfi. n tghne e scsl aasnsidc apl 'h ty hsei-- tnhie1eu°o wFloer. g wyS ceshneidellikenbsg e reiacntk hxde ehr athsou d iddraieg,;vmee l douoppg m aaal otliinesktg , o"tf h ienth leiTsneiej dsrse conhfor viafa ttr ieovflnoose:rc t"tiDhoene­
ologie, t. I, 1961, pp. 17-46.
16 17
PREFACE PREFACE
new approach has been attempted by a series of monographs
on faith from the standpoint of its message to men, and
12
entitled In this series we try to give
then a reflection on faith before undertaking a reply to that Le Mystere chretien.
to the datum (revelation) its primacy and a large develop­
fun�a�ental question: how is faith-not in general, but the
.
ment. But from this datum previously and carefully estab­
Chnstian faith-possible in a secularized world where it is
universally questioned and where the "death of God" is at lished, theology is constructed as a rational organization and
as an elaboration of it with the help-among others-of the
least practically admitted as an obvious condition for man
to affirm himself? Hence theology tends to become a reflection elements of traditional philosophy eventually, and subsidi­
on the totality of Revelation, on its fact insofar arily, with the help of the elements of modem philosophy.
and content
Another type of theology appears in the wake of K. Rabner
as it concerns man. For, from this viewpoint, nothing would
have been gained if, with the ancient apologetic, the fact of and his disciples. He makes no obeisance to the normal suc­
Revelation had been simply established with man's conse· cession of intellectus fidei to auditus fidei. He makes no
uent duty to submit to this Revelation without considering extended search into the annals of tradition to sift out the
9
its content and the basic relation to man. elements of an answer to new problems. Rather his position
Following the suggestion of Fr. K. Rahner11 these con. is a philosophical reflection on the relation which the global
iderations can evidently be developed into a formal theology, affirmation of faith has with man. When the questions of
�
mtroductory to the special theology where we find again special dogma are considered, it must be remembered that the
our classical treatises simply completed where they seem effort is not to establish or criticize certain treatises with ref­
most desirable. This formal dogma would thus assume, in erence to a documentary datum, but rather to establish a
part at least, the task of fundamental theology. It would critique of the concepts engaged in the question and of the
mvol e a large development of "transcendental anthropology," meanings of the affirmed propositions. In this way it is easy
;
to arrive at a renewal of the concepts with respect to which
that is, a study of the conditions in which Revelation
a priori
the question is posed, or at the relation between its concepts.
and faith are possible. But all of theology and tl1e mode of
Give thought to problems such as nature and grace, lay
"theologizing" would necessarily be affected.
status and functions of the Church, belonging to the Church,
It should be clear, then, that a classical type of theology
etc. . . . T o answer these questions calls for a real theology,
can and absorb the new questions and develop the new
adapt
for reflection applies to realities testified to by our faith, but
aspects, which, we have seen, refer to man and his existential
for a theology more philosophical and critico-reflective in
experience. For example, this is what M. Schmaus has already
character than historical.
done in his We have here a renovation of the
Domatik. In short, today we find differing manners of theologizing.
classic treatise, beginning with a study of the divine
De Deo
Scholasticism: conceptual, argumentative, or deductive, ex­
Persons, an insertion of theology into economy, a complete
hausts the datum of tradition, not only of an
intellectus
renovation of ecclesiology and eschatology, etc. This same
rationally established, but of an application to different
fidei,
11 See in the second edition of Lex. f. Theol. u. Kirche the artic1es
, times and cultures. The reflective manner, on the other hand,
Dogmatik (t. III, col. 449-51), Formale u. Fundamentale Theologie
( t. IV, col, .20 5); at the head of Schriften Theologie (t. I, philosophizes on the whole of Christian reality, illuminated,
, :zur
Fneburg, 1954, pp. 9-47) the plan for Dogma; P.G., An interview. if you will, by the existential experience of man.
KCaLrIl IIR, a1h9n6e5r,: pT. h2e1o7lo-g3i0a.n at Work, in The Amer. Eccles, Rev., t. 12 First volume: La Foi et la Theologie, Tournai-Paris, 1962,
18
PREFACE PREFACE 19
14
Vatican II has given us only a vague indication of the pastoral." The entire work of the Council echoes these
theological work of the future. The Council itself has used words implicitly, but certain passages of its documents are
a theology sprung from the common tradition of the Schools quite explicit: as, for example, that theology must seek a
15
in the Latin Church, but somewhat modified by its pastoral language adapted to our times and to achieve that we
intention. During the first period of the Council, especially
must borrow from different cultures the resources they con­
during the discussion on "the sources of Revelation" two 16
tinue to create. The faculties or schools of theology must
18
mentalities came to the forefront. On the one hand there 17
be in contact with other centers of human learning. The
was the conceptualist mentality, whose ideal is to define ex­
teaching of theology to future priests must be centered on
actly the outlines of a notion carefully isolated from others
the mystery of Christ and nourished by a knowledge of the
and considered on the supra-temporal level. In this manner 18
biblical and traditional sources. Even while naming St.
clean fishbone formulas are achieved without a chance of
Thomas as the best guide in speculative theology, the Council
revision by recourse to a more profound tradition or without
ordains that philosophy must keep abreast of the most recent
even a small margin pennitting some embellishment. It is
possible by pure reasoning to extend the consequences of the researches and that a place must be found for the study of
10
notion thus defined to new conclusions. But the Council fol­ other Christian theologies and eventually of other religions.
lowed another plan. It sought out a more concrete attack From the standpoint of topics treated, the Council moved
on reality, an overture of questions with the other Churches away from introspection on the nature of the Church and
truly
and approaches; often in this way the facts have preceded examined instead how the Church can benefit mankind.
and guided the ideas. The Council has not worked toward In the beginning it spent much time on the Church's life
propositions under the form of canons, but toward broad of prayer and ended up by speaking of the problems of
doctrinal statements often nourished by biblical and tradi­ man's life in the world, of his relation to God and the rela­
XXIII
tional sap. John outlined the path to take when, in tion between his earthly work and the Kingdom of Heaven.
11,
his discourse of October 1962, he said: "The Christian, With reference to both, it spoke of the Church, of divine
Catholic, and Apostolic spirit awaits throughout the world Revelation, etc. Theology must study the God of Revelation
a swift movement forward to a doctrinal penetration and a and man in his concrete relationship to God. But the Council
formation of consciences which corresponds more perfectly was equally precise in setting down theology's sources and
and more faithfully to the authentic doctrine, which must norms. These, of course, will always be Scripture and tradi­
nevertheless be studied and set forth in accord with the tion. And so, at the very moment when the Council was
ry
methods of inqui and presentation used by modern thought. admitting the insertion of "the religion of man" into "the
One thing is the substance of the ancient doctrine contained 14 AAS, t. LIV, 1962, p. 792.
°
in the deposit of faith; its formulation is another thing al­ 10 Cf. Const. Gaudium et spes, n 62, 2, Comp., fr°o m the stand­
point of preaching, the decree Presbyterorum ordinis, n 4, 1.
together. This in its forms and emphases must be regulated °
by the needs of a magisterium whose character is dominantly 1170 CCfo.n Csto. nGsta. uGdiauumdi uemt septe ss,p ens°, n62,4 4; D58e, c2la.r. Gravissimum Educa­
191684 M; I., Nppo.v a6k7,- 6T9h; eY .O Mpe.n-J . CChounrgcahr., VThatei cTanh eIoIlo, gAiscint.g I oIf. VNaetwic aYno rIkI,, tio1n8i Ds eMcroemt. eOntputmat,a mn° T1o0t.i us, n° 14 a7n;d 16.
in The American Eccles. Rev., 1966. 10 Ibid. n° 15 and 16.
20
PREFACE
religion of God" (to reproduce the Pope�s expressions in his
discourse of December 7, 1965) as a major theological preoc­
cupation, it recalled that even for that the decisive light
must be sought in positive Revelation.
Contents
Yves M.-J. Congar
Strasbourg
Foreword by Hunter Guthrie, S.J. 5
Preface 7
Prologue: The Meaning of "Theology" 2 5
One: The Patristic Age and St. Augustine 37
Two: From the Sixth Century to the Twelfth Century 50
Three; The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century 69
Four; The Golden Age of Scholasticism 85
Five: The Reformation and the Counter-Reformation 144
From the Seventeenth Century to the Present 177
Six:
General Bibliography and Suggested Reading List 289
299
Index
Editor's Note PROLOGUE
The Meaning of "Theology11
The following are the bibliographical abbreviations most com­
monly used throughout this book:
The term "theology" means a reasoned account about God.
The theology presented in this work is Christian and Catho­
AAS Acta Apostolicae Sedis
lic. For a provisional start it may be defined as a body of
Denz. Enchiridion Symbolorum, Definitionum et Declarationum,
ed. Denzinger-Schonmetzer
knowledge which rationally interprets, elaborates and ordains
ed. J.-P. the truths of Revelation.
PG Patrologiae Cursus completus, Series Graeca,
Migne Like many words of ecclesiastical usage, the term "theol­
ed. J.-P. ogy" has passed from Greek to Latin to most modern lan­
PL Patrologiae Gursus completus, Series Latina,
Migne guages with no significant alphabetical change. However,
before settling on its actual meaning, the Greek term for
theology, 0rn>..oyals aw,el l as the allied terms 0Eo>..6yos and
passed through variant significations which cannot
0rn>..oy<iv,
be briefly classified.
IN THE PAGAN ERA
In pagan antiquity the term 0Eo>..osyel(daom had the mean­
ing it has historically developed in the Christian era with
regard to a doctrine on God. For the pagans "divinity" was
rather a convenient manner of explaining the things of this
world. It enveloped the nymphs and d ads and the ambrosi­
ry
ally busy characters on Mount Olympus. For them the
"theologians" were the poets of the past like O heus,
rp
Homer, and Hesiod, who had drawn up detailed theogonies;
in fact, any prose writer who speculated on the origin of
the world was a "theologian." To these "theologians," who
attributed a mythological explanation to the world, Aristotle
in his histo of philosophy set up an opposite group of
ry
thinkers whom he called "philosophers." These were histori­
cal figures like Thales, the first of the Milesians, and his