 | ||||
| Part ofa series on | ||||
| Catholic philosophy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
   | ||||
TheNouvelle théologie (English:New Theology) is anintellectual movement inCatholic theology that arose in the mid-20th century. It is best known forPope John XXIII's endorsement of its closely-associatedressourcement (French forreturn to the sources) idea, which shaped the events of theSecond Vatican Council.[1][2] It existed most notably among certain circles of French and German theologians.
Thenouveaux théologiens (new theologians) sought "a spiritual and intellectual communion withChristianity in its most vital moments as transmitted to us in its classic texts, a communion which would nourish, invigorate, and rejuvenatetwentieth-century Catholicism."[3] Many of the theologians associated with the movement advocated for a far broader "return to the sources" of the Christian faith: namely,Scripture and the writings of theChurch Fathers. They also developed a renewed interest in particulars ofbiblical exegesis,typology, art, literature, andmysticism.
Following the promulgation of the encyclicalAeterni Patris byPope Leo XIII in 1879, Catholic theology became dominated byneo-scholasticism.[4] During the reign ofPope Pius X, neo-scholasticism became increasingly defined in opposition toModernism: in 1914 Pius X ordered the publication of a list of 24 philosophical propositions, propositions summarising the central tenets of neo-scholasticism to be taught in all colleges as fundamental elements of philosophy.[5]
The roots of a questioning such neo-scholastic dominance may be traced to theologians working from the 1920s onwards. While some FrenchJesuit studies conducted in exile atOre Place,Hastings,England, in the years 1906–1926 have been seen by some as forerunners of thenouvelle théologie,[6] thenouvelle théologie movement itself is generally associated with the period between 1935 and 1960.[7] In its early stages (i.e. the 1930s and early 1940s) the movement is also particularly associated with the French language, in part contrast with the Latin used in seminary teaching at the time.[8]
Although lumped together as a set by their opponents, the theologians associated with thenouvelle théologie had a great range of interests, views, and methodologies, and were not themselves a co-ordinated group. In later writing,Yves Congar,Henri de Lubac andHenri Bouillard all denied that thenouvelle théologie was anything but a construct of its opponents.[9] However, subsequent studies of the movement have suggested that there did exist a set of shared characteristics among writers of thenouvelle théologie. These include:[10]
The developing movement received criticisms in the late 1940s and 1950s. A first attack was made by the influentialDominican[11] theologianRéginald Garrigou-LagrangeOP in a polemical 1946 article in the journalAngelicum.[12] While the theologians of the movement generally preferred to call their movement aressourcement, based on their return to original patristic thought, Garrigou-Lagrange claimed that they did not "return to the sources" but deviated from the long-standing theological tradition of the Catholic Church, thus creating a "new theology" all their own which, he claimed, was essentiallyModernism in disguise. Although another writer,Pietro Parente, had used the term "teologia nuova" in an 1942 article onL'Osservatore Romano, it was from Garrigou-Lagrange's article that the label entered into widespread use.[a]
In 1950,Pope Pius XII published the encyclicalHumani generis, in which he condemned "certain new intellectual currents" in the Church, accusing them of relativism and attacking them for reformulating dogmas in a way that was not consistent with Church tradition and for followingbiblical hermeneutics that deviated from the teachings of the encyclicalsProvidentissimus Deus,[14]Spiritus Paraclitus[15] andDivino afflante Spiritu;[16] Pius XII also admonished that such currents were trying to revive themodernist heresy, which had been strongly condemned by Pius X in his 1907 encyclicalPascendi Dominici gregis.[17][18][19]
The encyclical did not mention any particular theologian but was widely interpreted as a condemnation of theNouvelle théologie and was followed by an extensive purge inLe Saulchoir and Fourvière.[20] The broader impact ofHumani Generis was a freezing of systematic theology into a Thomist orthodoxy represented by the “twenty-four theses” of Pius X.[21] Some parts of the encyclicalsMystici Corporis Christi (1943) andMediator Dei (1947) have also been considered to be a condemnation of theNouvelle théologie.[22][23][18]
Following the election ofPope John XXIII and the calling of theSecond Vatican Council, anti-modernist polemics declined and many theologians associated with theNouvelle théologie were gradually rehabilitated and many of them took part in the Council with the qualification ofperitus.
Following the Council, the moreconservative supporters ofNouvelle théologie had important careers in the Church:Hans Urs von Balthasar,Jean DaniélouSJ,Yves CongarOP andHenri de LubacSJ were made cardinals byPope John Paul II, while Joseph Ratzinger was elected asPope Benedict XVI in 2005. The same could not be said for the moreliberal members, who were gradually marginalised due to their extreme views:Hans Küng was stripped from his theological license by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1979 for questioningpapal infallibility, whileEdward SchillebeeckxOP was repeatedly condemned by the Congregation and even by Pope Paul VI himself (encyclicalMysterium fidei) due to his heterodox views aboutChristology and theeucharist.[24]
The 1993 encyclicalVeritatis splendor ofPope John Paul II softened the stance ofAeterni Patris andHumani generis, stating that, although the thought of St. Thomas took precedence, other avenues could be explored for the good of the Church.[25][21]
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)| Documents | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| People |
| ||||||||||
| General | |||||||||||
| Other | |||||||||||
| Criticism | |||||||||||
