On March 31, the bishops of France announced that they would petition the Holy See for permission to open a beatification cause for Father Henri de Lubac, SJ.
Whatever the outcome of the cause, paying such a tribute to one of the great figures of 20th-century Catholic theology was a fitting way to continue celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Council’s opening. For without de Lubac’s pioneering work in recovering the Fathers of the Church and the riches of medieval biblical commentary for contemporary Catholic thought, the key texts of Vatican II texts — its dogmatic constitutions on divine revelation and on the Church — would not be so richly scriptural and patristic in content and style.
Who was Henri de Lubac? He was a veteran of the French army in World War I, during which he was severely wounded. He was, as just noted, a leading figure in the movement to revitalize Catholic theology by a “return to the sources.” He was a leader in the French Catholic resistance to Nazism after the fall of France in 1940 and a keen student of modern atheism.
Exiled to the theological sidelines during the last years of Pius XII, he was rehabilitated by John XXIII, who appointed him to one of the commissions planning Vatican II. During the Council, he played a pivotal, if under-appreciated, role by arguing in his gentle way that Vatican II was not summoned to reinvent Catholicism, but to renew it for mission by deepening the Church’s understanding of the Gospel so that the Church might more effectively offer Jesus Christ to the world.
For it was Father de Lubac who ignited the War of the Conciliar Succession: the fierce struggle — not between stereotypical “progressives” and “traditionalists” but among the reformist theologians at the Council — over the meaning of the entire conciliar experience. The French Jesuit stood with his younger German colleague, Joseph Ratzinger, and others in insisting that Vatican II was a council of reform in continuity with tradition, not a council of rupture with the tradition — what some today call a council effecting a “paradigm shift.” And for this, Father de Lubac paid a considerable price.
When he was named a cardinal by John Paul II in 1983 — the first in a series of influential Vatican II theologians so honored by the Polish pope — his Jesuit brethren in France, many of whom regarded him as a theological turncoat, behaved abominably. Initially furious at the nomination, then indifferent, they dismissed this as “not our affair” and refused to help the 87-year-old cardinal-designate prepare for the consistory at which he would receive the red hat.
De Lubac’s young friends in the circle of the French edition of Communio (a journal he helped create) stepped in, buying him the new robes appropriate to a cardinal and dunning de Lubac’s provincial into providing him a return ticket to Rome and a companion for the journey. On returning from the consistory, Cardinal de Lubac was given a reception by the Parisian Jesuits, at which only soft drinks were served.
Throughout this trial, as during the years when he was held in suspicion by Church authorities in the Vatican, Henri de Lubac behaved like a gentleman. He was more than that, though. He was a true churchman, as demonstrated by his memoir, At the Service of the Church: Henri de Lubac Reflects on the Circumstances That Occasioned His Writings (Ignatius Press). Whether beset by misunderstanding, slander or maliciousness, he remained a paragon of reason and charity. Scholars will continue to debate de Lubac’s teaching on the relationship of nature and grace, the natural and the supernatural. But there can be no question of the French theologian’s devotion to the cause of Christ or his fidelity to the Church.
He took seriously St. Ignatius’s command that the men of the Society of Jesus should “set the world ablaze.” He understood that the tools for igniting evangelization must be refined over time, for the truths Christ had bequeathed to the Church could not be confined to a single set of formulas. Those truths were enduring, however, and it was the theologian’s task to harness his thinking to them, not to imagine himself their master.
Henri de Lubac knew that the great totalitarianisms of his time — Nazism and communism — were false, ultramundane religions that had to be fought with what he called “weapons of the spirit.” Those same “weapons” could also serve to renew the Church for mission. His was a grand vision, well lived. Whether he is eventually beatified or not, it is right to honor him for articulating it.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
The canonization of the twentieth century theological enterprise need be put on hold — I really don’t care who it is. We have confected with our own hands a debacle that rivals anything seen in salvation history. Presently I’m convinced it is all quite deliberate.
The ecclesial hubris presently in overdrive is gut wrenching.
You read my mind. There is an agenda to validate the removal of the pillars of Catholicism, especially original sin, although this is not limited to the last hundred years of theological stupidity. To me, de Lubac is a mixed figure, but I do not know enough. It’s hard to take anyone who praised Teilhard De Chardin without lots of reservations. Nonetheless, I’m waiting for Francis to appoint one of the commissions he likes to talk about “to study” whether Luther can be canonized.
We read: “For without de Lubac’s pioneering work […] the key texts of Vatican II texts — its dogmatic constitutions on divine revelation and on the Church — would not be so richly scriptural and patristic in content and style.”
And, without those texts (“on the Church:” Lumen Gentium) would not have the benchmark perspective for evaluating truly the slippery slope of mingling the Apostolic Succession and the “hierarchical communion” of the episcopacy with the papacy, with lay voters at the upcoming Synod on Synodality.
The historical perspective, too, to recognize the slippery slope of 1789 where the clergy fell into the hands of the non-ordained by fully combining into the merged Assembly of the Three Estates (the problematic structure of the clergy, nobility, and commoners).
The current perspective to see that the German formula of such mingled voting in “non-synod” der Synodale Weg is now transplanted to the “synodal” Church as a whole.
And, the radical difference between the Jesuit De Lubac and the Jesuit Hollerich who announces to a literate and captive audience that it’s “only a change, not a revolution.”
Well done my friend. We need to emulate our noble, saintly churchmen.
Why Blessed Henri de Lubac and not Blessed Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange?
Three visits to France in the last nine months have confirmed that the most vibrant Church in France belongs to the traditionally minded young people, their priests and the young monastic communities such as those of Fontgombault and Le Barroux .
De Lubac’s nouvelle theologie leads to dead end modernism and unbelief. And some very uninspiring liturgy.
Are the French bishops simply playing church politics
Garrigou-LaGrange, Merry del Val, and Ottiavani also behaved like gentleman, were true churchman, and exhibited devotion to the cause of Christ and fidelity to the Church. Likewise von Balthasar. But I can’t see how any of them demonstrated the heroic virtue usually associated with official saints. Weigel does seem to want to canonize “the twentieth century theological enterprise.” I am not convinced this is a good idea.
The current National Eucharistic Revival (NER) should have been launched by the organizing bishops and theologians only after reading, studying and understanding Henri de Lubac’s Corpus Mysticum (CM) rather than merely reacting to various surveys showing that less and less Catholics believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. They could have been informed and enriched by de Lubac in a similar manner he influenced the Vatican II council fathers in their ressourcement or recovery of the ancient biblical and patristic theologies of the Eucharist. The NER’s singular focus on the real presence of Christ in the sacramental Eucharist neglects and misses the real presence of Christ in the ecclesial Eucharist. De Lubac’s enrichment of the Eucharistic theologies in Sacrosanctum Councilium (SC) and St. Pope John Paul II’s Ecclesia de Eucharistia (EE) highlights the intersection of the Eucharist and the Church. This is best expressed in the aphorism: “The Eucharist makes the Church; The Church makes the Eucharist.” CM traces the history of the Eucharist and points out that prior to the 9th century it was held in faith that the Eucharistic celebration resulted not only in the transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ but also the transformation of the gathered assembly into the body of Christ. Subsequent theological debate fixated on the manner of the transformation (later settled as transubstantiation) of the species into the real body and blood of Christ led to the eventual indifference about the transformation of the celebrating community into the ecclesial Eucharist. Eucharistic theology and spirituality has then solely focused on the real presence of Christ in the sacramental Eucharist and forgot the equally real presence of Christ in the ecclesial Eucharist. Vatican II restored the ancient faith in the real presence of Christ in aside from the sacramental species but also in the gathered community, in the presider and in the proclamation of the Word (SC 7). The NER in responding to the diminishing faith in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist should have appropriated de Lubac’s retrieval of the ancient faith in the convergence of the sacramental and ecclesial body of Christ articulated and expounded in CM, SC and EE.
I can see in the future that the Church will have a Saint Henri de Lubac as the saint for highlighting the real presence of Christ in the gathered eucharistic assembly just as we now have Saint Juliana of Liege as the saint for teaching the real presence of Christ in eucharistic species.
Well stated & concise. “Me and the Eucharist” mentality is only part of our faith. Being alone w God is not Godly.
“Being alone w God is not Godly.”
And yet we have the examples of Moses, the Prophets, Christ himself, St. Paul, the desert fathers, the mystics, etc.
If we really are with God, whether “alone” or not, we are in communion with Perfect Communion, and thus in communion with all the saints (ie, the Church).
Some guy in Rome writing in the 1940s:
To many there seems to be only one religious order these days and it’s the Jesuits! I am sick, sore and tired of hearing about this order that has done so much since to council to confuse and to stray from the path which it’s saintly founders envisioned! Back to basics first before anymore rushed Saint making!
I would agree with you if the plan was to beatify the entire Society of Jesus. But it’s a bit unfair to de Lubac, who was theologically brilliant and also humble (and who did much during WWII to help in fighting Nazism), to lump him in with wayward Jesuits today. Especially since he (like Jean Danielou) suffered more than a little at the hands of his fellow Jesuits.
Correct, there are around 16,000 Jesuits worldwide. In the U.S., not all Jesuits are like the liberal unorthodox James Martin. There are also prominent conservative orthodox Jesuits like Joseph Fessio, Mitch Pacwa, or especially the late Cardinal Avery Dulles.
“Through Him, with Him and in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever.”
The Church believes in the mediation of Christ alone and His supreme Priesthood. Only “through Him, with Him and in Him” can we reach the Father. “No one comes to the Father except through me.” (Jn 14:6) We know that our deeds are pleasing to God through Christ. Our lives united to His life, to His death and to His resurrection, are glory and honor to the Trinity..”
The diminishing of Faith in the Real Presence of Christ is evident by the fact that a multitude of Baptized Catholics now profess that sin done in private is not sin, which denies The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque) and is both anti Christ and anti Papacy.
“Through Him, with Him and in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever.”
The facts are: 1) Jorge Bergoglio’s heresy was external and made public and notorious, when as a cardinal, he stated in his book, On Heaven and Earth, in regards to same-sex sexual relationships, and thus same-sex sexual acts, prior to his election as pope, on page 117, demonstrating that he does not hold, keep, or teach The Catholic Faith, and he continues to act accordingly: “If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party, nor is society affected. Now, if the union is given the category of marriage, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and a female mother that can help shape their identity.”- Jorge Bergoglio, denying The Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and the fact that God, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, Is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage, while denying sin done in private is sin.
How is it possible that a man who claims sin done in private is not sin, which in denying The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, is both anti Filioque and anti Papacy, and demonstrates a lack of Faith in The True Presence Of Christ, because The Good Shepherd does not deny that sin done in Private is sin, could possibly validly be elected to The Papacy?
An anti Christ Papacy would be more than just an oxymoron, it would be a counterfeit church led by an apostate schismatic. Thank God, it is not possible for an apostate schismatic church to subsist within Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque).
There are True Faithful Jesuits, and there are unfaithful, apostate, schismatic who profess to be Jesuits, while claiming sin, done in private, is not sin, as if it is possible for private morality and public morality to serve in opposition to one another, thus denying The Unity Of The Holy Ghost.
We can know through both Faith and Reason, that denying The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, is both anti Filioque and anti Papacy. Jorge Bergoglio, prior to his election to The Papacy, by denying sin done in private is not sin, revealed that he was both anti Filioque, and anti Papacy. Tell me then, how could the election of a man to the Papacy, who prior to his election, was anti Filioque and anti Papacy possibly be valid?
“I Know My sheep and My sheep know Me.”- Jesus The Christ
If you do not know Who Christ Is, you cannot recognize Christ “In The Breaking Of The Bread”.
Douay-Rheims Bible
“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain. “
At the heart of Liberty Is Christ, 4For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5Have moreover tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come…”, to not believe that Christ’s Sacrifice On The Cross will lead us to Salvation, but we must desire forgiveness for our sins, and accept Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy; believe in The Power And The Glory Of Salvation Love, and rejoice in the fact that No Greater Love Is There Than This, To Desire Salvation For One’s Beloved.
“Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope.”
“Blessed are they who are Called to The Marriage Supper Of The Lamb.”
Correct, there are around 16,000 Jesuits worldwide. In the U.S., not all Jesuits are like the liberal unorthodox James Martin. There are also prominent conservative orthodox Jesuits like Joseph Fessio, Mitch Pacwa, or especially the late Cardinal Avery Dulles.
J.M.J.
There are True Faithful Jesuits, and there are unfaithful, apostate, schismatic who profess to be Jesuits, while claiming sin, done in private, is not sin, as if it is possible for private morality and public morality to serve in opposition to one another, thus denying The Unity Of The Holy Ghost.
We can know through both Faith and Reason, that denying The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, is both anti Filioque and anti Papacy. Jorge Bergoglio, prior to his election to The Papacy, by denying sin done in private is sin, revealed that he was both anti Filioque, and anti Papacy. Tell me then, how could the election of a man to the Papacy, who prior to his election, was anti Filioque and anti Papacy possibly be valid?
“I Know My sheep and My sheep know Me.”- Jesus The Christ
If you do not know Who Christ Is, you cannot recognize Christ “In The Breaking Of The Bread”.
Douay-Rheims Bible
“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain. “
At the heart of Liberty Is Christ, “4For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5Have moreover tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come…”, to not believe that Christ’s Sacrifice On The Cross will lead us to Salvation, but we must desire forgiveness for our sins, and accept Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy; believe in The Power And The Glory Of Salvation Love, and rejoice in the fact that No Greater Love Is There Than This, To Desire Salvation For One’s Beloved.
“Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope.”
“Blessed are they who are Called to The Marriage Supper Of The Lamb.”
I admit that by my ” blanket” coverage of the Jesuit order was in many lacking charity and I appreciate the many clarifications, especially from Dr. Olsen. Nevertheless the fact remains is that the likes of James Martin are always to fore and thus gives the feeling that it is such heretical thought is to be seen. The orthodox members seem to have been put in a do not disturb box and that’s it! Although Fr Mitch’s recent video on Pachamama was excellent we need more robust retorts from more likewise sons of Ignatius!