Abstract
The article shows from texts and sources of Vatican II that it is a major strategy of theological reform at the Council to understand the Church eschatologically. Leaving behind positions of traditional neo-scholastic ecclesiology, this strategy remodels the social, missionary, and ecumenical character of the Church. Moreover, it affects the understanding of time and eternity as well as the relationship between the Church in the political order.
In memory of Peter Walter (1950–2019)
The research of the last decades has given broad evidence of Vatican II promoting a re-definition of the Church and its relations to the modern world in all its major texts. 1 A rather small aspect of the Council’s re-definition lies in the eschatological form the Council fathers have accorded to the Church. The eschatological understanding of the Church stands, however, for a specific pattern of theological reform that is revealed by a closer look at different texts and sources of Vatican II. 2 Along the lines of three major documents of the Council 3 I wish to demonstrate in this article how an eschatological understanding of the Church was achieved and how it was able to open up new perspectives to Catholic ecclesiology.
This applies, first of all, to the nature of the Church itself where a new social and missionary understanding comes to the fore leaving behind a view that was centered on the clergy and that was exclusivist in its relationship to other cultures and denominations. At the same time, speaking of the eschatological character of the Church was able to reshape traditional eschatology and its focus on the salvation of the individual soul. This remodeling of the Church and the eschaton also affected the understanding of eschatological time as well as the relationship between the Church and the political sphere. Particularly, the eschatological awakening in the theology of the 20th century placed in question a long held understanding of eschatological time as opposed to historical time, as well as an apolitical understanding of the Church. By making the relationship between time and eternity and the Church and the political more dynamic than in neoscholastic theology, an eschatological understanding of the Church faces new problems that have become questions of the debate in the years after the Council.
‘Salvation history’ in Sacrosanctum Concilium and the Influence of Erik Peterson
At the first glance, the ‘Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy’ seems to contain little that is relevant for ecclesiology. The major part of the document deals with rather specific questions for a reform of the liturgy. However, the Council fathers started the Council with a document on the liturgy to underline the relevance of the liturgy for the life of the Church. The term ‘liturgy’ is traditionally reserved for the official worship of the Church (cultus publicus). 4 It is situated at the heart of Christian life and manifests what the Church fully is. This is best expressed in the definition of SC 10: The liturgy is ‘the summit (culmen) toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font (fons) from which all her power flows.’ The general remarks in numbers 5-13 on the ‘the nature of the sacred liturgy and its importance in the Church’s life’ therefore contain an ecclesiology in nuce.
The introductory chapter includes a Christocentric account of the Church and its liturgy centered on this phrase: the ‘paschal mystery of Christ’ (SC 6).
5
The roots of this phrase can be traced back to different influential theologians of Catholic reform in the context of the Council. For some of them an eschatological interpretation of salvation history is significant.
6
And the introductory chapter directly refers to the eschatological character of the liturgy and the Church as well. In SC 8 it says: In the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the holy city of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, a minister of the holies and of the true tabernacle; we sing a hymn to the Lord’s glory with all the warriors of the heavenly army; venerating the memory of the saints, we hope for some part and fellowship with them; we eagerly await the Saviour, Our Lord Jesus Christ, until He, our life, shall appear and we too will appear with Him in glory.
The commentaries on SC pay little attention to these lines. 7 Recent studies, however, suggest that the origin of SC 8 lies in the theology of Erik Peterson, a Protestant biblical scholar who had converted to Catholicism in 1930. Barbara Nichtweiß observed that the passage is very similar to the beginning of Peterson’s Book on the Angels, first published in 1935. 8 In fact, this book is mentioned in a list of publications relevant for the document in the Acta Synodalia. 9 Although it is difficult to track the way Peterson’s theology came into the text, it is likely to have influenced SC’s account of the eschatological character of the liturgy and the Church. 10
Despite the special role the convert Peterson was playing in Catholic theology, 11 it is possible to show that Peterson’s eschatological account of the Church runs parallel to the Council’s general agenda of ecclesiological reform in many ways. Major theological problems addressed by the eschatological interpretation of the Church in other documents of the Council are significant also for Peterson’s theology, such as the relationship between time and eternity, the liturgical character of the Church in general, and the relationship between the Church and the political world. Although there is no fully developed notion of the eschatological character of the Church in the document, its sources—most notably the influence of Peterson on SC 8—provide a link to aspects that can also be found in other documents of the Council—first and foremost in LG.
The ‘Eschatological Character’ of the Church According to Lumen Gentium
The dogmatic constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium contains an overall account of a reformed Catholic ecclesiology. Among the most important keynotes of the Council’s ecclesiological agenda of reform are the re-discovery of biblical and patristic sources, a christocentric and sacramental foundation of the Church, a new relationship to other Christian denominations and religions, and a new balance between the people of God and the hierarchical structure of the Church. Most of these issues are concentrated in the first four chapters of the document. The theological debates after the Council were therefore focused on the interpretation of these chapters, while chapters 5–8 were less discussed. It is one of these chapters, chapter VII, ‘on the eschatological character’ of the Church, that pursues an eschatological interpretation of the church. 12 Therefore, chapter VII and its account of the eschatological character of the Church is of primary interest for our analysis. This does not mean losing sight of the general agenda of ecclesiological reform in LG. Rather, it appears that this agenda is closely connected to the theological programme of an eschatological interpretation of the Church.
To understand this connection a short survey of the textual history can be helpful. First of all, it must be noted that what later became chapter VII was originally not part of the first drafts of LG. The history of LG began with a draft entitled ‘De Ecclesia’ which came from the preparatory commission consisting primarily of curial officials or theologians from the Roman universities. This draft faced a lot of criticism by the Council fathers in the first session. Among the many suggestions to change it was also an influential scheme by the German bishops that was shaped especially by Karl Rahner. 13 A second draft was issued in 1963, a third one in 1964. Only this third draft contained the chapter on the eschatological character of the Church.
This text was of a separate origin that goes back to John XXIII. 14 He had instructed Cardinal Larraona, the prefect of the Congregation of Rites, to elaborate a text on the veneration of the saints. The text with the title ‘The relationship of the pilgrim Church to the Church triumphant’ was sent by Paul VI to the theological commission of the Council in 1963. 15 The commission set up a sub-commission which made a first revision of the text. 16 A second revision, in which Yves Congar and Karl Rahner were involved, took place in June 1964. The text was now called ‘On the eschatological character of our vocation and on our union with the heavenly Church.’ 17 It was this version that was included into the third draft of LG. The discussion in the auditorium on what now was chapter VII took place on 15 and 16 September 1964. Following this discussion major changes were made until the chapter was accepted by the end of October. Its final title was ‘The eschatological nature of the pilgrim Church and its union with the Church in heaven.’ 18
The titles of the three versions each indicate an important innovative aspect of the whole chapter. First of all, speaking of a ‘pilgrim Church’ was something new. Although St Augustine uses the image of the pilgrimage frequently for the civitas terrena (that is not identical with the Church on earth), there is little reference in the theological tradition to a pilgrim Church. Commonly, the ‘Church triumphant’ (that still appears in the first draft and is later replaced by the ecclesia caelestis) was contrasted to the ‘Church militant’ (ecclesia militans). By giving up this terminology, the Council promoted an account of the earthly Church that defines itself not by fighting an enemy but by facing different contemporary circumstances. 19 This terminology was kept in the final version and appears also in other parts of LG (e.g. in no. 14 and at the end of the Marian chapter VIII). The title of the second draft introduces the word ‘eschatological’ with respect to ‘our vocation’ which alludes to the Christian call to strive for heavenly beatitude. The third draft, then, widens the perspective by calling the pilgrim Church ‘eschatological.’ While all three titles indicate that there are two parts of the Church which are considered in their relationship, the third title assigns an ‘eschatological nature’ to the earthly Church.
It is this aspect that our analysis of chapter VII is focused on. Regarding the textual history, it seems that the inclusion of the chapter had an effect both on the ecclesiology of the whole document and on the eschatology that was traditionally connected with the veneration of the saints and that was underlying the initial draft of chapter VII. 20
‘Universal Sacrament of Salvation’—The Social and Universal Character of the Church and the Eschaton
It is a dominant aspect of the ecclesiology presented in the whole document of LG to conceive of the Church as a communal reality that is bound to a universal mission. In the decades before the Council groundbreaking works like Henri de Lubac’s Catholicism had shed new light on the social character of the Church, drawing on communal allegories in patristic theology. 21 This was done not simply to prevent the church from being defined primarily as the clergy. In fact, de Lubac tried to sketch a communal concept of salvation as opposed to an individualistic account, which turned the Church into a vehicle for saving one’s own soul. Likewise, de Lubac and others stressed the universal mission of the Church to all of humanity. This was not just a classical reference to the command to ‘go and make disciples of all nations’ (Mt 28,18) but it should commit the Church to embrace every cultural horizon and to adopt an inclusive relationship to other religions.
In Lumen Gentium 1 these ecclesiological visions appear in the framework of a Christocentric account of the Church: Christ—not the Church—is the light of the people, as the first words of the document put it. The Church, then, is not a self-contained institution but always refers to the universal salvific will of Christ. 22 Its rootedness in Christ does not lead to a static identity but demands that it be open in a twofold way: it must always renew itself in Christ and it must always seek to bring all humanity closer to Christ, who is the ground of salvation. This Christocentric and sacramental account of the Church includes its communal character as well as the universal mission of the Church. In the words of the well-known definition in LG 1: ‘Since the Church is in Christ like a sacrament or as a sign and instrument both of a very closely knit union with God and of the unity of the whole human race, it desires now to unfold more fully to the faithful of the Church and to the whole world its own inner nature and universal mission.’
These ecclesiological guidelines and their influence on other sections of LG or on other documents of the Council have been broadly explored in recent research on the Council. Little attention was paid, however, to the fact that the key term generally used to characterize the ecclesiology of LG—‘universal sacrament of salvation’—only appears in LG 48, a piece that is part of chapter VII.
23
At the very beginning of this chapter the Christocentric account of the Church in her communal and missionary shape is displayed as part of an eschatological perspective: The Church, to which we are all called in Christ Jesus, and in which we acquire sanctity through the grace of God, will attain its full perfection only in the glory of heaven, when there will come the time of the restoration of all things. At that time the human race as well as the entire world, which is intimately related to man and attains to its end through him, will be perfectly reestablished in Christ. Christ, having been lifted up from the earth has drawn all to Himself. Rising from the dead He sent His life-giving Spirit upon His disciples and through Him has established His Body which is the Church as the universal sacrament of salvation.
It seems that this eschatological perspective provided by the opening passages of the final draft of chapter VII has also enriched a key concept of LG. 24 Speaking of the Church as a sacrament (veluti sacramentum) goes back to the German scheme that responded to the initial draft of LG by the preparatory commission. From there the phrase found its way into LG before chapter VII was included. 25 Nevertheless, the term ‘universal sacrament of salvation’, introduced by Karl Rahner, was placed in LG 48, in the eschatological passage introduced into text of chapter VII following the discussion in the auditorium in the fall of 1964. Rahner used the term ‘universal’ in order to move beyond a strict interpretation of the axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus [there is no salvation outside of the church]. 26 Accordingly, the expression is now situated in the context of scriptures that speak of Christ as saviour of all mankind. The Council fathers wanted to strengthen the universal soteriological perspective by including the three opening paragraphs that were elaborated by Yves Congar. The eschatological horizon attributed to the Church in these passages obviously helped to highlight this perspective.
At the same time, the emphasis put on the social and universal character of the Church in the opening passages of LG seems to have changed the traditional eschatology underlying the veneration of the saints that had shaped the first draft of chapter VII. At first glance, the traditional theme of the saints in heaven seems to have been a very promising starting point to remember the communal nature of the Church. However, the theology of the veneration of the saints had to be freed from individualistic and quantifying tendencies, especially regarding the prayer for those in purgatory. The second revision of the text, to which Yves Congar and Karl Rahner were contributing, replaced the abstract phrase ‘members of the Church’ with the ecclesial ‘we.’ The Church in general was now described as the ‘communion of the whole mystical Body of Jesus Christ,’ which is strengthened through the ‘practice of brotherly love.’ 27 It is here that the veneration of the saints now finds its place. Indeed, even the final text references purgatory and the traditional teaching on the ‘merit’ of the saints. 28 This teaching, however, was eclipsed by the greater emphasis upon the communion of love among the heavenly and earthly Church. 29 There is no longer any reference to the saints saving a single soul from Purgatory. Rather, the Church appears as a universal community of ‘brotherly care,’ 30 whose unity becomes visible in the liturgy. Compared to the earlier drafts of the text, the version finally discussed in the auditorium of the Council gives an account of the Church as one great community consisting of the earthly and the heavenly Church including angels, saints, and those who are in purgatory. Although this version was accused of a false universalism, because it did not contain any allusion to judgment as leading to heaven or hell, such complaints had no influence on the final text. 31 Clearly, the majority of the Council fathers wanted to express their hope for the salvation of all.
The revisions and discussions leading to the final text reveal that speaking of an ‘eschatological character’ of the Church in chapter VII was not achieved on the basis of traditional eschatology. While the first drafts of the text focused on the veneration of the saints in the heavenly Church and on the struggle of the individual member of the Church for his own salvation, the later versions display a universalistic eschatology drawing on Scripture and embracing the theological neologism of the Church as ‘universal sacrament of salvation.’ Both the communal character and the universal character of the Church were articulated here through an eschatological interpretation of the Church that was in tension with traditional dogmatic eschatology. This account of the ‘eschatological nature’ of the Church was not only shaped by the French Nouvélle Theologie and German theologians. An important stimulus also came from some bishops of the Eastern tradition.
Heavenly Church as Universal Horizon: Eastern Influence and Ecumenical Potential
The second re-draft of chapter VII, which the Council fathers would discuss in the auditorium, already conveyed the overarching theme of the Church as a community of love including those in heaven and in purgatory. But it still began with a rather conventional section about ‘the eschatological character of our vocation.’ 32 Two fathers from the eastern tradition objected to the individualistic nature of this section. Maxim Hermaniuk, a bishop of a Ukrainian-Catholic diocese in Canada, insisted that the earthly Church be portrayed more clearly as a community awaiting the eschaton. Hermaniuk made numerous references to the liturgy of the Eastern Church pointing out that eschatological vigilance is not restricted to individual salvation but is rather a vigilantia communitaria. 33 According to Hermaniuk this is expressed especially in the Eucharistic celebration, where the communal perfection of the heavenly banquet is anticipated in a communal way. In fact, the significance of the Eucharist as both an ecclesiastical and eschatological action was highlighted in the final text (cf. LG 50).
Many other theological ideas that were later inserted into the text can be tracked back to the interventions of the Marionite bishop Ignace Ziadé. In the auditorium he lamented sharply that at this point there was nothing about the Holy Spirit in the chapter. Western ecclesiology, he said, was certainly very developed in its Christological dimension, but the pneumatological dimension remained inchoate. 34 For Christians from the Eastern tradition the chapter read like a liturgy without an epiclesis. Ziadé stressed the significance of this aspect for ecumenical dialogue. He argued in favour of the Holy Spirit’s being portrayed in a more definite fashion as the mediator of the eschatological dimension of the Church. This is reflected in the first three paragraphs of the final text and its culminating sentence: ‘Therefore the promised restoration which we are awaiting has already begun in Christ, is carried forward in the mission of the Holy Spirit and through Him continues in the Church’ (LG 48).
Even though chapter VII was formed under these eastern influences, the Orthodox continued to complain that western ecclesiology neglected the pneumatological and eschatological dimensions of the Church. 35 The Council’s decree on ecumenism did not speak on the subject. However, when Catholic-Orthodox dialogue was renewed by the Munich document on the ‘mystery of the Church’ in 1982, both dimensions played a major role. 36 Meanwhile orthodox theologians have pointed to the Chapter as a signpost for ecumenical dialogue in the future. 37 Therefore it seems that in theory an eschatological understanding of the Church has built bridges towards the Eastern tradition. In practice an eschatological understanding of the Church has been a spiritual reminder of the transience of the earthly church and its institutions. As Lumen Gentium 48 puts it: ‘the pilgrim Church in her sacraments and institutions, which pertain to this present time, has the appearance of this world which is passing.’ 38
The interventions of the bishops from the eastern tradition confirm what from another perspective was said about the influence of Rahner, Congar, and others. First, an eschatological re-interpretation of the Church pointed to the reform of ecclesiology by highlighting the communal and universal character of the Church. Second, this re-interpretation drew mainly on other sources than traditional catholic eschatology, in this case an eastern account of the liturgy, the Eucharist, and the Holy Spirit. However, it is not just ecclesiology in the narrower sense that was affected by an eschatological understanding of the Church.
Perspectives on the Nature of Eschatological Time
The modern use of the term ‘eschatological,’ viz. as applicable to different stages of salvation history, must be seen in contrast with the long-held Aristotelian difference between eternity and time. 39 Following Aristotle, whose influence on neoscholastic Thomism is well known, the eternity of God tends to be conceived as time’s negation, as ‘not-time,’ and placed over against historical time. Catholic theology in the decades before and after the Council increasingly doubted whether this opposition of time and eternity was fitting in view of the fundamental Christian conviction of God drawing near to man in historical time. 40
New exegetical results on Jesus’ proclamation of the coming kingdom of God supported the view that God’s coming in some way had to be understood as temporal. If eschatological events can take place within earthly history, they cannot be totally different from other temporal events. This is precisely what the term ‘eschatological’ is intended to mean when it is ascribed to events and figures in earthly history: there must be an account of eschatological time in which God and historical time are joined in a way that does not just amount to understanding God’s eternity in the scholastic sense. This attempt to overcome the scholastic account of eternity by a concept of eschatological time affects both the understanding of God’s salvific actions in history and eschatology, strictly understood. With regard to the former, it underlines that God himself is really involved in his actions throughout salvation history. With regard to the latter, it leads to the question of whether eschatological processes can be conceptualized without any notion of time. 41
One can find traces of these questions in Lumen Gentium and its account of the eschatological character of the church. If the earthly church can be called eschatological, eschatological time cannot be a timeless eternity. If that is true, even the heavenly Church cannot be conceived of as a sphere of ‘not-time’ over against the historical time of man. However, for a number of theological reasons, eschatological time in some way has to be discernible from the vantage of historical time. The crucial task is thus to portray eschatological time in its overlapping with historical time on the one hand, and to grasp the specific character of eschatological time on the other hand. The discussion about chapter VII of Lumen Gentium reveals two different models to deal with this task.
In some critical readings of the chapter, it has not escaped notice that significant parts of it are still shaped by the Aristotelian dichotomy between time and eternity.
42
Even in the final text Lumen Gentium 49 and 50 seem to imply a spatial distinction between an eternal Church in heaven and a temporal Church on earth. In his study on the eschatology of the Council, Christof Müller has set these sections against the account of eschatological time in LG 48: While article 48, from its starting point of New Testament eschatology, addresses the Church primarily in its particular Christological situation, who always looks forward to, in hope, the end times, and therefore implies a dynamic model of salvation history, [. . .] the more traditional articles 49 and 50 remain on the ground of the traditional spatial model. In this account the distinction is not made between the present and the future of salvation history, but between this-time [Diesseits] and that-time [Jenseits], being interpreted in the mainly unhistorical terms of image/archetype [Abbild/Urbild].
43
However, Müller describes the relevant passages here, which he says are ‘mainly unhistorical,’ as mitigated by their pastoral and practical orientation. Article 49 closely combines ‘the hope for the perfection of the “unio” of the Church in the eschaton with “caritas” in the here and now.’ 44 In this first model, love becomes the bond between the heavenly and earthly Church, when it says, we ‘all in various ways and degrees are in communion in the same charity of God and neighbour and all sing the same hymn of glory to our God’ (LG 49).
This definition of the church as a community of love appears as an attempt to strengthen the temporal aspect of eschatological time. Henri de Lubac has used the term in a similar way. If the unity of the whole church is to be conceivable, the heavenly Church of the saints cannot be understood as a self-sufficient, motionless, and timeless sphere. According to de Lubac, the importance of time and history in Christian faith follows immediately from its communal character, as it becomes visible in the Church. This conviction is already seen in the Church Fathers, who did not conceive of Christianity as a way to escape from time into not-time. World history appeared to them not as ‘the moving image of an immovable eternity,’ as in Greek philosophy, rather history was gradually embraced by the love of Christ. 45
Love, seen as the relation between Father and Son in the Trinity, can be thought of as the very essence of God himself. As such, love serves as a bridge between the earthly and heavenly Church, time and eternity, thus overcoming their opposition in Aristotelian metaphysics. The entry of eschatological time therefore means that the inner-trinitarian love enters the time of man, setting in motion a dynamic transformation of the world. To be sure, the love between Father and Son is supra-historical—übergeschichtlich—and eternal. At the same time, however, it is a dynamic relation that strives to transform the time of man. Eschatological time is the eternal but dynamic relation of love between Father and Son. Christ leads creation into eternal love ‘from above.’
This account, represented by the articles 49 and 50, is different from a second account that can be found in LG 48. The focus of this section is on the emergence of eschatological time and the newness of the Christ-event as it is expressed primarily in Christ’s resurrection and victory over death. Accordingly, the first three paragraphs of the section exclusively cover the resurrection of Christ as the starting point of the universal mission of the Holy Spirit in which the ‘renovation’ is continued. In this event, ‘the final age of the world has come upon us’ and ‘is already anticipated in some kind of a real way’ (LG 48). Eschatological time starts from an historical event, while its supratemporality arises from the universal promise of Christian salvation. 46 Thus, eschatological time seems to be more temporal than in the account of LG 49 and 50: it is not primarily emerging from the eternal relation of the inner-trinitarian love, but seems to strive ‘forward’ from the Christ-event in a temporally continuous line to an eschatological end. It is this end, in its universal and communal shape, that makes eschatological time distinguishable from the historical time of man.
Another look at the history of the text, in particular the first three paragraphs of LG 48 that were inserted later, can show that this account came from a theological origin that is independent from the rest of the text. Again, Ziadé provided the pivotal intervention, when he raised the issue of the newness of time, in which the Church lives: ‘This time begins in the Resurrection of Christ [. . .]. Even if only in a nascent way, the Kingdom of God is truly about us. Time is ever-new because the truly new, namely the Holy Spirit, has already arrived.’ 47 Ziadé then uses an expression that sheds light on the theological background of his intervention. He goes on to say that the entry of ‘the new time contains already and not-yet (iam ac nondum) the Kingdom of God.’ 48 This expression was introduced into theology by the Protestant biblical scholar Oscar Cullmann and has been widely used in theology since. Indeed, Cullmann used the expression for a radical temporalization of the Christian concept of God. In his view there is no theological room for a philosophical concept of timeless eternity because Christian revelation starts with a historical event pointing forward to a temporal end. 49 Cullmann’s book ‘Christ and time’ played a major role in the renewal of Orthodox theology, which itself was developing in the 1920s, notably during the Paris Exile. It is possible that Ziadé’s theology was influenced by this new thread of Orthodox theology that was engaged also in developing a new concept of eschatological time. 50 In patristic studies it was pointed out that the Church Fathers’ biblical concept of time differed from the Platonic cyclical time in which a timeless first principle stands over against the cosmos. 51 Here the theological crux of eschatological time is the resurrection of Christ and its establishment of the universal mission of the Church for all of humanity. Finally, Yves Congar’s outline for the chapter, probably written on behalf of the French Council Fathers, stressed the same aspect: the death and resurrection of Christ are the beginning of the eschaton. 52
This short look at the history of the text points out that at least the first three paragraphs of Lumen Gentium 48 contain an account of eschatological time that is different from the one in number 49 and 50. Both accounts are attempts to overcome the scholastic account of eschatological time. Eschatological time is not identical with a timeless eternity but overlapping with the historical time of man. While the first account starts with the dynamic of intra-trinitarian love, the second is focused on the Christ-event pointing forward to a universal eschaton. The sources of LG 48 suggest that the account of LG 48 is more innovative. 53 However, the more traditional account in LG 49 and 50 also matters for a theological re-definition of eschatological time after Vatican II, because—unlike the position of Cullmann 54 —it is able to include a trinitarian concept of God.
In sum, both accounts can be found in the text, though in the text their relationship is left unclear. Together, however, one could argue, they provide a basis of orientation for further theological reflection about the meaning of eschatological time. As Joseph Ratzinger put it in a discussion with Johann Baptist Metz: ‘It is still an open question as to how the essence of eternity can be conceptualized from the [standpoint of the] experience and the insights of the Christian faith.’ 55 The eschatological understanding of the Church in Lumen Gentium has provided some theological guidelines for this task.
A New Relationship to the Political: Gaudium et Spes and the Eschatological Church ad extra
When it comes to the relationship of the Church to the political sphere, traditional neo-scholastic theology provided the model of a fundamental distinction: What was political was allocated to the temporal sphere and to the realm of natural reason, while the church was understood as the supernatural realm of sacramental grace. The relationship between both spheres was reflected predominantly in terms of public law. 56 Although the Church demanded from the state to be acknowledged as the one and only keeper of the true religion and although the magisterium claimed to be competent also regarding moral questions, this model led to a certain indifference regarding political questions. The encyclical Immortale Dei for example, issued by Pope Leo XIII in 1885, reflects on the political exclusively in terms of natural reason and treats the state and the Church primarily as public institutions. Regarding the form of government, the encyclical declares a theological neutrality. 57 This public law model of the natural and the supernatural does not conceive of the Gospel as calling for a specific form of the political or of the Church as a social model.
The eschatological awakening in the theology of the 20th century placed this understanding in question. If the Kingdom of God begins with Jesus’ preaching of the Gospel, its transforming forces must also be able to reach the political world. 58 The texts of the Council support the view that this is another vital aspect of an eschatological interpretation of the Church. As post-conciliar debates on liberation theology and political theology show, this account created new problems—problems of which the Council Fathers were not yet aware. Accordingly, in a way analogous to the redefinition of eschatological time, the theological task was a matter of showing how the Church overlaps with the political sphere, while avoiding an identification with it that would either reduce the Church to a political model or give an exclusive theological legitimation to particular entities or movements. Although the Council Fathers did not systematically devote themselves to this question, the texts contain some guidelines for the post-Conciliar discussion.
A first guideline is provided by the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes. I can only give some general characterizations here of the document and its overall account of the relationship between the Church and the ‘modern world.’ First, the text of Gaudium et Spes gives a genuinely theological interpretation of social and political phenomena. 59 This implies a close relationship between the church and the political sphere that is developed in the document based on different lines of thought. It is clear that both spheres cannot be detached or reduced to the categories of ecclesiastical or political authority and jurisdiction as in the neo-scholastic model. One way of exploring a new relationship is to highlight how the mission of the Church includes the promotion of human dignity and human rights (GS 40, 41, 76). Another way is to assign to the Church the task of fostering community on the level of the state as between different nations and cultures (GS 40, 42). At the same time the document contains different formulas to distinguish between the mission of the Church and the field of the political. 60
In the post-Vatican II debates on the Church and the political it is a statement in GS 39 that has attracted the most attention. It has often been lamented that the Council Fathers had a too optimistic view of the modern world. 61 Regarding the description of the modern world, the text of the Pastoral Constitution, on closer inspection, shows little evidence of this. 62 Through the interventions of the German Bishops, passages on human development were balanced by stressing the enduring power of sin in the world. 63 Still, the main point of convergence between the Church and the political sphere is described ‘in terms of human development,’ 64 as when Gaudium et Spes speaks about the relationship between ‘earthly progress’ (progressus terrenus) and the Kingdom of God: ‘Hence, while earthly progress must be carefully distinguished from the growth of Christ’s kingdom, to the extent that the former can contribute to the better ordering of human society, it is of vital concern to the Kingdom of God’ (GS 39). What the Fathers express here is by no means an identification of earthly progress with the growing Kingdom of God but a careful formula to describe an overlap of both spheres.
However, it remains to consider the new relationship between the eschatological Church and the political sphere as regards human development in the modern world. In his study on the eschatology of the Council, Christof Müller has criticized this position. According to Müller the Council did not see ‘(salvation-) history dramatically enough.’ 65 In contrast Müller advocates a ‘theology of hope’ which takes the dawning of the eschaton in the Christ-event to mean that it is possible also to hope ‘against the trend of history.’ 66 Instead of focusing on an evolutionary philosophy of history, the Council Fathers according to Müller could have developed a biblical apocalyptic ‘eschatology of interruption’ that highlights trust and hope in adverse circumstances. Is there any sign of such a perspective in the Councils’ account of the relationship between the Church and the political sphere?
A careful reading shows that Lumen Gentium but not Gaudium et Spes can be interpreted in that direction. Again, chapter VII and its theological background opens up such a perspective. Certainly, the perspective of the text is predominantly focused ad intra—on the relationship between the earthly and heavenly Church. This met with opposition from Yves Congar, who wanted to emphasize the cosmic and anthropological implications of this connection. For this reason, he was dissatisfied with the discussions on the chapter in October 1964 67 as well as with the final version of the text. 68 This aspect, however, is not completely missing: the first paragraph of the chapter speaks of the renewal of ‘mankind’ and the ‘entire world,’ and its identification of the Church as the ‘universal sacrament of salvation’ clearly highlights the cosmic and anthropological dimension of the inbreaking eschaton. The reference to 2 Peter 3:13 (‘righteousness dwells in the new heaven and new earth’) assures that the ‘end of times’ has already ‘come to us.’ The allusion to the political world is within reach. 69
The first paragraphs of Lumen Gentium 48 can therefore serve as a springboard for a theological account of the relationship between the Church and the political sphere that makes it possible to hope ‘against the trend of history,’ as Christof Müller has put it. Understanding the eschaton in terms of the ‘already-and-not-yet,’ along with its Christocentric accentuation, provides the guidelines for such a concept. In this account the Kingdom of God is ‘already’ breaking in with Jesus’ first coming. As such, it is the starting point for a transformation of the world including the political sphere—a transformation that can take place independently of the achievements of earthly progress. At the same time, the ‘not-yet’ of the eschaton indicates that only the second coming of Christ is able to complete this transformation. This implies that the unavailability of the eschaton is not interpreted primarily in terms of a metaphysics of eternity but in the categories of salvation history. 70 The eschaton, which has already begun but is not yet fully realized, stands in this respect, in positive opposition to any attempt on the part of humanity to complete history on its own. 71
An eschatological interpretation of the Church, in this sense, points to a new, twofold relationship of the Church to the political sphere: On the one hand, the Church makes present the transforming powers of Jesus’ first coming in the political sphere; on the other hand, it is not able to complete this transformation itself. Being aware of this, an eschatological understanding of the Church also stands as a reminder to the political order of its own inability to complete history. Similar approaches to the eschatological character of the Church can be found in the renewal of Orthodox theology. Here a Christocentric eschatological interpretation of the Church was introduced in opposition to political totalitarianism and the political instrumentalization of the Christian faith. In particular, the liturgy of the Church is understood as a place of resistance. 72 Traces of these approaches can also be found in the text and sources of LG.
Footnotes
1
Giuseppe Alberigo and Joseph A. Komonchak, History of Vatican II (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis 1995–2006). Peter Hünermann has stated this in many of his works on the Council. See with further references: Peter Hünermann, ‘In mundo huius temporis. Die Bedeutung des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils im kulturellen Transformationsprozess der Gegenwart: Das Textcorpus des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils ist ein konstitutioneller Text des Glaubens,’ in Erinnerung an die Zukunft: Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil, ed. Jan-Heiner Tück, 2nd edition (Freiburg: Herder 2013), 40–62. A recent account of the overall agenda of Vatican II is presented by Ormond Rush, The Vision of Vatican II: Its Fundamental Principles (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2019).
2
By ‘sources’ I primarily refer to the acts of the Council: Acta synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II (Città del Vaticano: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1970–1999) quoted AS + volume + page.
3
4
For the use of phrase ‘cultus publicus’ in SC see Christian Stoll, ‘Cultus publicus. Begriffsgeschichtliche Bemerkungen zum öffentlichen Charakter von Liturgie und Kirche,’ Theologie und Philosophie 90 (2015): 19–37.
5
The term appears in the numbers 6, 61, 104, 106,107,109 of the document and is also implied when not mentioned. It is pointed out as a key concept of the text by Angelus Häußling, ‘“Pascha-Mysterium”. Kritisches zu einem Beitrag in der dritten Auflage des Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche,’ Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 41 (1999): 157–65.
6
For German theology the work of the Benedictine Odo Casel has been important. See for his influence on SC: Reiner Kaczynksi, ‘Was heißt ‘Geheimnisse feiern’? Über den Zusammenhang von Mysterientheologie und Liturgiereform,’ Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift 38 (1987): 241–55. Influential for the French context and closer to concepts of salvation history was the work of Louis Bouyer, The Paschal Mystery: Meditations on the Last Three Days of Holy Week (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1951).
7
Josef Andreas Jungmann spends just eight lines on the paragraph, stating that the ‘heilsgeschichtliche Linie’ of the chapter is brought here to its ‘eschatologischen Zielpunkt.’ Josef Andreas Jungmann, ‘Konstitution über die heilige Liturgie. Einleitung und Kommentar,’ in Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil, ed. Heinrich Suso Brechter et al, Part 1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1966), 10–109, at 23. There is very little consideration of this paragraph also in Reiner Kasczynski, ‘Theologischer Kommentar zur Konstitution über die heilige Liturgie Sacrosantum Concilium,’ in Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, ed. Peter Hünermann and Bernd Jochen Hilberath, Vol. 2 (Freiburg: Herder 2004), 1–227, at 71–72.
8
Cf. Barbara Nichtweiß, ‘Erik Peterson (1890–1960),’ in Gottesdienst als Feld Theologischer Wissenschaft im 20. Jahrhundert: Deutschsprachige Liturgiewissenschaft in Einzelporträts, ed. Benedikt Kranemann and Klaus Raschzok (Münster: Aschendorff, 2011), 917–26, at 924. Erik Peterson, ‘Von den Engeln,’ in Theologische Traktate, ed. Barbara Nichtweiß (Würzburg: Echter, 1994), 195–244. An English translation of ‘The book on the angels’ can be found in Erik Peterson, Theological tractates, edited, translated, and with an introduction by Michael J. Hollerich (Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 2011), 106–42.
9
Cf. AS III/1, 346.
10
Some considerations in Albert Gerhards, ‘Himmlische Liturgie—vernunftgemäßer Gottesdienst. Eine Relecture von Sacrosanstum Concilium 9 im Licht der liturgischen Theologie Erik Petersons,’ in Erik Peterson. Die theologische Präsenz eines Outsiders, ed. Giancarlo Caronello (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2012), 459–74, at 459–60.
11
It is significant that the publication documenting a major congress on Erik Peterson held in the Vatican in 2011 called him an ‘outsider’: Giancarlo Caronello, Erik Peterson: Die theologische Präsenz eines Outsiders (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2012).
12
Walter Kasper points out that it has been largely neglected in post Vatican theological discussions. Walter Kasper, Katholische Kirche: Wesen—Wirklichkeit—Sendung (Freiburg: Herder, 2011), 148. Standard investigations are: Otto Semmelroth, ‘Kommentar zum VII. Kapitel,’ in Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil. Dokumente und Kommentare, Part 1, ed. Heinrich Suso Brechter et al. (Freiburg: Herder, 1966), 314–25. An English translation of Semmelroth’s commentary is available in Herbert Vorgrimler, Commentary on the documents of Vatican II (New York: Crossroads, 1989), vol. 1; Joseph A. Komonchak, ‘Toward an Ecclesiology of Communion,’ in The History of Vatican II, Vol. 4, ed. Giuseppe Alberigo and Joseph A. Komonchak (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2002), 1–93; Peter Hünermann, ‘Theologischer Kommentar zur dogmatischen Konstitution über die Kirche Lumen gentium,’ in Herder Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, Vol. 2, ed. Peter Hünermann (Freiburg: Herder, 2004), 263–583, at 505–12. In addition to the commentaries see Otto Semmelroth, ‘Die Himmlische Kirche,’ Geist und Leben 38 (165): 324–41; Paolo Molinari, ‘Der endzeitliche Charakter der pilgernden Kirche und ihre Einheit mit der himmlischen Kirche,’ in De Ecclesia. Beiträge zur Konstitution ‚Über die Kirche’ des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils, Vol. 2, ed. Giovanni Baraúna (Freiburg: Herder, 1966), 435–56; Christof Müller, Die Eschatologie des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils: Die Kirche als Zeichen und Werkzeug der Vollendung (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2002).
13
Rahner’s influence on the German scheme is analyzed in Günther Wassilowsky, Universales Heilssakrament: Karl Rahners Beitrag zur Ekklesiologie des II. Vatikanums (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 2001). See the text of the scheme ibid., 277–356.
14
For the textual history of the chapter see Hünermann, ‘Theologischer Kommentar,’ 505.
15
De relatione Ecclesiae peregrinantis cum Ecclesia triumphante. Cf. the synopsis of all versions in Constitutionis Dogmaticae Lumen Gentium Synopsis Historica, ed. Giuseppe Alberigo and Franca Magistretti (Bologna: Istituto per le Scienze Religiose, 1976), 227–50.
16
AS III/1, 336 (textus prior).
17
AS III/1, 336 (textus emendatus). De indole eschatologica vocationis nostrae ac de nostra unione cum ecclesia coelesti.
18
De indole eschatologica ecclesiae peregrinantis eiusque unione cum ecclesiae caelestis.
19
See on the ‘pilgrim Church’ in the theological tradition and in the texts of the Council Peter Walter, ‘Ecclesia peregrinans. Zur heilsgeschichtlichen Sicht von Kirche im Zweiten Vatikanum,’ Internationale Katholische Zeitschrift Communio 47 (2018): 472–81.
20
Semmelroth states that chapter VII ‘provided a twofold service to the text: The veneration of the Saints is freed from an isolated perspective in which it would be difficult to understand its sense. At the same time the display of the veneration of the Saints has secured that the ecclesiology of the Council explicitly treats the eschatological character of the Church’ (author’s translation), Semmelroth, ‘Kommentar zum VII. Kapitel,’ 315.
21
Henri de Lubac’s Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man, trans. Lancelot C. Sheppard and Sr Elizabeth Englund (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius, 1988). See on De Lubac, Joseph S. Flipper, Between Apocalypse and Eschaton: History and Eternity in Henri de Lubac (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015).
22
De Lubac recognizes the Church’s desire to grasp the whole of humanity as a ‘vital necessity’: ‘the demand has been [. . .] reiterated for the past two thousand years calling for her expansion as the most urgent of tasks.’ Ibid., 220.
23
‘It is true that the eschatological theme is touched also in earlier chapters, especially chapter I and II (cf. for example the end of article no. 5). But this aspect became an explicit topic only in chapter VII.’ (author’s translation), Semmelroth, ‘Kommentar zum VII. Kapitel,’ 314–15.
24
Semmelroth commented on Lumen Gentium 48: ‘It was important to display all dimensions of the Church in the light of its eschatological character to emphasize that not only the individual member of the Church must renew himself but also the Church. Only in this way is it taken seriously that the Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”’ (author’s translation). Semmelroth, ‘Kommentar zum VII. Kapitel,’ 316–17. The phrase is taken up again at the end of chapter IV of Gaudium et Spes, no. 45.
25
See the synopsis of LG 1 Constitutionis Dogmaticae Lumen Gentium Synopsis Historica, ed. Giuseppe Alberigo and Franca Magistretti (Bologna: Istituto per le Scienze Religiose, 1976), 3.
26
Cf. Günther Wassilowsky, Universales Heilssakrament, 344–47. Wassilowsky quotes from Rahner’s unpublished commentary on the German scheme to LG: ‘The Church is a universal sacrament of salvation, insofar as it is the sign of divinity used by the Lord in his promise to all people’ ibid., 345. For the background of extra ecclesiam nulla salus see Francis A. Sullivan, Salvation outside the Church? Tracing the History of the Catholic Response (New York: Paulist, 1992).
27
Cf. the synopsis of two versions of the text in AS III/I, 337ff. E.g., from ‘omnes tamen qui Christi sunt [. . .] unam Ecclesiam et unum eius Corpus constituent’ to the sentence ‘omnes tamen in eadem Dei et proximi caritate communicamus et eundem hymnum gloriae Deo nostro canimus’ ibid., 337. Also, the phrase ‘fraternae caritatis exercitium’ is found only in the revised text.
28
‘alii hac vita functi purificantur,’ LG 49. The word ‘purgatory’, however, does not appear in the whole document of LG.
29
In Die Eschatologie Müller speaks of a ‘stimulating synthesis of tradition and innovation,’ 179–80.
30
The Latin version speaks of ‘fraterna sollicitudo.’ In the official English version this is translated as ‘brotherly interest.’ This supports the view that the Council understood sainthood based more on an equal rather than on a hierarchical relationship. See on this view Elizabeth A. Johnson, Friends of God and Prophets: A Feminist Theological Reading of The Communion of Saints (New York: Continuum, 1998).
31
Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini even demanded to withdraw the chapter. He complained that the uncertainty of salvation for those in mortal sin was nowhere mentioned and that the veneration of the saints was not brought enough into connection with the doctrine of purgatory, see AS III/1, 379. The submission of the French Benedictine abbot Jean Prou demanded inclusion of the ‘pains of hell and eternal damnation of those who died in mortal sin,’ see AS III/1, 488.
32
Cf. Hünermann, ‘Theologischer Kommentar,’ 505.
33
‘Non minus tamen clare apparet ex traditione christiana, praesertim ex Litugia Eucharistica orientis christiani, eschatologiae universali corresponde vigilantiam communitariam, eucharisticam.’ AS III/1, 392.
34
‘[E]cclesiologia latina evoluta est in sua dimensione christica tantum, sed adhuc adolescens est in sua dimensione pneumatica.’ AS III/1, 390.
35
Cf., e.g., John D. Zizoulas, ‘The Pneumatological Dimension of the Church,’ Communio: International Catholic Review 1 (1974), 142–58.
36
‘The Mystery of the Church and of the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity’ (Munich, 1982): in Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung, Vol. 2, ed. Harding Mayer et al. (Paderborn: Bonifatius, 1992), 531–39.
37
Cf. Ioan Moga, ‘Verhaltene Öffnung, verhaltende Freude? Zur orthodoxen Rezeption des Ökumenismusdekrets,’ in Erinnerung an die Zukunft. Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil, 2nd ed., ed. Jan-Heiner Tück (Freiburg: Herder, 2013), 451–63, especially 460–62.
38
The written submission of Eisenstadt Bishop Stephan Lászlo goes even further: ‘Ecclesia vocatur peregrinans [. . .] non est sine peccato.’ AS III/1, 484.
39
For Aristotle see Wolfgang von Leyden, ‘Time, Number, and Eternity in Plato and Aristotle,’ The Philosophical Quarterly 14 (1964): 35–52; David Bostock, ‘Aristotle’s Account of Time,’ Phronesis 25 (1980): 148–69.
40
In contemporary theological debates, positions in the wake of Aristotle are often called ‘eternalist’ while positions aiming at a closer connection of time and eternity are called ‘sempiternalist’ or, if the concept of eternity is entirely given up, ‘temporalist.’ See Paul Helm, ‘Eternity,’ in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta (
). With regard to these alternatives Craig notes: ‘Christian tradition has favored divine timelessness, but the consensus has recently turned very markedly in favor of divine omnitemporality.’ William L. Craig, ‘Time, Eternity, and Eschatology,’ in The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology, ed. Jerry L. Walls (Oxford: Oxford University 2008), 596–613, at 599. Joseph Ratzinger has pointed out in a discussion with Johann Baptist Metz that the Aristotelian model, which contrasts the movement of a timeless God with the temporal movement of the cosmos, has too long been determinative of Christian theology: Joseph Ratzinger, ‘The End of Time,’ in The End of Time?: The Provocation of Talking About God, translated and edited by J. Matthew Ashley (New York: Paulist, 2004).
41
Rahner and Balthasar for instance started to assume that purgatory and judgment had to be conceived of at least to some extent in a temporal way. See Klaus Vechtel, Eschatologie und Freiheit: Zur Frage der postmortalen Vollendung in der Theologie Karl Rahners und Hans Urs von Balthasars (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 2014), 134–40; 255–58.
42
Lindbeck summarizes: ‘Although the classic two-floor view has not been ruled out, it has nevertheless withdrawn surprisingly far,’ George A. Lindbeck, ‘The Teaching of the Church Councils in Transition,’ in Die Autorität der Freiheit: Gegenwart des Konzils und Zukunft der Kirche im ökumenischen Disput, Vol. 1, ed. Johann Christoph Hampe (München: Kösel 1967), 359–72, at 368.
43
Müller, Die Eschatologie, 179. Joseph Ratzinger has also distinguished the two approaches. Without referring to specific passages he speaks of a ‘modern’ understanding that emphasizes the dawning of an eschatological future and a ‘not less original and significant’ understanding of the unity and the earthly and heavenly Church at which the liturgy and the veneration of saints aims. Cf. Joseph Ratzinger, ‘Zur dogmatischen Konstitution über die Kirche, Lumen Gentium’ (1965), in Zur Lehre des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils. Formulierung—Vermittlung—Deutung (= Gesammelte Schriften Vol. 7/2), ed. Gerhard Ludwig Müller (Herder: Freiburg 2012), 645–59, at 656.
44
Müller, Die Eschatologie, 185.
45
Cf. de Lubac, Catholicism, 142: ‘The entire human race, the child of God, sustained [. . .] ab Abel justo usque ad novissimum electum—by those two hands of God, the Word and the Holy Spirit [. . .] in this one great movement sets forth to the Father.’
46
‘Hier setzt der Glaube [. . .], von unten’ an und richtet seinen antizipierenden Ausgriff vom Hier und Jetzt aus auf die verheißene Vollendung hin.’ Müller, Die Eschatologie, 182.
47
AS III/1, 390.
48
Ibid.
49
‘Die Temporalität haben die Zeit und die Ewigkeit gemeinsam. Einen zeitlosen Gott kennt das Urchristentum nicht.’ Oscar Cullmann, Christus und die Zeit. Die urchristliche Zeit- und Geschichtsauffassung, 2nd edition (Zollikon-Zürich: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt 1948), 55.
50
Cf. Marios Bezgos, ‘L’eschatologie dans l’orthodoxie du xxe siècle,’ in Temps et eschatologie. Données biblique et problématique contemporaines, ed. Académie internationale des sciences religieuses sous la direction de Jean-Louis Leuba (Paris: Cerf 1994), 311–28.
51
Cf. the influential study by Georges Florovsky, ‘Eschatology in the Patristic Age: An Introduction,’ in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 2 (1956), 27–40.
52
Cf. Michael Quisinsky, Geschichtlicher Glaube in einer geschichtlichen Welt: der Beitrag von M.-D. Chenu, Y. Congar und H.-M. Féret zum II. Vatikanum (Berlin: LIT, 2007), 369–72. Congar summed up the main idea of the text in a letter to Gerard Philips that includes a draft of article 48: ‘consociato totius creationis cum vocatione hominis et per eum ad finem suum adspirant / in Christo / per Ecclesia / Nova creatura iam incipit in Christo / per saecula saeculorum / homo sacerdos creationis / eschatologia iam incepta.’ Quoted from Quisinsky, ibid., 369, fn. 181. It was, thus, Congar’s desire to speak at this point not only of the eschatological tension in the Church, but to emphasize the cosmic and anthropological dimension of this tension.
53
Cf. Christof Müller, Die Eschatologie, 183.
54
Cullmann thinks that a Trinitarian concept of God is ‘alien to early Christianity’: Oscar Cullmann, Christus und die Zeit, 21.
55
Joseph Ratzinger, ‘The End of Time,’ 19. This is said against Cullmann and others.
56
Following H.-X., Arquillère Gustavo Gutierrez has called this position ‘political Augustinianism’. Cf. Gustavo Gutierrez, 15th anniversary edition with an introduction by the author, Orbis: 1988, 34, 189.
57
58
The call for a political turn of Catholic theology came for example from Edward Schillebeeckx. See his early texts in Approche thélogique, Vol 3: Le monde et L’Église (Paris: C.E.P, 1967). After the Council the works of Leonardo Boff and Johann Baptist Metz became important. Metz also worked in cooperation with Jürgen Moltmann who developed a political theology from a Protestant perspective. On the role of eschatology in Metz and Moltmann, see Christian Stoll, ‘Der eschatologische Vorbehalt. Zum dialektischen Ursprung einer theologischen Denkfigur,’ Internationale Katholische Zeitschrift Communio 45 (2016): 539–59.
59
Although the detailed determinations of the second part of GS may appear in themselves as reflections of classical natural law, they must be seen in the light of the first part and thus be treated sub specie revelationis. Hans Joachim Sander, ‘Theologischer Kommentar zur Pastoralkonstitution über die Kirche in der Welt von heute Gaudium et spes,’ in Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, Vol. 4, ed. Peter Hünermann and Bernd Jochen Hilberath (Freiburg: Herder 2004), 581–886, at 725.
60
Quoting a speech of Pius XII GS 42 makes a rather conventional distinction between the political field and the religious purpose of the Church, while linking both spheres with reference to works of charity. But also GS 43 and GS 76 treat the Church and the political as clearly distinguished fields, while GS 40 seems to follow a more dynamic account.
61
See a classical criticism in Joseph Ratzinger, ‘Der Weltdienst der Kirche. Auswirkungen von ‚Gaudium et Spes’ im letzten Jahrzehnt,’ Internationale Katholische Zeitschrift Communio 4 (1975): 444. For a recent criticism taking into account aspects from liberation theology see Hans Schelkshorn, ‘Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil als kirchlicher Diskurs über die Moderne. Ein philosophischer Beitrag zur Frage nach der Hermeneutik des Konzils,’ in: Erinnerung an die Zukunft: Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil, 2nd edition, ed. Jan-Heiner Tück (Freiburg: Herder, 2013), 63–94.
62
Cf. Ingeborg Gabriel, ‘Christliche Sozialethik in der Moderne. Der kaum rezipierte Ansatz von Gaudium et spes,’ in: Erinnerung an die Zukunft: Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil, 2nd edition, ed. Jan-Heiner Tück (Freiburg: Herder, 2013), 605–21.
63
Cf. AS 4/2, 28–33.
64
Cf. Müller, Die Eschatologie, 355.
65
Ibid., 356.
66
Ibid.
67
Congar lamented in his diary about a text from the Germans that appeared too ecclesiocentric to him: ‘It is Platonism for the people [. . .] there is nothing of pneumatology, nothing of anthropology, nothing of cosmology’ (On continue le ‘platonisme pour le peuple’. . . Pas de pneumatologie, pas d’anthropologie, pas de cosmologie) 5 October 1964, Yves Congar, Mon Journal du Concile, Vol. II (Paris: Cerf, 2002), 181.
68
In a short commentary on chapter VII published in German in 1965 he wrote ‘One must understand that the eschatology of an individual soul is the eschatology of the church, that the eschatology of the church herself is the eschatology of the world, an eschatology for the world, indeed, the word ‘world’ understood in the most cosmic sense’ (author’s translation). Yves Congar, ‘Die, letzten Dinge’ und die Geschichte,’ quoted from Quisinsky, Geschichtlicher Glaube, 372.
69
This position is also taken by Quisinsky who states that Congar’s intentions regarding this matter can indeed be found in the text. Cf. Quisinsky, Geschichtlicher Glaube, 370–71. It is striking that the same reference to Scripture appears also in GS 39, a passage that was quoted at length in the last sermon given by Archbishop Oscar Romero before he was murdered. See: . Romero obviously knew what it meant to hope against the trend of history, and he found this very thought represented by the Scriptures referenced in GS 39.
70
See Joseph Ratzinger, who assigns the political realm to ethics, not to eschatology. Cf. Joseph Ratzinger, ‘Eschatology and Utopia,’ Communio: International Catholic Review 5 (1978): 211–27.
71
‘By emphasizing the unity of the earthly and the heavenly Church, the ecclesiology of the people of God opposes any immanent utopia, whether it is progressive or revolutionary in a Marxist sense’ (author’s translation). Walter Kasper, ‘Volk Gottes—Leib Christi—Communio im Hl. Geist. Zur Ekklesiologie im Ausgang vom Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil,’ Internationale Katholische Zeitschrift Communio 41 (2012): 251–67, at 257.
72
See Ioannis Zizioulas, ‘Eschatologie et société,’ in Irenikon 73 (2000) 275–97, at 289: ‘Dans l’eucharistie, le temps est racheté par l’investissement du futur dans le, maintenant par une mémoire qui le comprend souvenir du royaume futur.’ Also notable is Alexander Schmemann’s plea to take seriously the present eschatological spirit in the Church as a corrective against nationalism, but also against a self-sufficient Church. See his Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom, trans. Paul Kachur (New York: St Vladimir’s, 2003). A similar conception of eschatological time is also reflected in Erik Peterson’s anti-totalitarian interpretation of the Christian liturgy: ‘The hymn of the church transcends all national anthems’, Peterson, ‘Von den Engeln,’ 204.