Post on 17-Jan-2023
“THE METAPHYSICS OF PARTICIPATIONAND THE UNITIVE FUNCTION OF THE SACRAMENTS
IN THE THEOLOGY OF HENRI DE LUBAC”
SCOTT RUSHING
DECEMBER 2006
Introduction
In his book Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man,
Henri de Lubac introduces a theological theme that will
become a foundational perspective in many of his later
books. This theme is the fundamental social characteristic
of the Church. De Lubac then connects this theme to the
social characteristic in the doctrine of the sacraments. De
Lubac argues that the unitive function, which is also the
social characteristic, has been ignored since the twelfth
century, and only recently has it begun to be recovered
within Catholic theology.
In this paper I will explore de Lubac’s sacramental
theology as he presents it in his books Catholicism and The
Splendour of the Church. In Catholicism I will focus on de Lubac’s
historical study of the social aspect of the sacraments. I
will then turn to The Splendour of the Church, where de Lubac
demonstrates how the medieval Church came to understand both
the Church and the Eucharist as the “Mystical Body of
Christ”, and why that is important to his sacramental
theology.
De Lubac’s emphasis on the unitive function of the
sacraments is consistent with his attempt to recover the
patristic/medieval understanding of the “suspended middle” –
that creation (and humanity specifically) ontologically
participate with the Divine. This metaphysical perception
contrasted with the analogy of being as outlined by Duns
Scotus in the 13th century, which continued to dominate
catholic theology into the modern period. I will conclude
my paper by arguing that de Lubac’s sacramental theology is
a natural extension of his attempt to recover the “graced
nature” of Aquinas.
Communion Ecclesiology in Catholicism 1
1 I am borrowing the theological phrase “communion ecclesiology” from Dennis Doyle, who uses it to describe a certain understanding of
1
In Catholicism, de Lubac argues that there are two
central aspects toward understanding the sacraments. The
first is that the means of salvation are delivered through
the sacraments. The second aspect is that the sacraments
are “instruments of unity”.2 For de Lubac this second
aspect, which he calls the social aspect, is as important as
the first. In fact, it is not just through the salvific
means of the sacraments that the Christian comes to be
united to the community to Christ. Indeed, it is through
the social aspect that the partaker of the sacraments is
united with both the Church and with Christ.
De Lubac laments the diminished teaching of the Church
on the social dimension of the sacraments. The grace that
is “produced and maintained” by the sacraments is not for
the individual only. Grace, as well as redemption and
revelation, are fundamentally social. Those who take the
sacraments receive grace in accordance with the measure by
the Church in its relationship between human beings “with God through Christ and in the Holy Spirit.” Dennis Doyle, “De Lubac and Communion Ecclesiology”, Theological Studies 60 (1999), 211.
2 Henri de Lubac, Catholicism, trans. Lancelot Sheppard and Sister Elizabeth Englund (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), 82.
2
which they are joined to the Body of Christ. The sacraments
are not of the individual. The sacraments are of the
Church. Therefore one must receive the sacraments through
participation in the Church. Only through participation in
the Church do the sacraments produce their “full effect.”3
In addition, Christians can only participate in the Spirit
through the Church; as Augustine observes, the Church is the
“society of the Spirit.”4
De Lubac provides a deeper analysis of the unitive and
social functions of the sacraments by citing the examples of
baptism, penance, and Eucharist. Baptism is numerically the
first of the sacraments, because through it one enters into
the Church. “And this is essentially a social event, even
in the primary, extrinsic meaning of the word.”5 Baptism
does not only usher one into the visible Church. Baptism is
also incorporation into the Mystical Body.6 De Lubac traces
3 De Lubac, Catholicism, 82-83.
4 De Lubac, Catholicism, 83. The citation from Augustine is from Sermon 71 (PL 38, 460): “Cum ad Catholican veniunt [haeretici], et societati Spiritus aggregantur, quem foris procul dubio non habebant, non eis repeitur lavacrum carnis.”
5 De Lubac, Catholicism, 83.
6 De Lubac, Catholicism, 84.
3
this theological perspective on baptism back to the second
century bishop Irenaeus, who stated that “our bodies receive
by baptism that unity which leads to life incorruptible, and
our souls receive the same unity through the Holy Spirit.”7
De Lubac then turns his attention to the sacrament of
penance. Penance is defined by de Lubac as the “social
reintegration of the sinner”.8 Thus in his very definition
of the sacrament de Lubac highlights its social aspect. De
Lubac does not deny that this particular sacrament has the
purpose of inner purification; however, it also works in a
disciplinary manner as well. It is the latter aspect that
de Lubac focuses on, because penance reconciles the sinner
with the Church, which constitutes “an efficacious sign of
reconciliation with God”.9 The sinner cannot receive the
grace of God outside of communion with the Body of Christ.
7 Irenaeus, Adv. Haereses, 3, 17, 2 (PG 7, 930). Quoted in de Lubac,Catholicism, 86.
8 De Lubac, Catholicism, 87.
9 De Lubac, Catholicism, 87.
4
While baptism and penance offer helpful examples in
identifying the social aspect of the sacraments, it is the
Eucharist which is the “sacrament in the highest sense of
the word.”10 De Lubac reveals his true discontent with some
Catholic teaching on the Eucharist in this section of
Catholicism. He is concerned that so many Catholics believe
that the doctrine is already complete, even if the unitive
function is ignored or forgotten. De Lubac traces back
the importance of the unity of the Eucharist through the
Apostle Paul, Ignatius of Antioch, Cyprian, John Chrysostom,
Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine of Hippo, and John Damascene,
showing that this was “in the very forefront of their
thought.”11
10 De Lubac, Catholicism, 88.
11 De Lubac, Catholicism, 90. It is no coincidence that de Lubac returns to the Church Fathers in an attempt to recover this theme of thesacraments as “instruments of unity”. Susan Wood offers a helpful observation: “De Lubac’s fundamental conviction is that in order for Christianity to be adaptable to a modern generation it must first discover its essence through a return to the originating creative thought of its doctrines and institutions.” For de Lubac and Catholic Christianity, the “originating creative thought” would of course be the teachings of the Church Fathers, who are quoted extensively in this section. Susan Wood, Spiritual Exegesis and the Church in the Theology of Henri de Lubac(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 5.
5
Of course the Fathers did not invent this understanding
– it can be traced back to Paul,a nd even to Jewish thought.
Enrico Mazza also concludes that Paul connects the unity of
the sacrament with the unity of the Church. In fact, Mazza
traces this theme of unity amongst the people of God back
through the Old Testament, and forward into Christian
apocryphal literature (i.e. the Didache) also. But as far
as Paul is concerned, Mazza writes that “unity is connected
with the sacramental nature and the efficacy of the
Eucharist…the unity of the Church as a body is a familiar
idea in the letters of Paul.”12
The social and unitive dimension of sacramental
teaching did not decline in the early Scholastic period. De
Lubac notes that “the whole Latin Middle Ages were nourished
on this teaching” so much that they “take it for granted.”13
Influential scholars such as Peter Lombard, Hugh of St.
Victor, Abelard, Innocent III, and Thomas Aquinas all teach
12 Enrico Mazza, The Celebration of the Eucharist: The Origin of the rite and the Development of Its Interpretation, trans. Matthew O’Connell (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1999), 83-84.
13 De Lubac, Catholicism, 93.
6
this aspect of the sacraments.14 De Lubac lists three
stages of depth that came to be located in the Eucharist:
1. sacramentum tantum (sacrament alone—the outward sign—
constituted by the species of bread and wine—the
Mystical Body);
2. sacramentum et res (sacrament and the reality—what is
contained under the sign—constituted by the body and
blood of Christ itself—the historical body);
3. res tantum (reality alone—the definitive fruit of the
sacrament—constituted by the unity of the Church—the
True Body).15
While the first and second stage become the predominant
manner by which the medieval theology of the Eucharist is
remembered, it is the third stage that de Lubac wants to
recover. For the Scholastics as well as the Church Fathers,
Eucharistic theology was not complete without its
symbolization of the unity of the Church (the True Body).
14 De Lubac, Catholicism, 97-98.
15 De Lubac, Catholicism, 96-97.
7
De Lubac does not choose to examine in this work the
gradual process by which this dimension came to be
forgotten; he only informs his readers that it does.
However, the problem is not that the social aspect came to
be ignored. In fact, the idea of the “relationship between
the physical body of Christ and the Mystical Body came to be
forgotten.”16 Jaroslav Pelikan offers some help in this
regard. Pelikan argues that as the sacrificial
understanding of the Eucharist came to be affirmed in the
twelfth century, it dominated all other aspects of the
Eucharist.17 Pelikan also notes that misunderstandings
about the “body of Christ” led to disuse of certain
theological elements of Eucharistic doctrine. He cites
Augustine for his description of “the unity of the body and
blood of Christ”, but says that the difficulty of
understanding whether this meant the body of Christ in human
form, the body of Christ in the sacrament, or the body of
16 De Lubac, Catholicism, 99.
17 Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: The Growth of Medieval Theology (600-1300) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 188.
8
Christ as the Church led to perplexity of meaning and
eventual disuse.18
De Lubac notes that the whole weight of Catholic
doctrine and liturgy supports this social and unitive
aspect. He notes numerous occasions in the liturgy when the
unity of the Church is sought and desired by both the
celebrants and the congregation. Some of these liturgical
exhortations remain from ancient practice, while others are
more contemporary. They work together in concert to remind
the body of “the unity of the Church in space and time, of
pastor and people, which is itself a symbol of that mystic
unity of which the sacrifice of the altar is the bond that
is every renewed.”19
De Lubac points his readers back to Eucharistic prayers
of the early Church. He observes that these ancient
liturgies, preserved in the writings of Theodore of
Mopsuestia, St. Basil, St. Eustace, the Didache, and the
“Apostolic Constitution” all have in common this prayer for
18 Pelikan, 191.
19 De Lubac, Catholicism, 104.
9
the unity of the saints.20 However, these Eucharistic
prayers for unity contain more theological meaning than a
simple desire for peace among the members. In fact, “true
Eucharistic piety…is no devout individualism.”21 It cannot
be, because such piety cannot be conceived without
“fraternal communion.”22 De Lubac does not limit this
communion internally; i.e., Eucharistic piety of the Church
also serves for the purpose of uniting the entire human
race. “And as the Spirit of Christ once came down upon the
Apostles not to unite them together in a closed group but to
light within them the fire of universal charity, so does he
still whenever Christ delivers himself up once more that the
scattered children of God may be gathered together. Our
churches are the ‘upper room’ where not only is the Last
Supper renewed but Pentecost also.”23
20 De Lubac, Catholicism, 106-107.
21 De Lubac, Catholicism, 109.
22 De Lubac, Catholicism, 110.
23 De Lubac, Catholicism, 110-111.
10
This aspect of de Lubac’s theological purpose comes as
a natural conclusion to his writing on the sacraments. De
Lubac informs his audience that the Church Fathers
“delighted” to contemplate the creation of humanity “as a
whole”.24 And when the eschatological Christ comes at the
telos of history, the bride will be the “whole human race.”25
Therefore, in this thesis of de Lubac does his sacramental
theology find its full eschatological purpose. The unity of
the Church, as seen in the sacraments, is not for the
benefit of the body of Christ only. Indeed, this unity is a
calling to the Church to be the body of Christ that
represents the whole human race. We as the Church are
called as a social body to unity that we may unite the
entire human race together in unity as the bride of Christ
at the telos of history. Dennis Doyle adds that de Lubac’s
communion ecclesiology requires “those gathered (to be) sent
out with a mission of charity to the larger world.”26
24 De Lubac, Catholicism, 25.
25 De Lubac, Catholicism, 27.
26 Doyle, 224.
11
Communion Ecclesiology in The Splendour of the Church
Another important work of de Lubac in regard to this
subject is The Splendour of the Church.27 In this book, de Lubac
explores several different images of the Church: the Church
as mystery; the Church as mother (ecclesia mater); the
sacrament of Christ; the heart of the Church. The social
aspect of the unity of the Church can be seen as a thread
that runs throughout the entire book. This is not a
background theme; it runs to the heart of de Lubac’s
theological vision of the body of Christ.
The Church is a mystery. De Lubac is aware that such a
statement envelops this theme of unity that he has insisted
upon. The unity of the Church is also a mystery. De Lubac
is not blissfully ignorant of the criticisms of such a
theological position. “Mankind is diverse in the extreme,
divided up by period, climate, culture, environment and
innumerable other things: its problems, anxieties, tastes
27
Hans Urs Von Balthasar describes The Splendour of the Church as a bookthat provides “the spirituality for the theology of Catholicism.” Balthasar, The Theology of Henri de Lubac (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1976), 107.
12
and modes of expression are correspondingly diverse, and the
differences are irreducible.”28 Doyle notes that “one of
the major strengths of de Lubac…is precisely that he is able
to operate on the level of ideal, mystical speech about the
Church while at the same time acknowledging fully the level
of dark abominations.”29 De Lubac appeals to the secular
historian for confirmation that for anyone who examines the
history of humanity, there is little, if any, feeling of
unity amongst the great variations of people who comprise
humankind. The historian has a far easier task of finding
differences than similarities among humans, despite our
common human nature. These differences are furthered even
more by considering humanity across time and space.
Yet it is in these very differences among humanity that
we find the genius of de Lubac’s theological vision. He
discovers amidst this separation a “wonderful phenomenon.”30
“There is a brotherhood of common responses; they answer the
28 De Lubac, The Splendour of the Church, 35.
29 Doyle, 220.
30 De Lubac, The Splendour of the Church, 35.
13
same appeal and enjoy the same communion in the same love;
it is as if one and the same blood flowed in their veins.”31
There is one body that defies this separation, and unites
humanity in one faith, and that is the Church: “they are
children of the same Church and have all had from her the
inheritance of the same Christ; fed by the same faith, they
are ‘given to drink by the same Spirit’, who produces in
them one and the same spontaneous reaction, and thus
provides the sign by which they recognize one another.”32
Our responses unite us together with Origen and Augustine.
We have, with them, responded to the love of Christ in
affirmation. “The Christians of every age and country,
every race and culture, do indeed form one single whole,
united by the love of Christ.”33
De Lubac follows the Apostle Paul’s lead in tying
together the doctrines of the Church and the Eucharist,
which he argues is the “very heart of the mystery of the
31 De Lubac, The Splendour of the Church, 35.
32 De Lubac, The Splendour of the Church, 35-36.
33 De Lubac, The Splendour of the Church, 36-37.
14
Church.”34 Historically the connection made that the Church
and the Eucharist are both the “Mystical Body of Christ” is
a twelfth century development. According to de Lubac, the
Eucharist had already been described as mystical in the
Patristic period, but it is not until the medieval period
that the Church comes to be described similarly.35
This description is apt, but it comes with a warning.
De Lubac is concerned about those who compare a “mystical”
body to a natural one and assume that the mystical one is
only metaphorical, while the natural body of man is real.
This is not the case for de Lubac. On the contrary, the
“Mystical Body” is a real supernatural organism; just as
real as a human body.
According to de Lubac, there are two dangers associated
with this understanding of the Church as the Mystical Body.
34 De Lubac, The Splendour of the Church, 74.
35 De Lubac, The Splendour of the Church, 74. Also, Susan Wood in Spiritual Exegesis and the Church in the Theology of Henri de Lubac, 85, reminds her readers that while the image of Christ as the Head in union with the Church as the body is an interpretation that is read “through the Chalcedonian formula…The Church is then compared with the humanity of Christ, and its union with Christ is represented as structurally the same as humanity’s union with divinity in the personal unity of the Christ.”
15
The first danger is to associate “mystical” in some way with
“moral”. In fact, “mystical” includes the “moral”, but it
means more than just that. The second danger is to
associate “mystical” in some synonymous way with
“mysterious”. This leads to “separating the Mystical Body
from the visible Church” as the Mystical (understood as
Mysterious) Body comes to be synonymous with the invisible
Church.36
The solution for navigating between these two dangers
is by “uniting in one” the Mystical Body as both the
Eucharist and the Church.37 Each one is the cause of the
other.38 In an active sense, the Church produces the
Eucharist. This is an exercise of her sanctifying power.39
In a passive sense, the Eucharist produces the Church. It
is the “Church of the sanctified”.40
36 De Lubac, The Splendour of the Church, 77.
37 De Lubac, The Splendour of the Church, 77.
38 De Lubac, The Splendour of the Church, 78.
39 De Lubac, The Splendour of the Church, 78.
40 De Lubac, The Splendour of the Church, 78.
16
De Lubac warns his readers that while the physical body
of Christ is in the Eucharist, and the mystical body of
Christ is the Church, the two should not merely be linked
together and therefore thought to be one. De Lubac appeals
to the Apostle Paul for guidance and for theological
clarity. “There is a mystical identification between Christ
and His Church, and the reality of the Eucharistic presence
is a guarantee for us of the ‘mystical’ reality of the
Church.”41 The mystical reality of the Church is a witness
to the mystical reality of the Eucharist. As Susan Wood
explains, “this…interpretation of the Eucharist view(s) the
Eucharist as building up the Church. The Eucharist causes
the Church and looks forward to its completion at the end of
time.”42 Here Wood provides us a hint of the eschatological
dimension that is to come.
De Lubac presents an indictment against anyone who
would claim that the Eucharist is merely a symbol. If the
Eucharist is not the Real Presence of Christ, then in no way
41 De Lubac, The Splendour of the Church, 91.
42 Wood, 61.
17
could the sacrament witness to the unity and the mystical
presence of Christ in the Church. And thus de Lubac
concludes his thoughts on this subject by reminding
schismatics that because they have cut themselves off from
the one true Church, they cannot reproduce the unity that is
produced through the reality of the presence of Christ in
the Eucharistic elements. “The Church, like the Eucharist,
is a mystery of unity—the same mystery, and one with
inexhaustible riches. Both are the Body of Christ—the same
body.”43
The Sacrament of Christ in The Splendour of the Church
According to de Lubac, the Church itself is a
sacrament. All of the other sacraments are contained in the
Church. The Church is a sacrament, like Christ in His
humanity is a sacrament of God.44
43 De Lubac, The Splendour of the Church, 90.
44 De Lubac, The Splendour of the Church, 120. According to Dennis Doyle, de Lubac is likely the first person to consider this theme of theChurch as sacrament. Catholicism is the earliest book that he can find which proposes this theme. Dennis Doyle, 221.
18
Sacraments have dual characteristics. The first
characteristic of a sacrament is that it is a sign of
something else. In de Lubac language, the sign must be
“passed through”, not “stopped at”.45 Sacraments are a
mediation between two terms. The second characteristic of a
sacrament is that it is a sign which we never cease to pass
through. In this way, the two characteristics can never be
discarded. They are both necessary. Thus, the first
characteristic is that the sign is mediatory, while the
second characteristic is that the sign is necessary for us
to pass through it to reach what it signifies.46
Christ is a sacrament of God precisely because He
envelops these two characteristics.47 Christ is “the Way”
to God. Christ is the “image of the invisible God”.
Christians, and of course the Church, will always have to go
through Christ to know the Father. There will never come a
time in history when Christ is not necessary. Thus Christ
45 De Lubac, The Splendour of the Church, 120.
46 De Lubac, The Splendour of the Church, 120.
47 De Lubac, The Splendour of the Church, 121.
19
is both the mediator, and forever necessary to encounter the
Father. Balthasar explains it thusly: “The Church remains
the ‘sacrament of Christ’: leading to him and at the same
time effectively containing him.”48
Likewise, the Church is a sacrament of Christ. It is
through the Church that we come to Christ, and the Church is
and will be necessary for us to encounter Christ. However,
we are also simultaneously one body, with Christ as the head
and the Church as the members. Christ is the Bridegroom and
the Church is the Bride. The Church is the tabernacle in
which Christ dwells, and the temple in which Christ
teaches.49 “If she is not the sacrament, the effective
sign, of Christ, then she is nothing.”50 Paul McPartlan
provides a helpful statement of the supernatural unity
characterized through the image of the Church as Christ’s
Bride: “We see, therefore, that the Church is
supernaturally united, as Christ’s Bride, by each of her
48 Balthasar, 109.
49 De Lubac, The Splendour of the Church, 124.
50 De Lubac, The Splendour of Christ, 131.
20
members having within them the identical indwelling Christ,
who restores in each the identical imprinted image which is
the basis of humanity’s natural unity, since each human
being possesses it whole and entire and undivided.”51
As we have already seen from Catholicism, de Lubac argues
that Christ works through the Church in order to reach the
entire human race. Therefore his audience should not be
surprised to find the Church’s eschatological mission which
results from this theology of the sacrament of Christ. The
Church’s mission is to make Christ present to humanity.52
“Christ should continue to be proclaimed through us, and to
appear through us.”53 The good news for the Church is that
we know she will not fail in this mission; after all, she
will become the Bride of Christ! McPartlan observes that in
de Lubac “the future, the Holy Spirit and the Church are
profoundly linked. The same Spirit who gives hope also
gathers the Church…and the hope of the Church on earth is 51 Paul McPartlan, The Eucharist Makes the Church: Henri de Luback and John
Zizioulas in Dialogue (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 19.
52 De Lubac, The Splendour of the Church, 131.
53 De Lubac, The Splendour of the Church, 131.
21
precisely that of being gathered finally, with all the
angels and saints, into the heavenly Church in the holy
city, the new Jerusalem.”54
But as we have seen previously from de Lubac, a warning
is placed here for the Church. The concern of de Lubac is
that too many apologizers of the Church stop at the Church
herself, rather than pointing towards He who the Church
serves as a sacrament. Of course, it is good to preach the
Church. It is good to defend the Church. Especially in
this modern culture when the Church often comes under
attack, she should defend herself. However, the defense
should not end with a proper defense of the Church. “If we
thus speak of the Church and the Church alone, we are not in
fact showing her in her reality—her sacramental reality.”55
This warning goes further than just an apologetic tone
in defense of the Church. De Lubac also warns of a deeper
attack—an interior attack. Here de Lubac is concerned with
nineteenth century philosophies of history, such as those 54 Paul McPartlan, “The Eucharist, the Church and evangelization:
The Influence of Henri de Lubac,” Communio 23 (Wint 1996), 777.
55 De Lubac, The Splendour of the Church, 134.
22
offered by Hegel and Comte, which explain that humanity is
on the cusp of a new stage “that will lead to the complete
elimination of the fictitious being”.56 Afterwards, there
will no longer be any need for the kind of dogmatic
development that the Catholic Church offers.
De Lubac’s response is somewhat surprising. He argues
that the Church should not be too quick to protest. His
argument is not out of any sympathy for this philosophy of
history, which he certainly denies. His argument is
practical. The Church should not pretend that any kind of
internal danger does not exist. If there is a lack of
clarity on doctrine, or if there is any internal
inconsistency, then these external attacks can help lead to
internal improvement in guarding the Truth. The danger must
not be exaggerated, but the Church must be on guard against
it.57
Conclusion56 Auguste Comte, Systeme de Politique Positive, vol. ii, p. 108; vol.
iii, p. 455. As quoted in de Lubac, The Splendour of the Church, 136.
57 De Lubac, The Splendour of the Church, 137.
23
Antonio Sicari writes that anyone who examines the
writings of de Lubac will observe two dynamics that
intersect throughout all of his works: “the vertical
movement by which the gifts from on high break upon humanity
(‘gifts’ which are, above all, the divine Persons themselves
who welcome us into their Trinitarian intimacy), and a
horizontal movement, spread out in every direction to
recreate bonds between people by overcoming every barrier of
time and space, all possible diversities, and even the very
confines of death.”58
In this concise summary, Sicari has expressed the major
themes in the works of de Lubac. In a vertical movement
humanity knows God as Trinity. The Trinity is not a
movement of diversity, but of unity. In a horizontal
movement humanity comes together in unity as the Church.
The sacramental reality combines both the vertical and
horizontal movements described here. In Catholicism we learn
that the sacraments are not of the individual; instead, they
58 Antonio Sicari, “’Communio’ in Henri de Lubac,” Communio 19 (Fall 1992), 451.
24
are of the Church. Only through participation in the unity
of the Church does one receive the fullness of grace that is
available through the sacraments. This teaching is based
both on biblical teaching, as can be demonstrated from Paul,
and based in church tradition, as we learned from the
Fathers, especially Augustine.
In The Splendour of the Church de Lubac explains that both
the Church and the Eucharist are both the “Mystical Body of
Christ”. The Church produces the Eucharist and the
Eucharist produces the Church. The Mystical Body of Christ
is not some ethereal analogical imagery, but is instead a
real supernatural organism. The Church is a unified body
who becomes visibly signified during the Eucharist
celebration.
The Church herself is in fact a sacrament. The Church
is both a sign of Christ, and a mediator through which we
must pass to be united with that which is signified.
Paradoxically, the Church is both the Body of Christ, with
Christ as the Head, and also the Bride of Christ, who serves
as the Bridegroom. As we have seen previously, Christ is at
25
work in the Church, holding her together in unity, in order
that the Church may unite the entire human race. Therefore
it is the eschatological purpose of the Church to make
Christ present to humanity. And the Church will not fail in
this mission, because it has already been revealed that the
Church will be the Bride come time for the eschatos. Thus de
Lubac has demonstrated the social and eschatological purpose
in his sacramental theology.
In recent years, theologians associated with the
Radical Orthodoxy conversation have identified Henri de
Lubac as one of the forerunners of the post-secular project.
The nouvelle theologie of de Lubac, Yves Conger, and others
worked to retrieve the metaphysics of participation that was
defined by patristic and medieval theologians such as
Augustine and Aquinas. According to John Milbank, de Lubac
“was a greater theological revolutionary than Karl Barth,
because in questioning a hierarchical duality of grace and
nature as discrete stages, he transcended, unlike Barth, the
shared background assumption of all modern theology.”59
59 John Milbank, “The programme of Radical Orthodoxy,” in Radical Orthodoxy? A Catholic Enquiry, ed. Laurence Paul Hemming (Burlington, VT:
26
RO theologians acclaim de Lubac for challenging the
neoscholastic interpretation of Aquinas, and thus
challenging the possibility of a purely natural order. It
certainly follows that RO theologians would congratulate de
Lubac for coming to this conclusion, since they criticize
the univocity of being, as defined by Duns Scotus, for
creating a “new” secular realm separate from the religious.
James Smith notes that the result of Scotus’ theological
supposition is the “unhooking of creation from the Creator
and reason from revelation, carving out an autonomous or
secular realm of both being and thought. In this sense, the
production of ‘the secular’ finds it impetus in late
medieval ontology.”60 So while patristic/medieval
theologians recognized a metaphysics of participation that
linked the immanent to the transcendent, Scotus introduced
an ontology of univocity of being that separated creation
from the Divine, ultimately creating this separate sphere
that resulted in the creation of a secular realm.
Ashgate, 2000), 35.60 James K.A. Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-Secular
Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Group, 2004), 99.
27
In this paper we have seen two separate ideas put
forward, and I am arguing that these two moves are linked.
First, de Lubac demonstrates in Catholicism and The Splendour of
the Church that ancient theologians recognized a unitive
function in the sacraments. This unity links the
participants with the Divine who is himself represented in
the sacraments. The unity in the sacraments also serves the
purpose of representing the unity that is present within
humanity, who stands together in the imago dei. Secondly, de
Lubac and Radical Orthodoxy theologians posit the
metaphysics of participation, which intrinsically links the
immanent and transcendent, the Divine and humanity. These
two theological premises are in fact themselves unified, in
that one requires the other. They both represent the
assumptions of ancient theologians, before Duns Scotus
introduced the world to the univocity of being. It should
not surprise us then that when Scotus’ theory became en vogue
in catholic theology, that the unitive function within the
sacraments also became “forgotten.” And it is certainly no
accident that with the recovery of Aquinas’ graced nature
28
WORKS CITED
Augustine. Sermon 71. In Patrologiae cursus completes, series Latina. J.P. Migne. 217 vols. Paris, 1844-1865
De Lubac, Henri. Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man. Trans. Lancelot C. Sheppard and Sister Elizabeth Englund. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988.
_____. The Christian Faith. Trans. Brother Richard Arnandez. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1969.
_____. The Motherhood of the Church. Trans. Sr. Sergia Englund. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1971.
_____. The Splendour of the Church. Trans. Michael Mason. Glen Rock, NJ: Deus Books, Paulist Press, 1963.
Doyle, Dennis. “Henri de Lubac and the Roots of Communion Ecclesiology.” Theological Studies 60 (1999). 209-227.
Irenaeus. Adversus Haeresis. Patrologiae cursus completes, series Graeca. J.P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857-1886.
Macy, Gary. The Theologies of the Salvific Function of the Sacrament according to the Theologians c.1080-c.1220. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984.
Mazza, Enrico. The Celebration of the Eucharist: The Origin of the Rite and the Development of Its Interpretation. Trans. Matthew O’Connell. Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1999.
McPartlan, Paul. The Eucharist Makes the Church: Henri de Lubac and John Zizioulas in Dialogue. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993.
McPartlan, Paul. “The Eucharist, the Church and Evangelization: The Influence of Henri de Lubac.” Communio 23 (Wint 1996): 776-785.
30
Milbank, John. “The programme of Radical Orthodoxy.” In Radical Orthodoxy? A Catholic Enquiry, ed. Laurence Paul Hemming, 33-45. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2000.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: The Growth of Medieval Theology (600-1300). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1978.
Sicari, Antonio M. “’Communio’ in Henri de Lubac”. Communio 19 (Fall 1992): 450-464.
Smith, James K.A. Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-Secular Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Group, 2004.
Voderholzer, Rudolf. “Dogma and History: Henri de Lubac andthe Retrieval of Historicity as a Key to Theological Renewal.” Communio 28, no.4 (Wint 2001): 648-668.
Von Balthasar, Hans Urs. The Theology of Henri de Lubac: An Overview. Trans. Joseph Fessio and Michael Waldstein. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1976.
Wood, Susan. Spiritual Exegesis and the Church in the Theology of Henri de Lubac. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998.
31