About pope Francis'new Letter On the renewal of the study of Church history
Shedding light on the roots of humanity, in particular through the - indispensable - use of sources. (Adobe stock photo I.A.)
Addressed to “dear brothers and sisters”, with no particular addressee, the “Letter on the Renewal of the Study of Church History”, signed by Pope Francis on November 21, 2024, could pass unnoticed. It is available on the Holy See website in Arabic, German, English, French, Italian, Polish and Portuguese.
Ideally, of course, it should be read in full. And this reading should not discourage the reader, given the reasonable dimensions of the text. But what density! The aim is to “promote a genuine historical sensitivity among young theology students”.
The reasons put forward by the Pope to legitimize a good knowledge of Church history are numerous.
It's a question of seeing the Church as “real”, of not falling into “ecclesiological monophysitism”, a phrase he takes from a “great French theologian”, whom he refers to according to “an oral tradition [that he cannot] confirm with written1”. In the Pope's view, “ecclesiological monophysitism” is “an overly angelic conception of the Church” that refuses to see the Church's blemishes.
It's about taking into account the importance of human freedom, and being fully aware that forgiveness is not oblivion.
It's about bringing to light the roots of humanity, in particular by recourse - indispensable - to the sources, and not allowing the ideologies of the moment to propagate, which would like to shape minds as if they came from nowhere, and lead them to where these ideologies want to take them willingly or by force.
It's a question of entering into the complexity of reality, banishing prejudice, opening minds to all the components of today's world, of every society, and taking into account those who were once forgotten, and are still forgotten today.
Let's read the conclusion of this letter:
”...I'd like to remind you that we're talking about study, not chit-chat, superficial reading, ‘copy-pasting’ summaries from the Internet. Today, many people “push” us to chase cheap success, discrediting sacrifice, inculcating the idea that studying is useless if it doesn't bring something concrete right away. No, study is about asking questions, about not being numbed by banality, about finding meaning in life. We must reclaim our right not to let the many sirens that today distract us from this search prevail. [...] This is your great duty: to respond to the paralyzing refrains of cultural consumerism with strong, dynamic choices, based on research, knowledge and sharing2“.
A few thoughts
Perhaps the Pope is being a little too optimistic when he begins his letter by writing that he is “well aware that, in the formation of candidates for the priesthood, a good part of the attention is devoted to the study of Church history, as it should be”. Programmes in this field are often reduced to a minimum, both in terms of time and content. Fortunately, there is no shortage of quality publications. But it's important to know about them and, above all, to read them.
As a historian, let me quote my response to a journalist who asked me why I practiced this discipline: “If you don't have a past, you don't have a present, and if you don't have a present, you don't have a future”.
What's more, the study of history allows us to meet real people. We all know the saying that history is the most beautiful novel ever written. Of course, many fictional novels reveal the inner workings of the human soul. But even if imagination is an invaluable aid to the historian's craft, the latter does not invent his characters: they are real, and, with the sympathy that Marrou so forcefully and skilfully advocated, he attempts to understand them. In this way, the study of history is a gateway to solidarity with all humanity, past, present and future.
History is also a way of entering into the act of faith: it's a question of trusting - albeit not blindly - in what our predecessors have bequeathed us as testimonies of their lives.
A Dominican friend of mine often told me that the study of history was a service of “diakonia” for theology. Not to take refuge in the past, as Pope Francis denounced some theologians in his letter Ad theologiam promovendam, nor in nostalgia, nor in an exaggerated desire for “restoration” or “stiffening”, but to discern God's action through the good that has been lived over the centuries, without obscuring the evil that may have overshadowed certain times or certain issues. It also allows us to see how the content of the faith, based on Revelation and the Incarnation of Christ, has unfolded over time, becoming better known and, above all, lived out, in contexts that are often very different. All the great theologians - think of de Lubac, Congar, Chenu and many others - were certainly not professional historians, but they had an acute historical awareness, and did not hesitate to draw on the work of their fellow historians. Henri de Lubac's unpublished pages on “ Dogme et théologie” (Dogma and Theology ), published in the January 2024 issue of NRT (p. 83-106), are a fine example of this.
And I'll end with the words of the Jesuit René d'Ouince (1896-1973):
“Qui aime l'Église se souvient”!
Footnotes
-
1 Editor's note: In fact, while the expression is used (as a repellent) by several French ecclesiologists of the sixties, such as Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar and René Laurentin, the latter takes care, each time he quotes it (e.g. “ Esprit Saint et théologie mariale ”, NRT 89, 1967, p. 34), to give the source: it's a formula coined by the German Heribert Mühlen (1925-2006) in his treatise on the place of the Holy Spirit in the theology of the Church: Una Mystica Persona. Die Kirche als das Mysterium der Identität des Heiligen Geistes. Eine Person in vielen Personen, Munich, Paderborn, Vienna, F. Schöning, 1964, p. 17: “Thus, the Trinitarian formula ‘One nature in three persons’ excludes both Arianism and the Sabellianism that opposes it. In the same way, the Christological formula “One person in two natures” opposes both Nestorianism and the Monophysism that opposes it. We shall see later that the proposed ecclesiological formula ''One person (one spirit) in many persons (in Christ and in us)'' excludes both ecclesiological Nestorianism (naturalism) and ecclesiological Monophysism (mysticism)." (So ist etwa durch die trinitarische Formel. Eine Natur in drei Personen' sowohl der Arianismus als auch der diesem entgegengesetzte Sabellianismus ausgeschlossen. In ähnlicher Weise richtet sich die christologische Formel: 'Eine Person in zwei Naturen' sowohl gegen den Nestorianismus als auch gegen den diesem entgegengesetzten Monophysitismus. Im Verlaufe der Untersuchung wird genauer dargelegt werden können, daß die vorgeschlagene ekklesiologische Formel: 'Eine Person (ein Geist) in vielen Personen (in Christus und uns)' sowohl den ekklesiologischen Nestornianismus (Naturalismus) als auch den ekklesiologischen Monophysitismus (Mystizismus) ausschließt.). As early as 1937, Yves Congar wrote: “There are not two Churches. There is not, on the one hand, a kind of pure Mystical Body, a spiritual community of souls, without a body (...) and, on the other, a kind of corpse of ecclesiastical organization; but what is organized is the human community of God's friends, and what is Mystical Body is ecclesiastical society itself. Between the two, there is an organic junction of the kind that exists between soul and body: or rather - for here we have the true and proper exemplar of the Church - of the kind that exists in Christ between divine and human nature. To deny the latter would be monophysism; to deny the former, Nestorianism” (Chrétiens désunis. Principes d'un œcuménisme catholique, coll. Unam Sanctam 1, Paris, Cerf, 1937, p. 100-101).- We are astonished at the lack of precision on the part of those surrounding the Holy Father in the preparation of this letter, which nevertheless gives pride of place to historical research. One hypothesis: Mühlen, creator of the formula, is an author of reference in the Catholic charismatic renewal. However, he is not necessarily in the odor of sanctity in certain theological circles, due to the pneumatological emphasis of his ecclesiology, which allows charisms to be emphasized in the Church, perhaps understood as endangering the institution. On the contribution of charisms to the unity of the Church, see the Final Document of the Synod on Synodality For a synodal Church: communion, participation, mission 57 (A. Massie s.j.).
- 2 Address at the meeting with students and academics in Bologna (October 1, 2017): AAS 109 (2017), 1115.