What do you think?
Rate this book
Nouvelle Théologie - New Theology: Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of Vatican II
240 pages, Hardcover
First published April 1, 2010
About the author
Jürgen Mettepenningen
13 books6 followersJürgen Mettepenningen is een Belgisch theoloog en kerkhistoricus.
Jürgen Mettepenningen is a Belgian theologian and church historian.
Jürgen Mettepenningen is a Belgian theologian and church historian.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
September 21, 2019
Having read a number of authors who would normally be included in the Nouvelle Théologie movement, I found this book a good overview of the main characters and general trends of the movement. As the title suggests: Nouvelle Théologie/New Theology: Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor ofVatican II Mettepenningen attempts to situate the nouvelle théologie movement between the modernist crisis under Pius X-XIIth and the Second Vatican Council.
The story of nouvelle théologie is really the story of how two versions of Thomism collided. On the one side there is the Thomism of Pope Loe XIII, Garrigou-Lagrange and to a lesser extent Gilson and Maritain who maintain no need for real development in Thomism, and on the other side are the Dominicans (part II chapter 1) Yves Congar, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Henri-Marie Féret, Louis Charlier, René Draguet and later Edward Schillebeeckx (part II chapter 3) and the Jesuits (part II chapter 2) Jean Daniélou and Henri de Lubac and later Piet Schoonenberg.
Certain parallels could or should be seen between the theological journals Concilium and Communio. However, the book really only focuses on the rise of the nouvelle théologie movement in the francophone (France and Belgium) world. Mettepenningen makes the concious "choice that will leave the contributions of the likes of Rahner, Hans Urs Von Balthasar and others undiscussed" (p. 117) which is his perogative; however, in such a short book (145 pages) I believe there was room to dedicated a little to how nouvelle théologie spread.
The book slants heavily towards the Nouvelle Théologie without making it an historical inevitability. Garrigou-Lagrange comes off particularly as a Torquemada character which may or may not do him justice. The brief biographies of the protagonists are interesting nad makes one long for a golden era of Catholic intellectual thought. Much of whatis discussed theologically is no longer considered revolutionary (outside of SSPX circles) or even innovative. Like the air we breath, our current climate and atmosphere for the most part goes relatively undetected.
I believe I would have appreciated more on the Second Vatican Council as the title seems to imply that a connection will be made to VII, though it is left relatively underexplored.
The story of nouvelle théologie is really the story of how two versions of Thomism collided. On the one side there is the Thomism of Pope Loe XIII, Garrigou-Lagrange and to a lesser extent Gilson and Maritain who maintain no need for real development in Thomism, and on the other side are the Dominicans (part II chapter 1) Yves Congar, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Henri-Marie Féret, Louis Charlier, René Draguet and later Edward Schillebeeckx (part II chapter 3) and the Jesuits (part II chapter 2) Jean Daniélou and Henri de Lubac and later Piet Schoonenberg.
Certain parallels could or should be seen between the theological journals Concilium and Communio. However, the book really only focuses on the rise of the nouvelle théologie movement in the francophone (France and Belgium) world. Mettepenningen makes the concious "choice that will leave the contributions of the likes of Rahner, Hans Urs Von Balthasar and others undiscussed" (p. 117) which is his perogative; however, in such a short book (145 pages) I believe there was room to dedicated a little to how nouvelle théologie spread.
The book slants heavily towards the Nouvelle Théologie without making it an historical inevitability. Garrigou-Lagrange comes off particularly as a Torquemada character which may or may not do him justice. The brief biographies of the protagonists are interesting nad makes one long for a golden era of Catholic intellectual thought. Much of whatis discussed theologically is no longer considered revolutionary (outside of SSPX circles) or even innovative. Like the air we breath, our current climate and atmosphere for the most part goes relatively undetected.
I believe I would have appreciated more on the Second Vatican Council as the title seems to imply that a connection will be made to VII, though it is left relatively underexplored.
July 31, 2024
Good on the description of nouvelle theologie, less detailed on the analysis.
Working through the issues in a broadly chronological way, we hear about the Modernist crisis at the beginning of the twentieth century and there is a detailed summary, thinker by thinker, of theological views between 1930 and 1950. This is informative and it represents a useful description of what representatives of nouvelle theologie were actually saying.
But the quantity of description outweighs the analysis of the significance of what the nouvelle theologie meant. The book’s title links nouvelle theologie to Modernism and Vatican II, but it does not really provide the kind of analysis which fully explains that linkage.
What was missing from the book was a far more nuanced analysis of Modernism, which explained why ideas could seem to be modernist in one context (ie prior to Vatican II) but were recognised as not-modernist after Vatican II. This was arguably partially due to the confusing and slippery nature of some of the core ideas which could be understood in both modernist and not-modernist senses, depending on precisely what they were understood to imply.
For example, arguing for the changeable nature of dogma is clearly modernism. That was rejected as Modernism before Vatican II and it continued to be rejected after Vatican II. But is it modernism to argue that there are contextual features surrounding the promulgation of dogmas which can be better understood later, and which then then give a more nuanced understanding of the original dogma? Nouvelle theologie argued the second point, and some of the proponents of nouvelle theologie were rebuked for it, yet it was essentially accepted by Vatican II. Does that mean Vatican II was Modernist, or does it mean that some theologians were mistakenly rebuked due to a misunderstanding about what precisely constituted modernism?
Another set of issues which could have been more clearly explained was what precisely was ‘wrong’ with the Thomism that the nouvelle theologie rejected. The book does well to explain a plurality of thomisms (p.12). But it doesn’t fully explain why nouvelle theologie was so opposed to the traditional way of doing theology. For example we know that Thomas’s sources were occasionally misattributed, and there are occasional mistakes in manuscripts, (etc). There were also biblical studies which suggested alternative readings of the scriptures. The nouvelle theologie essentially wanted to apply scholarship and go back to primary sources in theology, as scholars would in any field. The Roman authorities were opposed to that. Understanding both sides of that disagreement is essential to understanding why nouvelle theologie and the traditional Manualist theology were so opposed to each other. But the book does not probe those issues as deeply as it could have.
Overall, this is an interesting description of sets of ideas and it will appeal particularly to readers who want to know what nouvelle theologie was saying. But its analytic limitations mean that it does not have as much to say to those interested in how and why nouvelle theologie was related to Modernism and/or Vatican II
Working through the issues in a broadly chronological way, we hear about the Modernist crisis at the beginning of the twentieth century and there is a detailed summary, thinker by thinker, of theological views between 1930 and 1950. This is informative and it represents a useful description of what representatives of nouvelle theologie were actually saying.
But the quantity of description outweighs the analysis of the significance of what the nouvelle theologie meant. The book’s title links nouvelle theologie to Modernism and Vatican II, but it does not really provide the kind of analysis which fully explains that linkage.
What was missing from the book was a far more nuanced analysis of Modernism, which explained why ideas could seem to be modernist in one context (ie prior to Vatican II) but were recognised as not-modernist after Vatican II. This was arguably partially due to the confusing and slippery nature of some of the core ideas which could be understood in both modernist and not-modernist senses, depending on precisely what they were understood to imply.
For example, arguing for the changeable nature of dogma is clearly modernism. That was rejected as Modernism before Vatican II and it continued to be rejected after Vatican II. But is it modernism to argue that there are contextual features surrounding the promulgation of dogmas which can be better understood later, and which then then give a more nuanced understanding of the original dogma? Nouvelle theologie argued the second point, and some of the proponents of nouvelle theologie were rebuked for it, yet it was essentially accepted by Vatican II. Does that mean Vatican II was Modernist, or does it mean that some theologians were mistakenly rebuked due to a misunderstanding about what precisely constituted modernism?
Another set of issues which could have been more clearly explained was what precisely was ‘wrong’ with the Thomism that the nouvelle theologie rejected. The book does well to explain a plurality of thomisms (p.12). But it doesn’t fully explain why nouvelle theologie was so opposed to the traditional way of doing theology. For example we know that Thomas’s sources were occasionally misattributed, and there are occasional mistakes in manuscripts, (etc). There were also biblical studies which suggested alternative readings of the scriptures. The nouvelle theologie essentially wanted to apply scholarship and go back to primary sources in theology, as scholars would in any field. The Roman authorities were opposed to that. Understanding both sides of that disagreement is essential to understanding why nouvelle theologie and the traditional Manualist theology were so opposed to each other. But the book does not probe those issues as deeply as it could have.
Overall, this is an interesting description of sets of ideas and it will appeal particularly to readers who want to know what nouvelle theologie was saying. But its analytic limitations mean that it does not have as much to say to those interested in how and why nouvelle theologie was related to Modernism and/or Vatican II
January 9, 2022
It is a good introduction and historical setting of the table. Introducing you to most of the players, but leaves out the latter German theologians in favor of the Dutch. This leads to the major problem of the book. After Lubec’s bio the book feels rushed and muddled. After a clear intro and clear introduction to themes that run through the theologians, that mostly don’t consider themselves Nouvelle Theologians, we are treated with a rushed ending. Despite the intro talking up the fourth phase as Vatican II, the reader is greeted with a cursory run through of phase three and four.
All being told, it is a good introductory book. And it is critical, especially for Protestants like myself, who might be over eager to appropriate the Nouvelle Theologians without realizing that the nouvelle theologians are trying to make sure history, critical methods, and the methods of modernism are included and used in theology. They are reacting against a handbook oriented, Neoscholastic Magisterium (though early thinkers first build on Thomas, such as Chenu), focused on the “bricks” but not the buildings. Furthermore, they are interested in the Patristics in order to reach the Bible. Maybe Ressourcement and Retrival need to be considered different things…
All being told, it is a good introductory book. And it is critical, especially for Protestants like myself, who might be over eager to appropriate the Nouvelle Theologians without realizing that the nouvelle theologians are trying to make sure history, critical methods, and the methods of modernism are included and used in theology. They are reacting against a handbook oriented, Neoscholastic Magisterium (though early thinkers first build on Thomas, such as Chenu), focused on the “bricks” but not the buildings. Furthermore, they are interested in the Patristics in order to reach the Bible. Maybe Ressourcement and Retrival need to be considered different things…
March 14, 2016
It's ok for what it is -- a history of the "Nouvelle Theologie" movement with attention paid to the critical figures in each stage and country. It is exhaustively documented, very heavy on the facts and bibliographic detail, but light on the detailed theological exposition one would have anticipated (for that I'd recommend Hans Boersma's "Nouvelle Theologie and Sacramental Ontology: A Return to Mystery" (Oxford UP, 2013). That being said, Metteppeningen's book does make for a substantial reference on the movement itself.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews