The Mystical Body of Christ and Communion Ecclesiology: Historical Parallels
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
John Carroll University From the SelectedWorks of Edward P Hahnenberg 2005 The ysm tical Body of Christ and communion ecclesiology: historic parallels Edward P Hahnenberg, John Carroll University Available at: https://works.bepress.com/edward_hahnenberg/18/ Edward P. Hahnenberg The Mystical Body of Christ and Communion Ecclesiology: Historical Parallels Recogni<jng that the Church cannot be encompassed lry a single and eternal ecclesiology, and that there are stages in the development of the Church's self-understanding, the aurhor examines the history and developmenr of two of che dominant twentieth century models: the earlier Mystical Body ecclesiologies, and the post-conciliar Communion/ Koinonia models. T hey contain interesting parallels, one of which is the risk of ignoring the concrete Church - the mystery manifested in history. What ecclesiological models may next rise 10 dominance? rticles and books treating communion ecclesiology often begin by A recalling the claim made at the 1985 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops (and repeated by Pope John Paulll) that the ecclesiology of communion 'is the central and fundamental idea' of the documents of the Second Vatican Council.' During the 1970s and 1980s, the various i_mages and models of the Church proposed by Vatican II - body of Christ, sacrament, and especially people of God - gradually gave way to increased emphasis on the notion of communion as a comprehensive category. Walter Kasper argued around the time of the synod: 'For the Church, there is only one way into the future: the way pointed by the Council, the full implemen- tation of the Council and its communion ecclesiology.'2 While Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, later called communion ecdesiology the 'one basic ecclesiology'. 1 T hese statements recall the enthusiasm generated by another ecclesio- logical model recovered by Catholics decades earlier: the model of the Church as the mystical body of Christ. During the 1920s and 1930s, Paul's organic image for the Christian community burst onto the scene, a theological revival led by figures like Romano Guardini, Karl Adam, Erich Przywara, and Emile Mersch and eventually endorsed by Pius XII. The confident claim of the 1985 synod evokes the fina lity with which Pius Xll spoke in 1943: I. Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, 'The Final Report', Origins 15 (19 December 1985) 444-50. at 448; john Paul II, The Vocation and Mis.<i()ll of the 1-lly r:aithful in thR Ch•Arch and in the World/Chrisrifideles Laici (Washington, D.C.: USCC, 1988) 48. See, for example, Dennis M. Doyle. Communion Ecclesiology: Vision and Versions (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis. 2000) 2. 2. Walter Kasper, Theology and Church, trans. Margaret Kohl (New York: Crossroad, 1989) 150. 3. Joseph Ratzinger, 'Ultimately There is One Basic Ecclesiology', L'Osservarore Romano [English ed.], 17 June 1992, I. If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression 'the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ' - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the holy Fathers.1 The following essay explores some of the historical parallels between these two twentieth-century models and observes some of their shared problems. I am interested in reflecting on past developments in ecclesiol- ogy and in looking toward future theological reflection on the Church. Over the past three decades, the use of the elastic and encompassing con- cept of communion as a lens for interpreting the Council has generated both significant consensus and some debate. But history suggests that, like the model of mystical body, today's ecclesiology of communion will exert its influence and then give way to new and complementary ways of talk- ing about the Church. Church models in history and the Church in history The New Testament offers multiple images of the Christian commu- nity. The Church is a flock, a field, a temple, the bride and body of Christ , a holy priesthood, God's people - one study counts over ninety different designations.' Each image says something about the Church community, none says everything. At different points over the past century, one or another of these images emerged (or an extra-biblical image was adopted) as a kind of key, an attempt to integrate all the various insights offered by this plurality of images and so offer a synthetic vision of Church, an eccle- siology. Avery Dulles famously introduced models to ecclesiology, high- lighting this second order attempt at synthesis: 'When an image is employed reflectively and critically to deepen one's theoretical ur\der- standing of a reality it becomes what is today called a "model" .'6 Church models are rarely dreamt up and imposed on the community; instead, most are drawn from scripture or theological reflection or cultural forms as a way of interpreting, explaining, and arranging data already present to 4. Pius XII, 'Mystici CI'Yri>Oris Christi: Encyclical of Pope Pius XII on the Mystical Body of Christ', no. 13, in The Papal Enc:tdicals: 1939-1958, ed. Claudia Carlen (New York: McGrath, 1981) 37-63, at39-40. 5. See Paul S. Minear, Images of the Church in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960) 266-69. 6. Avery Dulles, Models of the Church (Garden Ciry, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1974) 21. Joseph A. Komonchak argues that, while a pluralism of Church images exists at a 'first order' of reflec- tion, it is precisely the msk of the ecdesiologist 'to attempt a critical and sysrematic inte- gration of all the insights generated by the first-order images' ('The Synod of 1985 and the Notion of the Church', Chicago Swdies 26 [1987]330-45, at 343 ). My goal is not to demon- smote this claim, but simply to illustrate how in recent histOry this inregrarion has occurred. the student of theology or the active parishioner. For Dulles, models are not only explanatory, but also exploratory; that is, they both summarize what we know and lead heuristically in new directions.' Ecclesiological models 'catch on' when they account for both doctrinal claims and peo- ple's experience, and when they offer an accessible pattern for addressing important questions. Then, a constellation takes shape that provides a new view, further insight into the reality that is the Church. This essay studies Church models in their historical development. To a certain extent, the five, and later six, models Dulles identified (Church as institution, mystical communion, sacrament, herald, servant, and com- munity of disciples) function in his comparative approach as a-temporal ideals. But models have a history: they emerge, have an influence, and then fade or are subsumed in to new models or perspectives. Church mod- els, in and of themselves, say very little. But different models privilege dif- ferent sets of questions, and it is largely the questions of an era that determine which models come to the fore.8 Thus, on the one hand, the societas perfecta. model - paradigmatic from 1540 to 1940 - privileged the visible and institutional aspects of the Church and served the Catholic response both to the Reformation challenge and to the claims of the emerging nation states of Europe. On the other hand, Vatican ll's lan- guage of 'people of God' privileged the themes of baptismal equality and the Church's eschatological orientation, offering categories for post-con- ciliar questions concerning the role of the laity and Church refonn. The models that emerge are an insight into those questions and issues facing the community; they are the shorthand for the concerns of a time. The following paragraphs explore parallels between two twentieth- century models: the mystical body ecclesiologies of the 1920s, 30s, and 40s and the communion ecclesiologies of the 1970s, 80s, and 90s.9 In skeletal form, I chart the recent history of reflection on the Church, ask- ing of each of these two ecclesiological interpretations: Where did it begin? How did it rake shape? What was or might be its subsequent his- tory? These two models share common roots, they have been employed in theological accounts and Church teaching in similar ways, and they are marked by some of the same problems. As earlier exclusive appeals to the C hurch as mystical body were later complemented by the language of people of God, so it seems likely that today's focus on communion will be complemented by other language and new, or newly recovered, models. 7. Dullo!s, Ml>dels of the Churcf•, 22-:2.3. 8. Nicholas M. Healy helpfully points out that it is not the ecclesiological model that is most significant, but rather the various construals that govern the model's use (Church, WOTkl and the Christian Life: Practical-Prophetic Ecclesiology [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000) 45). This obse.rvation suggests that an historical approach is valu- able in coming w understand more clearly what gu ides the use of a pan:icular model. 9. Alberto Melloni compares the 1992 CDF document on communion ecclesiology to Pius Xll's Mystici Corporis in 'Note sullessico della Communionis notio', Cristianesimo nella scoria 16 (1995) 316- 19. This shifting of models follows the force of time, but it also flows from the models themselves. For both mystical body and communion ecclesi- ologies, as they have been developed by some theologians and appropri- ated by the Magisterium, have shown a tendency to account inadequately for the character of the C hurch as 'historic subject' .10 The term 'historic subject' is used here in a way roughly equivalent to Nicholas Healy's cat- egory 'concrete Church', a category he warns should not be 'thought of reductively as merely the visible or empirical Church in contradistinction to its more "spiritual'' or "theological" aspects.