In his detailed study of the history of the sensus fidelium and its interpretation after Vatican II, Daniel Finucane persuasively argues that any ‘contemporary attempt to understand the sense of the faithful…must interpret it in the light of the issue of the development of doctrine as well as the question of how to locate the sensus fidelium as a source in theological controversies.’Footnote 1 He notes that the hermeneutical approach taken by Edward Schillebeeckx can be of value in this endeavour, because it maintains a strong link between these two theological issues. The search for the sensus fidelium as a theological source is shaped by what Finucane calls the ‘interpretative stance’ of the theologian with regard to the development of tradition, and of the role in that development that can be played by the magisterium and by theologians. In turn, the ‘systems that have been developed and taught both by the magisterium and by theologians are bound up with specific understandings of authority and doctrine.’ This close correlation implies that a holistic approach to the search for and application of the sensus fidelium is to be preferred to one that is more piecemeal in character.Footnote 2
The theme of development can also be found in the material published by the International Theological Commission on the subject. In its 2012 document, Theology Today: Perspectives, Principles and Criteria, the Commission avers that theology ‘must speak the truth in love, so that the faithful may mature in faith, and not be “tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine”’.Footnote 3 So, although it is true to say that we are not directly concerned with the development of doctrine when we consider the sensus fidelium, we are concerned with the development of the faith that doctrine seeks to express. In Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church, published in 2014, the Commission speaks of considering the ‘prospective aspects of the sensus fidei’ as well as its retrospective ones, as a way of dealing with this development theologically.Footnote 4 The sensus fidei fidelium,Footnote 5 it says:
is not only reactive but also proactive and interactive, as the Church and all of its members make their pilgrim way in history. The sensus fidei is therefore not only retrospective but also prospective, and, though less familiar, the prospective and proactive aspects of the sensus fidei are highly important. The sensus fidei gives an intuition as to the right way forward amid the uncertainties and ambiguities of history, and a capacity to listen discerningly to what human culture and the progress of the sciences are saying. It animates the life of faith and guides authentic Christian action.Footnote 6
There are a number of motifs in this short excerpt that can easily be taken up in a treatment of the sensus fidelium sequela Schillebeeckx.Footnote 7 This way of speaking about the topic fits well with the priority of the future in what Bradford Hinze calls the ‘prophetically oriented sacramental eschatology’ found in Schillebeeckx's later work, which ‘shifts Christianity's center of gravity from the past and present into the future.’Footnote 8 It tends to resonate somewhat more with aggiornamento than with ressourcement as a hermeneutic of and for Vatican II, as a result of this shift, but these two theological instincts need not necessarily be seen as competing interpretations of the Council, or of theology more generally. There is a hint, too, of the early Schillebeeckx's account of implicit intuition as the non‐conceptual element of our understanding of faith, which works together with the conceptual element to guide believers towards the truth.Footnote 9 Finally, there is – not surprisingly – a strong suggestion of the benefits of interaction with the ideas and cultures in which the church is embedded, something that Schillebeeckx is well‐known for, and an equally strong sense of the importance of linking orthodoxy with orthopraxis, through an interaction between theory and practice in which ‘praxis is decisive.’Footnote 10
Assessing the sensus fidelium retrospectively is also important, of course, and can, indeed, play an important role in assessing how to develop a richer understanding of this topic than that which seems to have been prevalent before Vatican II. Finucane points out that the ecclesiology that was dominant in the period between Vatican I and Vatican II ‘was one that emphasized authority to such an extent that the sense of responsibility among the faithful was not developed. To the extent that teaching authority was reduced to juridical terms, response among the faithful was reduced to obedience.’Footnote 11 This shows how a hermeneutical approach can draw attention to the presuppositions directing the development of doctrine and of practice, highlighting how a shift in those presuppositions can make things possible that were not possible previously. In an expression of this shift that uses quite strong terminology, the ITC says that Vatican II responded by ‘Banishing the caricature of an active hierarchy and a passive laity, and…the notion of a strict separation between the teaching Church (Ecclesia docens) and the learning Church (Ecclesia discens)’.Footnote 12
The section of the Commission's document on the nineteenth century is particularly interesting for this hermeneutical approach. It shows, on the one hand, that the shift noted at Vatican II is starting to take place but, on the other hand, the presuppositions and the language available both to the magisterium and to theologians are making it difficult for the change to be expressed, because the tendency to separate is so strong. This is particularly noticeable in the way that the term ‘the faithful’ is used, which is something that still affects writing on this topic today. Indeed, as becomes clear when we look at this historical example, Finucane's own call for the development of a greater ‘sense of responsibility among the faithful’ is seen to have only partially made the shift that is required. The Commission gives as an example the definition of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX, who ‘said that although he already knew the mind of the bishops on this matter, he had particularly asked the bishops to inform him of the piety and devotion of their faithful in this regard, and he concluded that “Holy Scripture, venerable Tradition, the constant mind of the Church [perpetuus Ecclesiae sensus], the remarkable agreement of Catholic bishops and the faithful [singularis catholicorum Antistitum ac fidelium conspiratio], and the memorable Acts and Constitutions of our predecessors” all wonderfully illustrated and proclaimed the doctrine.’Footnote 13
Commenting on this apostolic constitution, the Commission notes that ‘Newman highlighted the word conspiratio and commented: “the two, the Church teaching and the Church taught, are put together, as one twofold testimony, illustrating each other, and never to be divided”’. The voices of the magisterium and of theology are both seeking to draw the teaching church and the learning church together here – it might even be said that the use of at least some of the Chalcedonian adverbs would be helpful in stressing that there is no separation and no division between the two. However, the reigning ecclesiological (and probably also the dogmatic) backdrop is still active in these expressions of faith. As the Commission continues in its consideration of the role that Newman played in the development of this new approach, it says that when he ‘later wrote On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine (1859), it was to demonstrate that the faithful (as distinct from their pastors) have their own, active role to play in conserving and transmitting the faith.’Footnote 14 A distinction may not always be a separation or an opposition, but it seems that the tendency of modernity to ‘reify and serially order conceptual distinctions’,Footnote 15 as Kathryn Tanner has helpfully expressed it, is at work in this period, hampering attempts to articulate matters in another way for the benefit of the development of faith in the church.
Talking about ‘the faithful’ in an inclusive manner continues to be a challenge, and what to replace the separation between the teaching and learning church with is not easy to articulate. However, if members of the hierarchy, theologians, clergy and laity are all the faithful together, as the ITC strongly suggests, following the lead of Vatican II (and that of the attempts to move towards that more inclusive way of speaking about the church that were already taking place in the nineteenth century), then a synergy is worth striving for. What might some guiding principles be for such a project – in what spirit could it be pursued? One aspect of that spirit could be generosity. Theologians are called today to put into practice the kind of synergy that constitutes the sensus fidelium at its best. This requires great humility and charity, because one of the things it requires is to find a way to avoid falling too easily into a ‘two traditions of interpretation’ approach that has been part of theological reflection on and after Vatican II.Footnote 16 Paul McPartlan, the Chair of the ITC during the period in which the document on the sensus fidei was written, makes a helpful suggestion here: ‘to handle the notion of the sensus fidei…we need to adopt the council's two main ecclesiological ideas, namely of the Church as the people of God…and of the Church as communion.’Footnote 17
Ecclesiological Images
Exactly who makes up the people of God, and what relation pertains between it and the Roman Catholic Church, is a matter of some theological controversy, and it has been thus since very early in the church's history. However, when used as an ecclesiological image, it fosters a strong desire to be inclusive. As the ITC points out, Lumen Gentium starts its consideration of the church in a holistic manner, and in ‘Chapter two [the Council] continues to deal with the Church as a whole, as the “People of God”, prior to distinctions between lay and ordained.’Footnote 18 And yet, the language is not easy to maintain. In the very next paragraph, the Commission goes on to say that ‘Lumen Gentium subsequently describes, in chapters three and four, respectively, how Christ exercises his prophetic office not only through the Church's pastors, but also through the lay faithful.’Footnote 19 Admittedly, the term ‘faithful’ here is preceded by the adjective ‘lay’, but this tendency to associate the laity more strongly with the designation ‘the faithful’ shows how difficult it is to shake off the separation thesis that was prevalent between the two Vatican Councils.
A good example of the desire to maintain an inclusive vision is the way that the Commission speaks of the role of the magisterium with regard to the sensus fidelium: ‘Being responsible for ensuring the fidelity of the Church as a whole to the word of God, and for keeping the people of God faithful to the Gospel, the magisterium is responsible for nurturing and educating the sensus fidelium. Of course, those who exercise the magisterium, namely the pope and the bishops, are themselves, first of all, baptised members of the people of God, who participate by that very fact in the sensus fidelium.’Footnote 20 So the magisterium does not guide the sensus fidelium – or the faithful as such – from without, but from within. This expression of priority is very much a theme in Schillebeeckx's thinking, too. Daniel Speed Thompson points out that ‘Schillebeeckx locates the infallibility of the magisterium, particularly papal infallibility, within the general indefectibility and infallibility of the church. In this way, he consistently argues that the infallibility decree of the First Vatican Council can only be rightly understood in the light of the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council, which more clearly spoke about the infallibility of the sensus fidei.’ For Schillebeeckx, ‘the indefectibility and infallibility of the church flow from God's promise to preserve the church in truth; this promise in turn extends to the magisterial office in the church.’Footnote 21
These ideas can be found in an article that Schillebeeckx wrote in 1973 for Concilium, and in two closely related pieces of writing published in Dutch in 1994, which have only recently been translated into English. In the 1973 article, he interprets Lumen Gentium in a similar way to the ITC, pointing out that what the Council says about the promise of God's help, and about the indefectibility that follows from it, ‘is said of the Church as a whole, before any distinction is made between the community and its office‐bearers; the promise applies to both.’Footnote 22 All the same, an order of treatment does not always indicate an order of priority, so later in the article, Schillebeeckx makes the order of priority clear: ‘the Church's “remaining in the truth” is above all an interiorization of God's promise of grace in the Church…. The whole “body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief,” the Second Vatican Council declared. The Holy Spirit is always present in the whole community's confession and practice of faith…and it is this fundamental form of the Church's infallibility that provides the key to all other forms, including the dogma as defined by the First Vatican Council’.Footnote 23
The 1994 sources, which can reasonably be called two parallel texts,Footnote 24 can be found in the last volume of the 2014 Collected Works of Edward Schillebeeckx, which contains a number of sources that have never been translated into English before.Footnote 25 They expressly consider the issues of indefectibility and infallibility in the context of the development of doctrine, and look at the way in which these doctrines developed between Vatican I and Vatican II and how they might continue to develop today. When Schillebeeckx describes the doctrine of papal infallibility defined at Vatican I, he says that the ‘critical point is that the infallibility of the church does not derive from papal infallibility. On the contrary: papal infallibility derives from the risen Christ's promise to his entire church that it will dwell in the truth to the end of time (albeit with ups and downs) and the truth will dwell in it.’Footnote 26 In the version of the text taken from his Theological Testament,Footnote 27 he drives the point home in the section on Vatican II that follows this statement, entitling it ‘Papal infallibility imbedded in the infallibility of the church: Vatican II’.Footnote 28 As he says at the start of this section, the ‘Second Vatican Council adopted Vatican I's definition of infallibility almost verbatim, but put it in a broader context.’Footnote 29
The first point he makes about this broader context recapitulates what he said in 1973 about the order of the topics in Lumen Gentium:
the council only deals with papal infallibility in chapter III, after first dwelling on the “mystery of the church” and “the people of God” (who share Jesus Christ's prophetic task), in which the “charism of truth” or “infallibility” already features. According to chapter III papal infallibility follows from that, not the other way round: it concerns a papal and episcopal service to the church's “infallible faith”; that, essentially, is its source!Footnote 30
In drawing attention to the setting of Chapter III of Lumen Gentium in the document as a whole, Schillebeeckx invites us to use the ecclesiological theme of the people of God as a hermeneutic for understanding the material about infallibility and indefectibility found in that chapter. He goes on to say that a ‘second improvement on Vatican I is that episcopal collegiality in the proclamation of a papal dogma is strongly accentuated.’Footnote 31 It is important to stress that he does not think that this is a break with what Vatican I said – rather, it is a development of the doctrine that makes clearer what he takes to be the original intention and message. He says that Lumen Gentium contains ‘a much more refined view of infallibility than Vatican I.’ Using the hermeneutic that he has already suggested, he observes that, ‘According to Vatican II the subject of infallibility is not the pope, but the college of bishops headed by the pope…. The fact that he sometimes defines a dogma on his own and on other occasions in conjunction with all the bishops (i.e. in a council) does not imply two acts by two different subjects. It concerns two procedural routes of the same subject.’Footnote 32
In a third step, he draws attention to the way in which ‘Vatican II puts the matter into an even broader perspective, although it did not work out the details, namely – and here we quote the theologian Ratzinger before he started his career as bishop and cardinal – as follows: this view includes a moral commitment of the pope and the world episcopate to the voice of God's people.’Footnote 33 Ratzinger himself may well use the notion of communio to explore how this might happen,Footnote 34 but the fact that Schillebeeckx quotes him here indicates that the two streams of thought might not be as a far apart as they sometimes seem to be. Schillebeeckx, and the tradition of interpretation in which he is an important voice, emphasises certain themes, while other approaches might place their emphasis elsewhere, but this is not at all unusual in theology. As Tanner has helpfully pointed out, it is often the case that what is stressed in one theological approach does not need to be stressed in another, since it is taken for granted. This results in theologies that, while they look very different from each other, can be thought of as ‘functional complements.’Footnote 35 Tanner uses this idea to very good effect in bringing a number of approaches that are often thought to be opposed to each other into constructive dialogue,Footnote 36 and recommends the notion of the community of argument as a way of describing such encounters.Footnote 37
As Pope Francis said, in a response to a question that he had received from the residents of a shanty town in Buenos Aires in 2015, it is vital to listen to others: ‘Even if you do not agree with them, they always, always give you something or they put you in a situation that forces you to rethink your position, and this enriches you.’Footnote 38 This statement powerfully expresses the spirit of generosity that is needed in dialogue, stressing the importance of the church being a listening church.Footnote 39 It also harmonizes with one of Francis's most compelling ideas, found explicitly in Evangelii Gaudium, that the best approach to take to complex issues is one that not only refuses ‘to be overly obsessed with limited and particular questions’, but recognises that the whole ‘is also greater than the sum of its parts.’Footnote 40 In such an approach, ‘our model is not the sphere, which is no greater than the sum of its parts, where every part is equidistant from the centre and there are no differences between them. Instead, it is the polyhedron, which reflects the convergence of all its parts, each of which preserves its distinctiveness.’Footnote 41 Such a multifaceted approach may well help the church as a whole to develop what might be called an ‘integral ecclesiology’, in a similar spirit to that which led Pope Francis to propose ‘integral ecology’ in Laudato Si’, and which gave birth to the integral approach to human development that can be traced back to Paul VI's Populorum Progessio.
Finally, Schillebeeckx offers a practical reflection, showing again how important the interplay of theory and practice is in his theological approach,Footnote 42 commenting that ‘in order to embody this [moral commitment] concretely special representative organs of God's people will have to be created.’Footnote 43 The way that Pope Francis and the world episcopate sought to heed the voice of all the people of God in the period of preparation for the Extraordinary Synod on the Family in 2014 could be seen as an attempt to do this, though it seems fair to say that a good deal more development of such structures and processes is needed for them to operate as well as they might.
In the end, though (and, actually, right from the start), this ecclesiological search and development must be seen to be guided not just by a spirit, but by the Spirit – the Holy Spirit. After all, it is the Holy Spirit that guides the church, and therefore development of the sensus fidelium. Thompson observes that, for Schillebeeckx, ‘the infallibility and indefectibility of the church rest on the Holy Spirit's continual renewing power working in and through it’.Footnote 44 McPartlan avers that the ecclesial image of the people of God can be greatly enriched with a strong pneumatology. Responding to the paper given by John Burghard at the 2015 Conference of the Catholic Theological Society of America,Footnote 45 he agrees that ‘one of the great benefits of the title, “people of God,” for the Church is that it highlights the Church's historical existence, and that is what Jesus himself alluded to when he said to the twelve at the last supper: “the Spirit of truth…will guide you into all the truth” and “will declare to you the things that are to come” (Jn 16:13).’ He goes on to say that ‘The Spirit is the key to an understanding of the Church in which all of its members are gifted, active, and valued, and that is a sine qua non for dealing with the sensus fidelium.’Footnote 46 ‘Yves Congar’, he observes, ‘happened to regard LG 12, where the council refers to the many charisms distributed by the Spirit after its teaching on the sensus fidei as one of the prime examples of the council's “pneumatological ecclesiology,” “quite different,” as he said, “from…the earlier pyramidal and clerical ecclesiology” that he tended to call “hierarchology.”’Footnote 47 A particular image of the Holy Spirit used by Pope Francis can help here, offering both retrospective and prospective possibilities for thinking about the sensus fidelium, and the possibility of drawing the two main ecclesiological ideas of Vatican II into a relational dialectic with each other.Footnote 48 Such a relational dialectic could, on the one hand, help to draw the two main traditions of theological interpretation after Vatican II into more constructive dialogue with each other and, on the other, assist the further development of the sensus fidelium by encouraging theologians to work together in its service.
The Holy Spirit as Harmony and Symphony
Musical metaphors and similes are by no means infrequent in theology, and can help to express the kind of multifaceted and integral ecclesiology that this paper is arguing for. The ITC uses one to express how the sensus fidei fidelis helps the believer ‘to perceive any disharmony, incoherence, or contradiction between a teaching or practice and the authentic Christian faith by which they live. They react as a music lover does to false notes in the performance of a piece of music.’Footnote 49 The imagery can also be useful for the whole church, and is not just applicable to the way that the sensus fidei guides each member of it. As Gerard Mannion points out, throughout Evangelii Gaudium, ‘Francis prefers the image of the harmony of multiple voices – the plurality and diversity [of] all in service of the core messages and practices at the heart of the faith.’Footnote 50 Addressing the Thirty‐seventh National Convocation of the Renewal in the Holy Spirit in Rome in 2013, he said: ‘When I think of charismatics, I think of the Church herself, but in a particular way: I think of a great orchestra, where all the instruments and voices are different from one another, yet all are needed to create the harmony of the music.’Footnote 51
A number of times since the beginning of his pontificate, Francis has spoken of the Holy Spirit as the source of this harmony. He often begins by pointing out that this is not immediately obvious. For example, in his homily in the Catholic Cathedral of the Holy Spirit in Istanbul, during his Apostolic Visit to Turkey in 2014, he said:
It is true that the Holy Spirit brings forth different charisms in the Church, which at first glance, may seem to create disorder. Under his guidance, however, they constitute an immense richness, because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of unity, which is not the same thing as uniformity. Only the Holy Spirit is able to kindle diversity, multiplicity and, at the same time, bring about unity. When we try to create diversity, but are closed within our own particular and exclusive ways of seeing things, we create division. When we try to create unity through our own human designs, we end up with uniformity and homogenization. If we let ourselves be led by the Spirit, however, richness, variety and diversity will never create conflict, because the Spirit spurs us to experience variety in the communion of the Church.Footnote 52
In other uses of the imagery, he goes further still, saying that the Spirit ‘creates all the differences among the Churches, almost as if he were an Apostle of Babel.’Footnote 53 In fact, at Pentecost, the ‘gift of the Holy Spirit restores the linguistic harmony that was lost in Babel’, as a result of which the door of the Upper Room, which was ‘kept locked for fifty days is finally thrust open and the first Christian Community, no longer closed in upon itself, begins speaking to crowds of different origins about the mighty works that God has done’.Footnote 54
Francis traces this understanding back to the Fathers of the Church, saying that, for them, it is the Spirit ‘who brings harmony to the church. Saint Basil the Great's lovely expression comes to mind: “Ipse harmonia est”, He himself is harmony.’Footnote 55 A good deal of virtual ink has been spilt searching in vain for the quote, but it is the imagery that is most important in what Francis is proposing, and that certainly can be traced back to Basil. According to Stanley M. Burgess, Basil's ‘grasp of the full range of the Holy Spirit's work in the life of the believer is perhaps the most exceptional in the ancient world.’ The Spirit, for Basil, ‘is the conductor of the symphony of creation, [and is] also creator of the church (again a symphony operating in the harmony of the Spirit), which sanctifies all of creation through the work of the Spirit.’ The Spirit is the source of the charismata which are assigned to particular believers, and ‘life in the Spirit occurs when there is mutual cooperation of the individual charismata.’Footnote 56 Drawing on Basil in his account of the role of the Spirit in the church, John Meyendorff uses a lot of similar imagery, pointing out that ‘One of the recurring themes in the Byzantine hymnography of Pentecost is a parallel drawn between the “confusion” of Babel and the “union” and “symphony” effected by the descent of the Spirit in tongues of fire’. In his comments on the hymn he considers, he says that the ‘Spirit does not suppress the pluralism and variety of creation [but] overcomes division, contradiction, and corruption. He Himself is the “symphony” of creation.’Footnote 57 He notes that, although it is true to say that the ‘role of the Spirit in transforming a community of sinners into the “Church of God” is distinct’ from the role that the Spirit plays in creation, it is ‘not essentially different’ from it.Footnote 58
Like Schillebeeckx, it is also possible to draw on Ratzinger's thought here, in order to show how, in a theological approach following in Schillebeeckx's footsteps, listening to other voices who emphasize distinct – though complementary – themes can be mutually beneficial. Scott Hahn describes Benedict XVI as being ‘less a systematic thinker than…a symphonic thinker [showing] a cast of mind that is more comparable to that of the Church Fathers than to that of traditional dogmatic and systematic theologians such as Thomas Aquinas’. One of the ways that Hahn substantiates his claim is that, in the Fathers of the Church, ‘we find the notion that truth consists of a unity of diverse elements, much as a symphony brings into a single, harmonious whole the music played on a variety of instruments.’Footnote 59 As Hahn puts it elsewhere, commenting on the hermeneutic of continuity in the interpretation of Vatican II, the ‘truths of Scripture and the faith are not monologic. Truth is symphonic, especially divine truth…. The unity of truth is not threatened or diminished by diverse readings or historical‐critical interpretative methods. Rather it is deepened and enhanced.’Footnote 60 Although Hahn makes rather a strong distinction between the hermeneutic of continuity and that of discontinuity,Footnote 61 it seems reasonable to propose that, as long as the latter is not simply dismissed as a hermeneutic of rupture, it too can usefully be included in the symphony of which Ratzinger speaks. Such an approach, which attends to the possibility of interaction between diverse ways of doing theology, on the one hand, and of mutual enrichment between the magisterium and theologians on the other, is a way of doing theology informed by the spirit that this paper has proposed: a generous and listening spirit that seeks to cooperate with the action of the Holy Spirit guiding the people of God into ever deeper communion with the living God.
