RIP - Avery Cardinal Dulles SJ

Rocco is reporting the death of Cardinal Dulles:

Word from New York brings the sad news that Avery Dulles SJ -- the celebrated convert, teacher, prolific author and first American theologian elevated to the College of Cardinals, a giant of the age -- passed to his reward overnight.

May he rest in peace.

Mary as the Pattern of the Church in its Perfection

I take a certain (possibly perverse) pride in the fact that my library contains more books by Hugo Rahner SJ than his more famous brother Karl. On this feast day I always draw upon the former's Our Lady and the Church because the feast of the Assumption seems to me the clearest proof of his maxim that 'what is said in the widest sense of the Virgin Mother the Church, is said in a special sense of the Virgin Mary. And what is spoken of the Virgin Mother Mary in a personal way can rightly be applied in a general way to the Virgin Mother the Church.' The Preface of the Feast Day reminds us that by being taken up into Heaven, Mary is the 'beginning and pattern of the Church in its perfection.' It therefore seems apt to post the quotation from Pseudo-Caesarius with which Rahner closes his book:

Let the Church of Christ rejoice, for she like Mary has been graced by the power of the Holy Spirit and has become the mother of a divine child. Let us once more compare these two mothers: each of them through giving birth strengthens our faith in the child of the other.
Upon Mary came in mysterious stillness the shadow of the Holy Spirit, and the Church becomes a mother through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at baptism.
Mary without blemish gave birth to her son, and the Church washes away every blemish in those she brings to birth.
Of Mary was born He who was from the beginning, of the Church is reborn that which from the beginning was nothing."

Today's Gospel

Mark 10: 17-27

Jesus was setting out on a journey when a man ran up, knelt before him and put this question to him, 'Good master, what must I do to inherit eternal life?' Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: You must not kill; You must not commit adultery; You must not steal; You must not bring false witness; You must not defraud; Honour your father and mother.' And he said to him, 'Master, I have kept all these from my earliest days'. Jesus looked steadily at him and loved him, and he said, 'There is one thing you lack. Go and sell everything you own and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.' But his face fell at these words and he went away sad, for he was a man of great wealth.

Jesus looked round and said to his disciples, 'How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!' The disciples were astounded by these words, but Jesus insisted, 'My children,' he said to them 'how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.' They were more astonished than ever. 'In that case' they said to one another 'who can be saved?' Jesus gazed at them. 'For men' he said 'it is impossible, but not for God: because everything is possible for God.'

One could write an awful lot about that gospel, but what strikes me as especially suggestive is that when Jesus examines this man on the commandments, he leaves out those commandments which have to do with God directly. When one considers the fact that at the root of the commandments is the first commandment which prohibits idolatry and the worship of any one or any thing apart from the One God of Israel, this omission is very thought-provoking, especially when put alongside Christ's question, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.
Perhaps Christ realised that despite the seeming virtue of this man, that virtue was hollow at heart because he didn't 'do God'. Combine that with the instruction to the Apostles concerning how to enter heaven (It is impossible, but not for God: because everything is possible for God), and you have a decent starting point if you want to explore the relationship between the Pauline doctrine of grace and the synoptic Gospels, to say nothing of the question of the relationship between theology and morality.

Update on CoE Conversion Row

The Telegraph reports that things have gone surreal:

The Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, accused the Church of failing in its duty to "welcome people of other faiths" ahead of a motion at July's General Synod in York urging a strategy for evangelising Muslims.
However, his comments were condemned by senior figures within the Church. The Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, the former Bishop of Hulme and the newly appointed Bishop of Urban Life and Faith, said: "Both the Bishop of Rochester's reported comments and the synod private members' motion show no sensitivity to the need for good inter-faith relations. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs are learning to respect one another's paths to God and to live in harmony. This demand for the evangelisation of people of other faiths contributes nothing to our communities."
A Church of England spokesman added: "We have a mission-focused Christian presence in every community, including those where there are a large number of Muslims. That engagement is based on the provisions of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for freedom of thought, conscience and religion."

Has the European Convention on Human Rights superseded Matthew 28:19?

I don't have time to read these...

But the Times points to this interesting series of short essays on the topic Does science make belief in God obsolete?  Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, O.P answers with an interesting No, and Yes:

No, as a matter of reason and truth. The knowledge we have gained through modern science makes belief in an Intelligence behind the cosmos more reasonable than ever.
 Yes, as a matter of mood, sensibility, and sentiment. Not science itself but a reductive "scientific mentality" that often accompanies it, along with the power, control, comfort, and convenience provided by modern technology, has helped to push the concept of God into the hazy twilight of agnosticism.

I don't recall precisely where, but I think that Newman justly worried that about the effect that science would have on people's imagination.

Convert Muslims says Bishop

The UK's Daily Mail reports on one of the Church of England's more sensible bishops reminding his colleagues of the obvious:

The Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, said Church leaders had rightly shown sensitivity towards Muslims as part of efforts to welcome minority faiths.
But he said: ‘I think it may have gone too far and what we need now is to recover our nerve.’
Dr Nazir-Ali, who faced death threats earlier this year after saying that some parts of the country had become ‘no-go areas’ for non-Muslims, said that it was important for faiths to talk to one another without diluting their core beliefs.
‘Our nation is rooted in the Christian faith, and that is the basis for welcoming people of other faiths,’ he said. ‘You cannot have an honest conversation on the basis of fudge.’

Quite! And that really is how evangelization must be done. Speak honestly and respectfully to those of other religions, but without obscuring the basics of our own faith. To do otherwise is dishonest. Why would we not want to let people know about Christ? Keeping silent about Him suggests to others that we don't really care about Him.

The Pakistani-born bishop, who in 2002 was tipped to become Archbishop of Canterbury before Dr Rowan Williams took over from Dr George Carey, was echoing concerns that many Church leaders are abandoning attempts to spread Christianity among Muslims out of fear of a backlash.

Members of the Church’s ‘parliament’ have now forced the highly sensitive issue on to the agenda of this summer’s General Synod – despite the efforts of liberal bishops to warn them off.

A private members’ motion calling on the bishops to clarify their strategy has gathered so many signatures of support from Synod members that it has leapt over others in the queue for the July meeting in York.

Synod member Paul Eddy, who tabled the motion, said that the active recruitment of non-believers and adherents of other faiths had always been a Biblical injunction on Christians, commanded by Christ himself.But he claimed that many bishops were downplaying the missionary role of the Church and official documents often glossed over the requirement to convert Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs or followers of other religions.He warned that the central role of Christianity in Britain was being eroded, and by ‘allowing the rise of another religion in our country, all that Britain stands for is up for grabs’.  

A Kontakion of St Romanus

There are many more here:

Lo, our King, meek and gentle, seated upon an ass
With haste hurries to suffer and to cut suffering --
The Word upon the dumb, willing it that rational beings be redeemed.
And it was possible to behold the One on the back of the ass
Who is on the shoulders of the Cherubim,
The One Who once translated Elijah in a fiery chariot,
The One Who is poor of His own will, but rich in His nature,
The One Who is voluntarily weak, yet granting power
To all of those who cry out to Him: "Thou art the blessed One Who comes to call up Adam."

I guess I'm not as smart as the Pope...

... in today's Wednesday audience (held indoors due to the unseasonable rain), the Holy Father spoke about St Romanus the Melodist. I must confess, I'd never heard of this guy before.
Anyway, what does Wikipedia have to say about him?

Romanos (or Romanus), also known as Saint Romanos the Melodist or Roman the Hymnographer, was one of the greatest of Greek hymnographers, called "the Pindar of rhythmic poetry". He flourished during the sixth century, which is considered to be the "Golden Age" of Byzantine hymnography.
The main source of information about the life of Romanos comes from the Menaion for October. Beyond this, his name is mentioned by only two other ancient sources. One in the eighth-century poet St. Germanos, and once in the Souda (s. v. anaklomenon), where he is called "Romanos the melodist". From this scanty evidence we learn that he was born to a Jewish family in either Emesa (modern-day Homs) or Damascus in Syria. He was baptized as a young boy (though whether or not his parents also converted is uncertain). Having moved to Berytus (Beirut), he was ordained a deacon in the Church of the Resurrection there.
He later moved to Constantinople during the reign of the emperor Anastasius—on the question whether Anastasius I (491-518) or Anastasius II (713-716) is meant, the renowed byzantinologist, Prof. Karl Krumbacher favours the earlier date.[1] There he served as sacristan in the "Great Church" (Hagia Sophia), residing to the end of his life at the Monastery of Kyros, where he was buried along with his disciple St. Ananias.

There's also the wonderful account of how he started off:

According to legend, Romanus was not at first considered to be either a talented reader or singer. He was, however, loved by the Patriarch of Constantinople because of his great humility. Once, around the year 518, while serving in the Church of the Panagia at Blachernae, during the All-Night Vigil for the Feast of the Nativity of Christ, he was assigned to read the kathisma verses from the Psalter. He read so poorly that another reader had to take his place. Some of the lesser clergy ridiculed Romanus for this, and being humilitated he sat down in one of the choir stalls. Overcome by weariness and sorrow, he soon fell asleep. As he slept, the Theotokos (Mother of God) appeared to him with a scroll in her hand. She commanded him to eat the scroll, and as soon as he did so, he awoke. He immediately received a blessing from the Patriarch, mounted the ambo (pulpit), and chanted extemporaneously his famous Kontakion of the Nativity, "Today the Virgin gives birth to Him Who is above all being…." The emperor, the patriarch, the clergy, and the entire congregation were amazed at both the profound theology of the hymn and Romanos' clear, sonorous voice as he sang. According to tradition, this was the very first kontakion ever sung. The Greek word "kontakion" (κοντάκιον) refers to the shaft on which a scroll is wound, hence the significance of the Theotokos' command for him to swallow a scroll, indicating that his compositions were by divine inspiration.

Trinity Sunday

Andrea del Sarto's Disputation on the Holy Trinity. The saints shown are Sts Augustine, Laurence, Peter Martyr, Francis, Mary Magdalen and Sebastian.

From the conclusion of St Augustine's De Trinitate:

O Lord our God, we believe in You, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For the Truth would not say, Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, unless You were a Trinity. Nor would you, O Lord God, bid us to be baptized in the name of Him who is not the Lord God. Nor would the divine voice have said, Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one God, unless You were so a Trinity as to be one Lord God. And if You, O God, were Yourself the Father, and were Yourself the Son, Your Word Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit your gift, we should not read in the book of truth, God sent His Son; nor would You, O Only-begotten, say of the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in my name; and, Whom I will send to you from the Father. Directing my purpose by this rule of faith, so far as I have been able, so far as You have made me to be able, I have sought You, and have desired to see with my understanding what I believed; and I have argued and labored much. O Lord my God, my one hope, hearken to me, lest through weariness I be unwilling to seek You, but that I may always ardently seek Your face. Do Thou give strength to seek, who has made me find You, and has given the hope of finding You more and more. My strength and my infirmity are in Your sight: preserve the one, and heal the other. My knowledge and my ignorance are in Your sight; where You have opened to me, receive me as I enter; where You have closed, open to me as I knock. May I remember You, understand You, love You. Increase these things in me, until You renew me wholly. I know it is written, In the multitude of speech, you shall not escape sin. But O that I might speak only in preaching Your word, and in praising You! Not only should I so flee from sin, but I should earn good desert, however much I so spoke. For a man blessed of You would not enjoin a sin upon his own true son in the faith, to whom he wrote, Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season. Are we to say that he has not spoken much, who was not silent about Your word, O Lord, not only in season, but out of season? But therefore it was not much, because it was only what was necessary. Set me free, O God, from that multitude of speech which I suffer inwardly in my soul, wretched as it is in Your sight, and flying for refuge to Your mercy; for I am not silent in thoughts, even when silent in words. And if, indeed, I thought of nothing save what pleased You, certainly I would not ask You to set me free from such multitude of speech. But many are my thoughts, such as You know, thoughts of man, since they are vain. Grant to me not to consent to them; and if ever they delight me, nevertheless to condemn them, and not to dwell in them, as though I slumbered. Nor let them so prevail in me, as that anything in my acts should proceed from them; but at least let my opinions, let my conscience, be safe from them, under Your protection. When the wise man spoke of You in his book, which is now called by the special name of Ecclesiasticus, We speak, he said, much, and yet come short; and in sum of words, He is all. When, therefore, we shall have come to You, these very many things that we speak, and yet come short, will cease; and You, as One, wilt remain all in all. And we shall say one thing without end, in praising You in One, ourselves also made one in You. O Lord the one God, God the Trinity, whatever I have said in these books that is of Yours, may they acknowledge who are Yours; if anything of my own, may it be pardoned both by You and by those who are Yours. Amen.

Oxymoron?

Section heading from a theology book that I'm consulting:

The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity: Details

Eh? ;)

Pentecost Icon and a Question...

This is the traditional Eastern Icon of Pentecost. A theologian of my acquaintance gets annoyed by depictions which show the Mother of God in this context. Why? Not because he doubts her presence, but rather because he sees it as a duplication of symbols. Our Lady represents the whole Church, as do the Apostles gathered together. Thus, showing the Apostles with Our Lady would present two different and distinct symbols of the Church.
The guy at the bottom of the icon represents the whole world which is about to receive the teaching of the Twelve Apostles.

A Question
The second verse of the Pentecost Sequence goes as follows:

Veni, pater pauperum,
veni, dator munerum
veni, lumen cordium.

I've never quite understood why the Holy Spirit is called the Father of the Poor. That would seem to be a more fitting title for God the Father. Anyone got any ideas?

I note that in some very early Christian texts, Jesus Christ is sometimes referred to in paternal terms. For obvious reasons, that particular usage didn't persevere for long.
(For example, see the Epistle to Diognetes which says of Christ: Having then in the former time demonstrated the inability of our nature to obtain life, and having now revealed a Saviour able to save even creatures which have no ability, He willed that for both reasons we should believe in His goodness and should regard Him as nurse, father, teacher, counsellor, physician, mind, light, honour, glory, strength and life without concerning ourselves about clothes and food. )

On the nature of the Gospels and Christian Art...

This just popped into my head, and I'm wondering whether there's any value in the insight that Christian art should take its cues from the manner in which Christ is remembered in the Church.

The fullness of Divine Revelation is a concrete individual man - Jesus of Nazareth. He is the concrete universal, true God and true man, disclosing the truth about about God and about man.

Therefore:

Since God's revelation to us literally 'took flesh', Christian art should not, as a rule, tend towards the abstract.

How is Christ's life made known to us?

Through the Scriptures, and in particular the Gospels, which we understand through the lens of tradition.
Despite being historically truthful, the Gospels are not footnoted biographies which meet the standards of modern historiography. Christ did not appear in a time and place which permitted him to be captured on film. Consequently, there are many details concerning 'how things actually happened' which we are not told. We do not even know what Christ looked like, what his voice sounded like, etc, etc...

Therefore, the Gospel accounts of the doings of Christ do not impose historical details on the mind of the believer. Listening to an account of the Last Supper, for example, the details of how the Jews of the 1st Century decorated their rooms and arranged their tables are not imposed on the mind's eye of the believer. Whilst our understanding of the Gospel is certainly deepened by historical research, the true meaning of the Gospel accounts can just as easily be grasped by the ordinary believer who has no idea what the blind man of Jerico might have historically worn. His imagining a beggar of his own time, or some vaguely undefined time in the past does not fundamentally compromise his grasp of the meaning of the miraculous healing.

Consequently, Christian art should not feel bound by hyper-realism or an obsession with historical accuracy.

Judith and Holofernes...

I was chatting with Cnytr recently, about the manner in which Judith slaying Holofernes is usually painted. Knowing her prejudices about the religious art of the Renaissance, I proposed that it normally wasn't painted as religious art at all, but served as a particularly dramatic scene from scripture which gave the artist a chance to show their mettle. For instance, I argued, this painting of Artemisia Gentileschi has nothing particularly religious or devotional about it at all.

In fact, I added, it could just as easily be from the director's cut of a 21st Century Version of Pride and Prejudice - Jane and Lizzy getting revenge on that cad Wickham.
The Cnytr disagreed. She suggested I search for some illustrated manuscripts in order to see the Slaying of Holofernes presented in a devotional form. So, I did a bit of googling and found the following extraordinary comparison.

I've read a fair bit of patristic and some medieval exegesis, and so I'm fairly familiar with the typological parallels between the Old and New Testament. However, I'd never come across this one before. Judith slaying Holofernes is presented as a prefigurement of the Virgin Mary defeating the Devil by giving birth to Christ.
Pretty cool, no?

Caritas in Veritate

Reports have been circulating that the Holy Father's next encyclical will be entitled Caritas in Veritate and it's supposed to deal with social doctrine. The strange thing is that the suggested title doesn't immediately seem to square up with the reported contents. Deus Caritas Est was about the particularly Christian sort of love which is 'Caritas' in Latin. Spe Salvi was about hope and salvation. However, Caritas in Veritate would seem to suggest an encyclical dealing with the relationship between truth and Christian love.

What's going on?

My guess is that this 'social encyclical' is going to draw on a theme that's very close to the centre of the Holy Father's thoughts. He's consistently argued that the praxis of Christian charity and social reform must be preceded by confronting the question of the truth about God and man... namely in the contemplation of Jesus Christ. Ratzinger has been arguing this for decades. In fact, I think that this is where his fundamental objection to Liberation Theology lies - the huge problem with this movement in was in its prioritising of action over the question of truth. Ratzinger rejects such an approach as failing to respect human dignity and a betrayal of the concrete nature of God's revelation in and through the person of Jesus Christ, Truth-incarnate.

Theologian Quiz - Answer

Karl Barth - who introduced de Lubac to shark-fin soup at a Chinese restaurant in Paris - is for this reason prevented, de Lubac argues, from giving a 'proper consistency to the human spirit considered in relation to God'. - De Lubac - A Guide for the Perplexed by David Grumett, p.108

Taken out of context, it sounds as though the soup has something to do with the 'proper consistency of the human spirit'.

Random Theology Stuff...

Firstly, my weird theologian trivia quiz is still ongoing. All but one of the questions have been answered:


2. Which Father of the Church suffered from haemorrhoids?

St Augustine - Correct answer from Lauren, with Quantitative Metathesis providing the reference in his epistles.

As for my spirit, I am well, through the Lord's good pleasure, and the strength which He condescends to impart; but as for my body, I am confined to bed. I can neither walk, nor stand, nor sit, because of the pain and swelling of a boil or tumour. But even in such a case, since this is the will of the Lord, what else can I say than that I am well?

Thank you QM! I'd remembered reading it in a biography of Augustine, but didn't fancy trying to track down exactly where.

3. Which figure in the Early Church was prevented from handing himself over for martyrdom by his mother? How did she stop him?

This was Origen and the correct answer came from Gengulphus

In 202, Origen's father was killed in the outbreak of the persecution during the reign of Septimius Severus. Origen wished to follow in martyrdom, but was prevented only by his mother hiding his clothes.

4. Which medieval spiritual writer was prominent in the court of the Scottish King before becoming a monk?

Aelred of Rieveaulx - well done to Bill7tx.

5. Which Doctor of the Church craved fish on his deathbed?

St Thomas Aquinas - answered correctly by StMichael.

This means that there's one outstanding question, and I'm not at all surprised that it's taking a long time to answer.

1. Which famous theologian introduced Henri de Lubac to shark-fin soup in a Parisian Chinese restaurant?
We've had plenty of sensible, but incorrect, guesses so far: Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Jean Danielou, Hugo Rahner, Karl Rahner, Yves Congar, and Angelo Cardinal Scola. Also mentioned were Avery Cardinal Dulles and Karol Józef Wojtyla. None of these are correct.

Yesterday I added a clue - the theologian in question was neither French nor German.
I'll post another clue before the end of the week if no one gets the correct answer.

Finally, is it my imagination, or does Church history just become exceedingly weird when the Monophysite controversy broke out. Take this (not-quite) random paragraph from Chadwick's The Church in Ancient Society:

Timothy Salofakiolos (Wobblecap) against Peter Mongos (Stammerer)
In 477 Timothy the Weasel died peacefully in Alexandria; a decision to exile him again, already taken at court, arrived just after his death. News of his impending demise may have reached the capital since control by the government ensured that a Monophysite successor, Peter Mongos, could be consecrated only in secret at midnight and then by a solitary bishop (Theodore of Antinoe) before Timothy Salofakiolos returned from his refuge making baskets in the Pachomian monastery at Canopus. The dead hand of Timothy the Weasel was laid on Peter Mongos' head - by old Alexandrian custom, otherwise attested, and older than the Nicen canon requiring three bishops for a canonical consecration.

Almost like something you'd read ever at the Shrine of the Holy Whapping.
Edited to add: One wonders whether future Church historians will be using the nicknames of Revs John 'Zed' Zuhlsdorf and Hermeneuity Finigan when speaking of the Westminster Succession of 2009.

A question which should never have needed to be asked...

answered authoritatively by the CDF:

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS PROPOSED
on the validity of Baptism conferred with the formulas
«I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier»
and «I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer»

QUESTIONS

First question: Whether the Baptism conferred with the formulas «I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier» and «I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer» is valid?

Second question: Whether the persons baptized with those formulas have to be baptized in forma absoluta?

RESPONSES

To the first question: Negative.

To the second question: Affirmative.

The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved these Responses, adopted in the Ordinary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, February 1, 2008.

William Cardinal Levada
Prefect

+ Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary

By the way, note that the question seems to originate from the English-speaking world. In the Latin original and all the translations, the defective formulae are given in English.

Weird Theologian Trivia...

Okay... a very short quiz... no prize except for the bragging rights...

1. Which famous theologian introduced Henri de Lubac to shark-fin soup in a Parisian Chinese restaurant?

2. Which Father of the Church suffered from haemorrhoids?

3. Which figure in the Early Church was prevented from handing himself over for martyrdom by his mother? How did she stop him?

4. Which medieval spiritual writer was prominent in the court of the Scottish King before becoming a monk?

5. Which Doctor of the Church craved fish on his deathbed?


Answers/Guesses welcome in the comments box. Alternatively, post your own piece of weird theologian-trivia. (And by that I mean weird trivia about theologians rather than trivia about weird theologians.)

Theodore of Mopsuestia (4th Century) on the Duties of Deacons

When they bring out the Eucharistic bread they place it on the holy altar, for the complete representation of the passion, so that we may think of him on the altar, as if he were placed in the sepulchre, after having received his passion. This is the reason why those deacons who spread linens on the altar represent the figure of the linen clothes of the burial of our Lord. Sometime after these have been spread, they stand up on both sides, and agitate all the air above the holy body with fans, thus keeping it from any defiling object. They make manifest by this ritual the greatness of the body which is lying there, as it is the habit, when the dead body of high personages of this world is carried on a bier, that some men should fan the air above that. It is, therefore, with justice the same thing is done here with the body which lies on the altar, and which is holy, awe-inspiring and removed from all corruption; body which will very shortly rise to an immortal nature.

Bleg

Folks, my memory ain't what it used to be. Today's 1st reading about Abraham reminded me that I'd read something somewhere about Luther's objection to the prayer of the Mass concerning the sacrifice of Abraham our father in faith. I'm 80% sure that it was in one of De Lubac's works, but I've flicked through my copies of The Splendor of the Church, and Catholicism but haven't found it. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
I'm usually pretty happy with Ignatius Press books, but this isn't the first time I've been inclined to curse them for not putting an index at the back of De Lubac's works.

Edited to add:

Aha! It wasn't De Lubac at all. Idly opening Ratzinger's Truth and Tolerance I found the following book-marked with a used metro ticket:

In the Roman Canon, in the First Eucharistic Prayer of the Missal as reformed by Pope Paul VI, the request is made to God that, with a gracious and tranquil countenance, he be pleased to look upon the offerings of the Church, as once he did upon the offering of his just servant Abel, upon the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham, and upon the holy sacrifice, a spotless victim, offered by the high priest Melchizedek. This petition called forth Luther's anger and was also strongly criticised in the circles of the Liturgical Movement as a misunderstanding of Christian worship, as the "regression" into Old Testament, pre-Christian attitudes. The early Church whose faith and prayer is expressed in this text, thought otherwise. For the early Church there was no clear break between the prayer of the nations, the prayer of Israel, and the prayer of the Church. Of course, the "novelty" of Christian worship and practice was a fundamental category of the Christian faith: the Lord has brought to pass something new, the new thing itself; but this new thing had been prepared for, and history, for all its confusion and errors, had been leading up to it. It was, of course, a matter of distinguishing between what led up to Christ and what was opposed to him. It was a matter of subjecting all this to a process of purification and renewal, but this would in fact mean, not destroying things and making an absolute break, but initiating renewal and healing. Faith makes its appearance in the history of religions as a crisis and the judgement, but not as a total condemnation of them.
The prayer "Supra quae", from which the quotations above are taken, is thus an introduction to the discernment of spirits, the interpretation, both critical and positive, of pre-Christian ways of worship. The choice of these figures is in many respects significant; Abel is the first martyr - someone who has not killed but let himself be killed and thus himself became a "lamb", anticipating the fate of Christ, the true Paschal Lamb. Abraham is ready to sacrifice Isaac his only son, and thus to give up his future, the meaning of the promise; the lamb, the ram, takes the place of the son - the light of Christ casts its rays ahead in multiple refractions. Melchizedek, the King of Salem, is priest of El Elyon - of "the most high God"; he offers bread and wine. This mysterious figure repeatedly drew the attention both the early Judaism and of the growing Church; the Letter to the Hebrews sees him as representing the priesthood of Jesus Christ as against the Aaronic priesthood.
[...]
Abraham is the forefather of Israel - our father, the Canon therefore says of him, drawing on Pauline theology. To become a Christian means entering into the history of faith that began with Abraham and, thus, accepting him as father. The sacrifice of Abraham referred to by the Roman Canon epitomises the transition from the "heathen" cult to the purified cult of Israel and, with the sacrifice of the lamb (which links Abraham with Abel), indicates the move towards the Christian cult, at the centre of which stands the Lamb who was sacrificed (Rev 5:6) - Christ, who gave himself to God on the night of suffering and to in his love reconciles us and draws us up to God. In that sense, the whole of the history of religion is referred to in this text, first leading up to Abraham (Israel) and, thereby, to Christ, and interpreted from his standpoint - from that of him who also offers us the standard by which to make the requisite distinctions, who is indeed himself that standard. (pp 95-98)

By the by, that part of the Roman Canon is, in my opinion, perhaps the most evocative and striking of the whole prayer, if one will concede the legitimacy of passing such judgements in these matters.