THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF YVES CONGAR:

A N ORTHODOX EVALUATION*
By IAKOVOS
Metropolitan of Germany

I. INTRODUCTION
Yves Congar is a modern theologian one has to know in order
to become familiar with the present day Roman Catholic theology
and ecclesiology. Congar won recognition within and outside
his church. Faithful to the theological tradition and the authority
of his church, he has been very open to appreciate the biblical and
sacramental values in other churches.
Because of this openness he developed an ecumenical under-
standing of the nature and of the mission of the Church.
Son of a devout Catholic family, Congar dedicated himself to
the service of his church and its theology.1 Although he was
trained in Thomistic theology, he did not find absolute satisfaction
with the apologetic character of the Catholic medieval ecclesi-
ology, but he urged a return to the sources. He even looked for
new inspirations in all the great works of human thought, even
the non-Catholic Christian thinkers.2 He is very familiar with
modern Orthodox and Protestant theologians. The ecumenical
encounter has helped Congar to shape his ecclesiology on a deeper
foundation. Because of his progressive ideas he was misunder-
stood, even severely criticized by his church authorities at the
early stage, but a few years later he was unanimously justified as
a relevant modern theologian. Stanislas Jaki counts Congar among
the present time theologians whose primary intention is "the in-
tegration of everything that can enrich our knowledge of the

* This is a summary of a dissertation submitted to Boston University,

School of Theology, in 1968, for the Ph.D. degree.
1
Jean Pierre Jossua, Pre Yves Congar (Paris: ditions du Cerf, 1967),
pp. 25 f.
2
Ibid., . 40. Y. Congar, Sainte glise (Paris: ditions du Cerf,
1963), p. 558.

85
 86 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Church." 3 As such a prominent theologian Congar was appointed

as consultant of Vatican II.
The problem of this study is twofold: first, to expound the
ecclesiology of Yves Congar in a rather systematic way, and sec
ondly, to evaluate it from an Orthodox point of view.
The treatment is neither polemic nor apologetic in character.
It aims to be irenic like Congar's theology itself. Its purpose is to
discern carefully the ideas and the experience of an outstanding
Roman Catholic theologian and weigh their relevance for a broth
erly discussion in the cause of unity.

II. T H E MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH

A. Exposition
Congar, following the Bible and the Church fathers, under
stands the Church as the mystery of God's plan for salvation,
eternally existing in him, which first appeared in the history of
Israel as a promise and election and finally culminated in the in
carnation of Jesus Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
The mystery of the Church is unfolded while the revelation
of the triune God is disclosed in the history of salvation.
Following the traces of the divine revelation firstly in the Old
Testament we find several acts, events and promises of God that
are a hint for the greater events of salvation in later history and
especially in the person of the Messiah. As we come closer to the
time of New Testament we see a spiritualization of the promises.
Instead of land and kingdom, the prophets of the Babylonian cap
tivity speak of God's reign in justice. Jesus himself gave a spiritual
interpretation of the temple, making the claim that he would be
where men could find God's presence, salvation and holiness.4
Because the whole people of Israel in the Old Testament and
all peoples in the New Testament are called into God's covenant,
Congar sees in "the people of God" a dynamic expression for the
Church. While the word "Church" is sacramental and cultic,

3
S . Jaki, Les Tendances Nouvelles de Ecclsiologie (Rome: Casa
Editrice Herder, 1957), p. 12.
4
Congar deals with the gradual disclosure of the mystery of the Church
in The Mystery of the Temple, trans. R. F. Trevett (Westminster, Md.; The
Newman Press, 1969); see also, The Mystery of the Church, trans. A. V.
Littledale (Baltimore: Helicon Press, I960), p. 60.
 THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF YVES CONGAR 87

"the people of God" denotes life and history. This term describes
the Christian existence common to all and as such it was accepted
by Vatican II.
But still Congar thinks that the term cannot be an adequate
substitution for the Church because it has its genuine foundation
in Christ through whom the people of the new covenant have re-
demption and new life.
Christ is the foundation of the Church for two reasons: first,
because through incarnation we have the true religious encounter
between God and man, and second, because the incarnation is the
fulfillment of the given promises and the inauguration of a new
era. Christ as second Adam represents the whole humanity and
submits himself to the will of God. The Divine-human nature of
Christ determines the nature of the Church which is also divine and
human. Congar thinks that human nature plays its part in the
work of salvation. John the Baptist and Mary are human instru-
ments.5 The dependence of the Church on Christ is established by
the New Testament where Christ is called "the head over all
things for the Church,"6 the leader, the kyrios.
Through his death and resurrection Christ became the cause
of the Church in a theological and ontological sense. He insti-
tuted the Church as a covenant between God and man and pro-
vided it with the Holy Spirit and the apostolic authority. Al-
though the Church is also human and divine, still it has not
Christ's personality, kingly authority and independence, but draws
its power and mission from Christ himself. Christ's authority on
the Church is ultimate, because he established it and sent the Holy
Spirit to assist the ministry and grant the gifts of grace.
Congar deals with the theology of the Holy Spirit along the
lines of the Roman Catholic interpretation. The three persons
have the community of essence, wisdom and power but also their
own hypostases, their proper mission in the Trinity. So Christ re-
vealed the mystery of God and proclaimed the Gospel; the Holy
Spirit makes this message ever present and keeps it living. Yet
for Congar the Holy Spirit is dependent on the Word. Christ
promised the Spirit to the apostles and his presence appears to be

5
Y. Congar, Christ, Our Lady and the Church, trans. Henry St. John
(London: Logmans, Green Co., 1956), pp. 14 f.
e
Eph. 1:21-22.
 88 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

equivalent to that of Christ.7 Following the logic of scholastic

thinking Congar infers that "this dependence in the sphere of
temporal economy supposes a dependence in that of existence in
eternity."8 Hence Congar supports the filioque clause. He thinks
that the descent of the Holy Spirit has a vicarious function in the
Church after Christ's ascent.
For Congar the Holy Spirit and the apostolate are the two
agents of Christ. They are of different order, but they stand for
carrying on the work of Christ. The apostles have been called up
to represent Christ himself. They represent the earthly life of
Christ. The Holy Spirit has divine origin and His function is to
give the institution life and movement.9 The Holy Spirit helped
the apostles at Pentecost understand the history of Jesus in terms
of the Old Testament prophecies. He also grants the gift of com
munion of the objective treasures of truth which the institutional
Church imparts to the believers by its teaching authority.
B. Evaluation
Congar's valuable service to theology and ecclesiology is his
emphasis on the genuine sources of the Church. Yet he remains
in the same frame of the western tradition which smacks of philos
ophy. In this respect scholastic theology follows another pattern
than the patristic theology.
After so many theological controversies and debates the Fa
thers of the East developed theology apart from the ontology of
Origen and the categories of Logic. They assumed the impossi
bility of the ontological thinking about God and preferred a bib
lical language, using the term , dispensation.
Western theologians not deeply familiar with eastern theology
adopted a moralistic and legalistic tendency which was initiated
by Tertullian and Cyprian and developed by Augustine. Later
Thomas Aquinas formulated it into a system. Augustine identified
God with absolute and perfect being to which all the energies be
long. He established the relation between God and man on an
ontological basis. Man has a rational soul using a body, which
soul is illuminated by God in order to get God's knowledge. So
in the West theology starts with anthropology.

7
I I Cor. 3:17.
8
The Mystery of the Church, p . 153.
9
Ibid., p. 107.
 THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF YVES CONGAR 89

This as a premise is going to be helpful in understanding Con-

gar's theology.
Congar started his theological career with an effort to found
a theology on the premises of the scholastic theology and wrote
and article which later appeared as a book, Foi et Thologie.10
After some years of study he appreciated more the salvine view
of the revelation. Nonetheless he contends that the being of God
is knowable, since "through relevation something of what God is
in himself is made known."11 For Congar the object of revelation
is a matter of knowledge which God imparts through created
grace in man's reasonable soul. Christ is the principle of the ob-
jective truth of revelation while the Church and the Holy Spirit
are the means that impart it to men. Thus we have in Congar also
the western moralistic view. Christ is the revealer of the will of
God to men which the Church continues to provide assisted
through the Holy Spirit.
Salvation appears as a mediated gnosis, as a moral law by
which man can reach the beatitude. The believer here does not
live the personal awareness of the redeemed son of God. He lives
only in hope.
But the Bible understands life and salvation in Christ on a
rather existential and realistic basis. Christ is the ground of the
new being of man. In him man finds not only the precepts of a
code of life, but a new life altogether. A life of certainty through
the love and fatherhood of God, a life full of joy and hope.
If we accept faith in Christ in a moralistic view, as Congar
wants it, then we are not going to free ourselves from the difficul-
ties of understanding and the agony of expectation. Once we
formulate faith on a purely objective and noetic basis, we have
to go all the way through with ontology. But since Kant doubted
it, very few can accept it today. That is why those who accept
divine revelation objectively term it today as natural theology.
Otherwise we have to hold firmly that the revelation of God in
Christ is dispensational; it surpasses the frames of the empirical
knowledge and gives a new understanding of ourselves and of

10
(Tournai, Belgium: Desclee, 1962).
11
For the issue of Faith and Reason from Kant till today, see John
Cobb, Living Options of Protestant Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1962), pp. 27 and 144 ff.
90 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

the world. Faith is more than a teaching, it is a gift of God who

accepts us in Christ. When man believes he makes a leap over
reason, as Kierkegaard says.
By turning revelation and faith into an objective entity, Con-
gar keeps Christ away from the realm of salvation which is the
Church. But the meaning of salvation and sacraments is that the
believer comes into personal encounter with Christ. Instead in
Congar the Church appears to take over the double role of servant
and mediator.
Congar follows also the western tradition in the filioque clause,
but he is not very strict with that. For him the Holy Spirit acts
freely even outside the Church. One can easily understand with
him that the various christological heresies in the west were the
main reason for the filioque.
But the argument he presents to defend the flioque does not
seem very strong. Congar argues from John, Ch. 17, and contends
that temporary dependence of the Spirit on Christ presupposes
positis ponendis a dependence in eternity. But the same argument
seems stronger when applied to 1 Cor. 15:28: "that God may be
everything to everyone." Then, applying the order of eternity,
we can infer positis ponendis that God is the raison d'tre of the
divine operations and of the Holy Spirit.

III. T H E STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH

A. Exposition
Congar is called the architect of the structural form of the
Church. His ecclesiology consists of elaborating a sui generis
structure that manifests the fellowship of the people of God
through faith and divine grace on one hand and on the other
the means of this reality. He understands the Church as an organ-
ism and as an organization. The term organism, borrowed from
Moehler, indicates the christological and soteriological role of the
Church as a new creation and communion with God. In this re-
spect the Church is invisible. In this divine organism Congar
counts the apostolic hierarchy as a genuine Church which begets
its faithful by faith and the sacraments of faith. The hierarchy
exercise also the apostolic authority received from Christ. These
elements constitute the primary structure, the skeleton. This struc-
ture makes the Church invisible and visible.
 THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF YVES CONGAR 91

The visible aspect gives the right to call the Church an organ
ization as living in a social structure and composed of sinful men.
Of course the Church differs from a secular society, but still it has
a social form with the spiritual power which Christ gave to the
hierarchy in order to grant a form to the Society of Believers.
Yet this Christian organization differs from a secular society;
it is a \congregatio fdelium and it is composed of clergy and
laity. Both live by the grace and partake in the sacramental life
of the Church. But Congar makes a clear distinction between the
magisterium as the teaching church and the laity as the taught
church. The laity has a sensus fdei which means for Congar "a
power of adhesion and a sense of oneness and fellowship."12 The
laity under the spiritual leadership of the ministry should partici
pate in the apostolic mission to the world, which is God's world
and has to be transformed through the Christian faith.13 Congar
sees the great task of the Church in the present time between the
two comings of Christ. The Church has to reform and renew it
self in order to keep up with the problems and the new needs of
its people. He understands the reform as a development of faith, a
renewal of the Christian moral life and an adaptation of church
discipline to the needs and methods of our time. 14 The Church
has to be always active and missionary because the kingdom of
God has not only an eschatological meaning but also a dynamic
one. The Church lives in expectation; the reality of the work of
God is not given, "but the means are given and operating among
us corporeally/'1

. Evaluation
The western moral view led Congar to the picture of structure
with powers and authorities in the Church. This idea makes Con
gar distinguish between the Church which makes Christians and
the Church which is made by the magisterium. One must appre
ciate the intention and the conviction Congar has when he speaks
of the communio sanctorum. But still the Church takes the form

12
Y. Congar, Lay People in the Church, Revised Edition, trans. D.
Attwater (Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1965), p. 283.
13
Ibid., p. 237.
14
Y. Congar, Vraie et Pausse Rforme dans l'glise (Paris: ditions du
Cerf, 1950), pp. 140 f.
15
Ibid., p. 469; Sainte glise, p. 53.
 92 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

of an organization which exists jure divino and acts ipso jure. In

his caution to keep harmony and distinction between ministry and
laity he makes the theology of the laity very ambiguous and sche
matic. In the revised edition of the book "Lay People in the
Church" he criticized himself that he looked "at things too
statically."16 &

What one feels uneasy about is the heavy structure and insti
tution that leaves little room for the free communion of the be
liever with the Savior. Congar is aware of these problems and
rejoices upon the fact that Vatican II put laity before hierarchy.
Yet he cannot help joining grace with the mediation of hierarchy;
thus he minimizes the existential meaning of salvation as deliver
ance from sin and a safeguard in the present, through a hope for
the hereafter, as S. Paul Shilling remarks.17 The ministry exists
with the Church and not apart from it.
Only the fellowship of the individuals in the redeeming grace
of Christ through the Holy Spirit provides a sound basis of unity
against the existing diversity.18 There can be no distinction in the
realm of salvation and freedom in Christ. The eastern realistic
view of the ontology of being in Christ through the Spirit explains
clearly the inner relationship between ministry and laity. Ministry
is an order and its service is subject both to the operation of the
Holy Spirit and the free faith of the believer. The figure of body,
as a participation through the Holy Spirit, indicates that what
makes the Church "an order by itself" is not the hierarchical struc
ture, but Jesus Christ himself.19
Yet the Church lives in the world and has to be in a dialogue
with all the systems and groups if it does recognize its role of a
messenger of Christ. For this reason an Orthodox has to appre
ciate the sociological developments in the west. An exchange of
experience would help both traditions.
From this aspect an Orthodox has to welcome Congar's ideas
on the reform of the Church. One should agree that the Church

16
Lay People, p. xxi.
17
S . P. Shilling, Contemporary Continental Theologians (New York-
Abingdon Press, 1966), p. 203.
18
1 Cor. 12.
Theol
TA " i f ^ / ^ < " Sy of the Laity," Journal of Religious
Thought, VIII (1950-51), p. 44. ' i s
 THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF YVES CONGAR 93

needs a renewal in its style, methods and approach. Yet one has
some reservations in this regard. Congar understands the reform
on a moral basis as an act of the Church through the deposited
means and authority. But, at the same time, he contends that God
sometimes sends prophets who stimulate the need for renewal.
To accept the role of a new prophet means that the grace of God
acts freely.
One can hardly disregard the authority and the high respon-
sibility of the magisterium, but one would prefer to be closer to
the biblical tradition which understands every faithful bearer of
a charisma, a responsibility and a voice in the life and the needs
of his Church. Because it is not only the leading ministry but also
the laity that gave saints and martyrs. There can be no Church
without apostolic hierarchy and ministry, but also there can be no
Church without laity. The ministry teaches and leads; the laity
consents and participates. The ministry keeps the faith and inter-
prets the apostolic tradition, while the people adopt the apostolic
faith as the faith of the whole Church. For this reason the laity
also, as Congar says, expressed their consent to the creeds of
various councils.
IV. T H E ATTRIBUTES OF THE CHURCH
A. Exposition
In dealing with the attributes of the Church Congar has not
much originality.
The Church is one because its origin comes from God who acts
in history. The promises of God to Israel and the fulfilment in
the person of Jesus Christ make the Church one foundation and
a unique place for salvation. Our unity in Christ is unity in God,
because "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.,>20
The unity of the Church is realized through the Holy Spirit who
is given to each one as a member of the organic whole. Also the
sacraments, faith and love that are shared by the members of the
fellowship realize the oneness of the Church.
To understand the holiness of the Church, one has to bear in
mind the distinction that Congar makes between sinful men and
the sacred means of salvation, i.e. faith and the sacraments of
faith. The Church is holy because God is personally involved

20
II Cor. 5:19.
94 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

through his acts and means for salvation. When the ministry
through the Holy Spirit administers these means it is holy and
infallible. As simple men clergy and bishops may fail. Thus the
sacraments are ex opere operato. Congar holds the view that the
Holy Spirit acts in many ways and that outside the Church there
may be salvation.
Congar understands catholicity not only in a geographic but
also in a dynamic meaning. Catholic means the one Church of
truth and grace in contrast to the heresies. Catholicity draws its
power from the fullness of Christ. Catholicity is the universal
capacity of the principles of being and of the unity of the
Church.21 As a fullness of Christ's power and grace, catholicity
has to be understood as a principle of transformation and in-
clusiveness. By virtue of this the Church can absorb and transform
the varieties and diversities into a new creation.
The Church is also apostolic. Apostolicity is the historic mani-
festation of the work of salvation through an institution accord-
ing to the will of God. The apostles together with the Holy Spirit
are the two agents of Christ. Their number is a symbol of repre-
sentation like the twelve tribes of Israel. Jesus sent them as God
sent him. This mission establishes the basis of the apostolic trans-
mission. So apostolicity makes the Church an instrument of salva-
tion. The Church by the apostolic powers keeps the teaching of
Christ and of the apostles, administers the sacraments of grace
and bestows the power of priesthood inherent in the hierarchy.22
Since apostolicity was a divine origin, it is not subject to any
human authority and is free of imperfection. So the magisterium
has a guarantee of infallibility in the exercise of its teaching
authority.
Primacy is an expression of the unity of the Church. It ap-
peared in the West as a need of the Church's independence against
the political power. Yet Congar thinks that primacy is implicitly
found in the Bible. Thus Congar agrees with Newman and others
that the event of primacy led the Church to recover the prophetic
meaning of those texts that refer to St. Peter. Primacy has to be
understood not in a personal but a rather hereditary sense. Con-
gar recognizes that primacy was pushed to the extremes sometimes

21
Sainte glise, pp. 58-9.
22
Christ, Our Lady, p. 6.
 THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF YVES CONGAR 95

and annihilated the place of the bishops. For this reason he wel-
comed the idea of collegiality of Vatican II.
B. Evaluation
Congar rightly stresses the affinity between East and West as
far as the structure of the Church is concerned. The existing dif-
ference is a matter of understanding and interpretation. The west-
ern legalistic view which Congar follows humanizes too much the
divine realities of the Church on the one hand and on the other
it grants the Church institution such a divine authority that Christ
himself disappears from the actual life. Thus the oneness and the
holiness of the Church appear as a function of the magisterium.
He understands holiness as an ethical idea for the sinful man.
But this view minimizes redemption and sanctification which we
are bestowed freely in Christ. Besides St. Paul and the Eastern
Fathers, also the Roman Catholic theologian A. Vonier holds that
holiness is an attribute of the whole Church. The fact that the
Church was established through the cross-resurrection act of Christ,
is sustained by him and lives with him, makes it holy. This is
the ground of deification of the believers, which the Eastern Fa-
thers speak of.
Catholicity also seems in him a function. Of course hierarchy
is indispensable in the life and mission of the Church, but its
authority leaves very little room for the sanctifying and unifying
power of the Holy Spirit. Congar understands the sensus fdei as
a gift of adhesion rather than a sense of unity in Christ. But his-
tory teaches, as Congar accepts, that hierarchy expresses the sensus
fdei, but the whole Church accepts and lives by it.
We have the same difficulty with apostolicity. While Congar
calls the Holy Spirit the interior agent of the Church, he wants
it exclusively related to the apostolic authority. Undoubtedly,
hierarchy is the historic reality of the Church, but the Holy Spirit
hierarchizes the Church and perpetuates the order and the gifts.
Hierarchy has the authority of faith and sacraments, but it is the
Holy Spirit who brings about grace and unity.
The overemphasis on the apostolic authority justifies the idea
of primacy. The whole idea socializes the Church too much and
makes ambiguous the spiritual presence of Jesus Christ himself.
The Church needs, of course, a visible unity, but this unity cannot
be detached from the invisible Christ who once present in the world
 96 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

does not abandon his people until he carries out the work of re-
demption and comes again personally. The Church needs to be
aware of Christ's spiritual presence.
The arguments that Congar brings for primacy are not con-
vincing. It is true that the Christian West wanted legal expres-
sion of its unity. But the independence and authority of the
Church can easily be established on a spiritual basis as well. To
try to make a spiritual empire has not always been helpful for the
Church, as Congar showed. On the other hand this idea had a
local acceptance and the conflicts that it created in the West can
hardly justify its usefulness for the unity of the Church. Yet we
have to deal with this issue with understanding and brotherly love.
Congar is also very irenic. He often speaks of a spiritual primacy
and recognizes that the Bishops obtain their status through ordina-
tion and are indispensable in the Church. The non-Catholic
Churches have to examine the meaning of the primacy within the
Catholic Church itself and its meaning in a time of fellowship
and unity in Jesus Christ.

V. TRADITION AND TRADITIONS

A. Exposition
Congar has made a new effort to relate the issues Scripture,
Tradition, and the Church. He understands Tradition as content
and method in the setting of the history of salvation. Christ him-
self gave a new meaning to the Old Testament and set up the
foundation of the New Testament Scripture and Tradition. While
the Scripture was fixed, Tradition took up various forms in the
course of history. Congar makes a distinction between Tradition
and traditions. The first includes the transmission of the whole
gospel and the sacraments and the catholic sense which the Church
as a living subject possesses in the act of developing the Scripture.
The latter are of secondary importance and concern worship and
discipline. Congar makes a distinction between the apostolic Tra-
dition and the ecclesiastic one.23 While he makes the Church the
place of both Scripture and Tradition, he finds it difficult to define
their relationship. The fact that the Bible was given to the Church
proves the authority of the Bible and the right of the Church to

23
Y. Congar, Tradition and Traditions, trans. M. Nassby and T. Rain,
borough (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1967), pp. 205, 296 f.
 THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF YVES CONGAR 97

search for its meaning. Congar is swaying as to the priority and

the importance of each one. Although he says that the Church
could exist without the Bible, he thinks that without it our minds
would be somehow in doubt. He also points out the material suf-
ficiency and the advantages of the Scripture over Tradition, since
it is public, solid and indisputable.
However Congar remarks that Scripture does not have a total
authority in relation to Tradition, because the material text needs
reading and understanding. It is the Church that has the authority
of interpretation. On this ground it opposed the heretics of the
past. Since the Scripture does not contain Christ himself, as Luther
thought, but the truth about Christ, it needs understanding. This
can be obtained in the Church which is the locus of God's revela-
tory actions.24
Following St. Thomas, Congar sees in the Bible both an ob-
jective revelation and the means given by God to the Church for
getting it. So Tradition goes beyond the text and makes a pene-
tration into its meaning and implications. Congar cannot think of
Scripture and Tradition separately. He sees a dialectical relation-
ship. The Scripture determines Tradition, yet there is more in
Tradition than there is in Scripture.
This theory justifies the idea of dogmatic development. It
comes from Moehler and the Catholic School of Tbingen and
has as presupposition a distinction between "objective moment"
of revelation and a subjective understanding. This theory also
identifies the Holy Spirit and the apostolic ministry.25
Further Congar sees a duality between the letter of the Bible
and its understanding which has its origin in the duality of Christ
and the Holy Spirit. Christ is the form of truth and the Holy
Spirit the power of understanding. He does not disassociate the
Spirit from Christ, but still he thinks that the objective revelation
of Christ can be subjectively developed within the Church. This
means that the Church has to look at the past and its documents
on the one hand and on the other it has to be open to the present
and to the future. Though he thinks that the theological develop-
ment cannot be a new object, still he accepts that by bringing the

24
Ibid., pp. 380 f.
25
Ibid., pp. 194, 205.
98 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

texts into relation 'Ve can sometimes go beyond the formal terms
of the text."26
It is not only the formal power of the Holy Spirit and the
analogia fdei that prepare the ground for dogmatic development,
but also the human limitations that necessitate it. This does not
mean that the doctrines of the Church are fallible as a whole, but
rather that current doctrinal teaching may appear incomplete. The
idea of dogmatic development was accepted by Vatican II.
B. Evaluation
Congar's studies on Scripture and Tradition have been a con-
siderable contribution to ecclesiology in ecumenical contexts. His
analysis of the origin, meaning and transmission of Tradition is
very helpful and illuminating.
In his discussions with Cullmann he succeeds in proving that
the Church cannot live without the actual Tradition which is al-
ways renewed through the Holy Spirit. Some protestant theolo-
gians also pointed out the historical dimension of the reality of
Christ which passed on to the Church not only by the apostolic
kerygma but also by the acts of the Christ and of the apostles.27
Congar makes clear two things: first, the unity of the acts of
God that have been accepted by faith of the first witnesses and
have been deposited through the written word or the tradition;
and second, the relationship between the Holy Scripture and Tra-
dition through the Holy Spirit. Sometimes, though, Congar's
thought is too dialectical so that one may be confused. The
material sufficiency of the Bible is so much stressed that one would
expect to see Tradition subordinated to the Bible. On the other
hand by making the magisterium the subject of Tradition he turns
the whole theory all the way around and makes the present time
of the Church more important than the time of Christ and the
apostles themselves.
Congar defends his view by accepting the noetic view of the
revelation, which needs new understanding. But the redemptive
work of Christ has not only a noetic aspect, but also a salvific one
that is comprehensive and is actualized through the Holy Spirit.

26
Ibid., pp. 907-8.
27
Samuel Miller and Ernest Wright, eds., Ecumenical Dialogue at Har-
vard (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964), pp. 126-40.
 THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF YVES CONGAR 99

The Church's new interpretation does not provide us with a greater

truth as the repeating of the Eucharistie sacrament does not add
anything new to the redeeming sacrifice of Christ. By stressing
the noetic aspect of Dabar, Congar turns Tradition into tradition
and makes the Holy Spirit the origin of a functional mediation
between God and men.
George Tavard proved how Tradition grew to be understood
as a noetic function after Trent. Although the fathers understood
God to be fons revelationis, post-Tridentine theologians used the
word source metaphorically to indicate the teaching hierarchy.28
Bossuet defended the patristic view and the interrelationship be-
tween Scripture and Tradition.
Unfortunately the theological shift appealed to the legalistic
mind of the West more than the eloquence of Bossuet, and Tradi-
tion fell into human analogies. Vatican II tried to make a restora-
tion and spoke of one source, but still the noetic aspect of Tradi-
tion prevailed.
This short analysis was made as an indirect criticism of Con-
gar's understanding of Tradition and of the principle of dogmatic
development.
This Moehlerian theory understands the word of God as more
dynamic in the course of history. It helps also the Church appear
ever up to date with new ideas, but it considers the event of Christ
as relative. Then we have to think of Christ as a beginning
rather than as a full truth and revelation.
Furthermore it is questionable whether what happens in human
knowledge can be applied to the truth of revelation. Our knowl-
edge of God comes through His acts. His love and his communi-
cation provide us with an experience which we cannot develop
historically by ourselves.
The new creation in Christ has its fullness because it is the
work of God. If the Church has to develop as a social body, then
its image might be variable in the course of history.
Congar is right when he says that the human language is lim-
ited and always missing some point. Just for this reason the
Church instead of metaphysics uses the language of faith. Since

28
" Scripture and Tradition: Sources or Source?" in Journal of Ecu-
menical Studies, 1 (1964), pp. 449-51.
 100 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

God is experienced as being present in the Christ-event through

the Holy Spirit, the right language we can use is not metaphysics
but doxology. When we start from metaphysics we set up a theo
logical language in terms of analytical thinking, a priori. But
when we speak after our personal encounter with God, then our
judgment is a posteriori, i.e. after accepting God's dispensation
for us.
For this reason the eastern theology avoided a systematic for
mulation of the Church and sacraments and preferred regulations
and admonitions. Of course the human mind is critical and looks
for speculation and rationalization. But the Christian theologian
has to be dependent upon the Scripture and the Tradition which is
an experience of the believing community. Naturally local
churches and cultural backgrounds create various intellectual and
psychological frames, but all these have to be dependent on and
not cut off from the one faith and the one Tradition of Christ.
Irenaeus' remark is very relevant: "There are many dialects in the
world, yet the power of the Tradition is one." 2 9 Today all the
Christian Churches have to be humble enough to put themselves
under the judgment of Christ, Tradition, and truth, and co
ordinate secondary local or canonical traditions that are irrelevant
to the present time of the ecumenical dialogue for unity.

VI. DIVISION AND THE PROBLEM OF REUNION

A. Exposition
Congar is one among the few Roman Catholic theologians
who made a pause to polemical and entered into ecumenical
and irenic dialogue with Orthodox and Protestant theologians.
His real concern is the way back to unity. With this goal in mind
he studied the history and the various types of theology.
Congar was one of the few to single out the non-theological
factors that created an unpleasant climate and gradually an
estrangement between East and West. The removal of the capital
from Rome to Constantinople and the rise of the Eastern Patri
archate created an antipathy and a rival mood in Rome which lost

29
Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, Bk. I, ch. x.2, el. Apostolike Diakonia
tes Ekklesias tes Hellados, , vol 5 (Athens
1955), p . 116.
 THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF YVES CONGAR 101

its prestige and sometimes was neglected.30 Later when Rome

joined the western political powers the split with Byzantium was
fatal. The discontinuity of relationship gave rise to separate theo-
logical traditions. Thus the Fathers of the East developed a mys-
tical theology, while the West followed the legal and social struc-
ture and developed the institutional form of the Church.
Both agree, Congar says, as to the basic issues of revelation
and redemption in Christ. Their differences lie in the way of in-
terpreting them. The East is platonic and takes the world as an
epiphany of the spiritual world. The West follows an Aristotelian
pattern and understands the human life as a pilgrimage of man
toward God. These basic differences lead to different ecclesiolo-
gies. For the East the Church is the coming of the eternal into
time. The West, Congar says, besides these elements, paid atten-
tion to the sociological aspects of the Church and developed some
authority over against the civil society.
With this in mind Congar thinks that Orthodox ecclesiology
is true but insufficient, because it fails to grasp the social and juridi-
cal aspects. But since there is an agreement on the essential, he
thinks that a partial return to the pre-Florentine attitude is still
possible. He understands this as a local independence of the East
with its customs and liturgy but with a kind of recognition of the
Roman primacy.
On the other hand Congar is aware of the fact that through
an overemphasis of the social and institutional aspect, the West
lost much of the genuine pneumatology and spirituality. For this
reason he wanted the fathers of the II Vatican Council to be more
open to the light of the east in order to correct what there is in
Catholicism excessively Cartesian, juridical and analytical.
B. Catholicism and Reformation
In the case of the Reformation, too, Congar studies the histori-
cal and ideological impulses objectively and tries to point out
the values of the Protestant thought both early and modern for
the benefit of a dialogue. He sees the Protestant Reformation as
a revolt of the growing German nation against Rome and as a
result of the spiritual climate of Renaissance which favored indi-

30
Y. Congar, "Neuf Cents Ans Aprs/' L'glise et les glises (1054-
1954), ditions d'Irnicon (Chevretogne, 1954), pp. 10 f.
 102 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

vidual spirituality and freedom of thought. On the other hand

the low spiritual standard of the clergy could not meet the de-
mands of the intellectuals.
Under this consideration Congar thinks that the Protestants
had a pastoral intention to correct the abuses and the omissions
of the ministry. However good was their intention, they were
wrong because they left the Church.31 Congar studied the life and
the theology of Luther, who follows Augustine. For Augustine
the Church is communion with God and the means of its realiza-
tion. But Luther accepted only the first and put aside the means
of the divine relationship and the structure of the Church. The
word of God is the inner power that shapes faith and makes the
true believers. Calvin, though, recognized some value of the
Church and its ministry. On the other hand the Anglicans took
some reformed ideas without becoming really Protestants. Congar
finds that Protestants think of the Church in terms of the promise
of God in the old dispensation. They forget the event of fulfil-
ment, the incarnation and the immanence of God through Christ.
But now, he thinks, the new aspects on Christology, history of
salvation, Scripture, Tradition, provide a basis for discussion. The
notion "people of God" led many* Catholics and Protestants to
study together the relation between the two Testaments.
Congar rejoices at the fact that Vatican II removed the purely
juridical level and reshaped ecclesiology on a Biblical and soteri-
ological basis. He is happy for the theological contacts that help
understand one another. He appreciates the ecumenical dialogue
and entered it before his Church decided. He followed all the
developments of the ecumenical movement till it took the form
of the World Council of Churches. In the beginning he had many
reservations and could not understand ecumenism outside the
Catholic Church. After some years of experience, he accepted that
ecumenism is a reality today and that the Catholic Church has
to orient itself toward it. He thinks that the idea of dogmatic
development abolishes any plan for conversion and helps coming
together and appreciating one another's values and experiences.
The Catholic Church that holds the truth explicitly or implicitly

Y. Congar, Vraie et Pause Rforme, pp. 370-400.

 THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF YVES CONGAR 103

can help the Protestants correct their deviations.32

C. Evaluation
Congar is a pillar of the ecumenical dialogue and rapproche-
ment. Even though faithful to the Catholic tradition, he is open,
first, to the sources and, secondly, to the opinions of others. He
became through his prayers and studies an ecumenist and a min-
ister of the Christian love. In spite of the fact that he is an out-
standing theologian of his Church, he is not exclusive but very
comprehensive. Thomism gave him the method, of course, but it
is his own theology that smooths out divisions, finds out the his-
torical reasons and discusses the possibilities of reunion. He offers
his best will and understanding, but of course he can hardly deny
his own theological presuppositions.
His approach to Eastern Orthodoxy is friendly, objective and
constructive. Although he uses the pattern of the Western the-
ology in his ecclesiology, he appreciates the Eastern spirituality
and mystical experience and wants his Church to grasp it.
Since this is the case, it seems that the Western ecclesiology
lost something of the genuine heritage and put too much emphasis
on institutionalism. Then, Roman Catholic ecclesiology is not
complete as Congar contends but it needs to "recover the other
half," as he says.33 And if there is a solid foundation as a basis
of the genuine common ecclesiology, then the two churches have
to meet there and start from there. A local ethos can hardly im-
pose itself as a "catholic" attribute of the Church. One appreciates
the greatness and the achievements of the Western institutional
organization. Yet Congar himself insists that the Church has to
be first the body of Christ and then an organization. In spite of
the fact that Congar sees in the Western legalism a baroque style
that makes the Church an empire, yet he would like to see the
East conform with the West as far as ecclesiology is concerned.
But his theory would imply rather a common process for a meet-
ing somewhere. This could take the form of a theological discus-
sion on the issue of ecclesiology in terms of biblical and patristic
theology.

32
Y. Congar, Dialogue Between Christians, trans. Philip Loretz (West-
minster, Md.: The Newman Press, 1966), pp. 91-7.
33
Y. Congar, Le Concile au four le four (Paris: Edit, du Cerf., 1964),
II, pp. 92-3.
 104 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

A partial return to pre-Florentine ecclesiology which Congar

suggests stands along this line. Yet it seems controversial because
it reminds one of the differences and of the theological arguments
of the past. Partial return means that each one would stand on
his own assertions.
The best approach is that of brotherhood and mutual respect,
which Congar speaks of and which the two great leaders and
brothers, Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras
have already exercised. This approach takes us back to the sources
of mystery, to the one Bible, to the same apostles and martyrs
who founded the Church of Christ.
Congar's irenic theology and discussion with Protestants are
creative and excellent. He has the gift to understand the others
and to appreciate the good points. As a whole Congar knows very
well the Protestant theology. Because of the various tendencies
in Protestantism, Congar sometimes is very cautious and critical.
When he finds that the Reformers stopped at the old dispensation
he seems to be excessive. This could apply of course to Bultmann,
but not to Karl Barth who thinks of the incarnation so highly
and believes that God brought man into his new covenant relation-
ship by a free act of grace in Jesus Christ. It is true that Catholic
and Orthodox alike are prompt to visualize the new creation in
Christ through ecclesiological and doctrinal criteria. But the bibli-
cal and historical studies have made clear the personal and the
communal aspect of faith and salvation. Congar appreciates the
personal integrity and responsibility as great values of Protestant-
ism. He sees the problem of unity as a challenge and as a task.
The challenge comes from God himself who calls all his faithful
together, that Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant can know them-
selves better. Congar stresses the task we have to understand the
common calling, stand close to one another and study together
the sources of our faith. As a sincere ecumenist he does not speak
of conversion. Of course he would like to see the other appreciate
the Catholic ecclesiology, but still he prefers a mutual under-
standing and respect that could open new horizons and new
perspectives.

VII. CONCLUSION

1. Congar's ecclesiology is not inflexibly static, but rather

developing on the basis of the Roman Catholic institutionalism
 THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF YVES CONGAR 105

through the new biblical categories, the patrological revival and

the values of the non-Catholic ecclesiologies. While he sketches
the structure of the Church as an institution, he does not like the
baroque style and looks for new resources that might give the
Church a dynamic life and a development.
2. The writer thinks that the dialectical language and the
need for further research in the areas of biblical, patrological and
ecumenical studies have kept Congar from writing his magnum
opus on ecclesiology as he planned. But under the overwhelming
impact of all those values which Congar appreciates, the writer
wonders how he will be able to uphold his Western moral view
and the structural ecclesiology. In the writer's view if he tries to
be more consistent with the new values he would have to change
some of his theological presuppositions and especially the moral
Western view which some other Catholics do not accept today.
3. Congar, by using Thomistic synthesis, makes revelation a
metaphysical system and turns theology into philosophy with these
presuppositions:
(a) He uses an ontological language about God and makes
faith an objective truth deposited to the Church.
(b) He sees Christ as a principle and cause of God's revela-
tion. Christ is not personally present in the Church, imparting his
grace and his truth through the Word and the sacraments through
the Holy Spirit. His grace and truth are mediated by hierarchy.
(c) He understands the Church as an institution existing jure
divine and acting ipso jure.
(d) He makes tradition a function of the hierarchy, who ex-
plain the Bible and find new meanings in it.
(e) By the theory of the dogmatic development he makes the
divine truth in Christ relative and the image of the Church obscure
and changeable.
4. On the other hand, Congar accepts biblical and patrological
values through which his ecclesiology becomes richer and deeper.
Thus:
(a) He appreciates the salvine aspect of the act of God that
differs from a conceptual idea;
(b) He recognizes that the Holy Spirit acts freely among other
Christian Churches and the world and operates salvation through
various means;
(c) He fully accepts the idea of the people of God that makes
106 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

the salvation history dynamic and the Church a living fellowship

in the world;
(d) He defines catholicity as a universal capacity for unity and
an irresistible power of God that operates through the Church
the newness of the world;
(e) He understands the Scripture and tradition in the context
of the Church in which they are actualized through the Holy
Spirit;
(f) He condemns the division as sin and urges a dialogue
among Christians in terms of the common faith in Christ and our
common calling for unity.
Cleaning the ground from the non-theological factor of the
divisions, Congar urged for a closer relationship through a mutual
acceptance and understanding, common studies and especially
through prayer and faith in Christ. He does not compromise his
Catholic convictions, neither does he wait for a submission of the
others, but he sees the ecumenical grace among us and ecumenism
as a dimension of the Church which overcome the confessional
frontiers. Through the biblical, historical and theological values,
Congar believes, we can develop together into a rapprochement.
The openness, sincerity and freedom of thought render the
theology of Congar a valuable service to the Church of God in
our time.
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.