¹ Warthmann, Stefan, Die Katholische Tübinger Schule: Zur Geschichte Ihrer Wahrnehmung (Stuttgart: FranzSteinerVerlag, 2011), 365Google Scholar. See also Sicouly, Pablo, “Yves Congar und Johann Adam Möhler. Ein theologisches Gespräch zwischen den Zeiten,” Catholica 45, no. 1 (1994), pp. 36–43Google Scholar.

² See Congar, Yves, “La Pensée de Moehler et ‘ecclésiologie orthodoxe,'” Irénikon 12 (1935), pp. 321–29Google Scholar; Congar, , “La Signification œcuménique de l'œvre de Moehler,” Irénikon 15 (1938), pp. 113–30Google Scholar; Congar, , “Sur l'évolution et l'interprétation de la pensée de Moehler,” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 27 (1938), pp. 205–12Google Scholar; Congar, , “Johann Adam Möhler 1796–1838,” Theologische Quartalschrift 150 (1970), pp. 48–51Google Scholar.

³ Möhler, Johann Adam, L' Unité dans l'Église, ou le principe du catholicisme: d'après l'esprit des pères des trois premiers siècles de l'Église, trans. Chaillet, Pierre (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1938)Google Scholar.

⁴ Congar, “Johann Adam Möhler 1796–1838.”

⁵ O'Meara, Thomas F., “Beyond ‘Hierachology': Johann Adam Möhler and Yves Congar,” in The Legacy of the Tübingen School: The Relevance of the Nineteenth-Century Theology for the Twenty-First Century, ed. Dietrich, Donald J and Himes, Michael J (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 173–91Google Scholar.

⁶ Flynn, Gabriel, “Ressourcement, Ecumenism, and Pneumatology: The Contribution of Yves Congar to Nouvelle Théologie,” in Ressourcement: A Movement for Renewal in Twentieth-Century Catholic Theology, eds. Flynn, Gabriel and Murray, Paul D., pp. 219–35 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)Google Scholar.

⁷ By O'Meara's own admission, it is not certain whether or not Congar was faithful to Möhler's thought: “If we ask what Congar drew from Möhler—others can inquire as to whether he was fully faithful to the German theologian . . .” O'Meara, “Beyond ‘Hierachology,'” p. 178.

⁸ Warthmann, Die Katholische Tübinger Schule: Zur Geschichte Ihrer Wahrnehmung, p. 365. (Emphasis original)

⁹ Nisus, Alain, L'Église Comme Communion et Comme Institution. Une Lecture de L'ecclésiologie Du Cardinal Congar À Partier de La Tradition Des Églises de Professants (Paris: Les Éditions de Cerf, 2012)Google Scholar; Nisus, Alain, “L'Esprit Saint et L'église dans L'œuvre d'Yves Congar,” Transversalités no. 98 (April 01, 2006), pp. 109–155Google Scholar; Groppe, Elizabeth Teresa, Yves Congar's Theology of the Holy Spirit (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hinze, Bradford E, “The Holy Spirit and the Catholic Tradition: The Legacy of Johann Adam Möhler,” in The Legacy of the Tübingen School: The Relevance of the Nineteenth-Century Theology for the Twenty-First Century, ed. Dietrich, Donald J and Himes, Michael J (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1997), pp.75–94Google Scholar.

¹⁰ These words appear in the first published volume of the series Unam Sanctam, as a description of the ecclesiological program of the entire series. Although written anonymously, van Vliet believes that there is no question regarding Congar's authorship. See Vliet, Cornelis Th.M. van, Communio Sacramentalis. Das Kirchenverständnis von Yves Congar—genetisch und systematisch Betrachtet (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald Verlag, 1995), pp. 285–88Google Scholar. Also, in 1938, Congar writes that Einheit continues to function for contemporary theologians as a source for a living and dynamic view of the church. See, Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 27 (1938), reprinted in Congar, , Sainte Église. Études et approches ecclésiologiques (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1963), pp. 509–10Google Scholar.

¹¹ Warthmann, Die Katholische Tübinger Schule, pp. 409, 418–20.

¹² Congar, Yves, Divided Christendom: A Catholic Study of the Problem of Reunion, trans. Bousfield, Maud A. (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1939), p. 69Google Scholar.

¹³ Groppe, Yves Congar's Theology of the Holy Spirit, p. 142.

¹⁴ The revised edition was translated into English as Congar, Yves, Lay People in the Church: A Study for a Theology of Laity, trans. Attwater, Donald (Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Press, 1965)Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Congar, Divided Christendom, pp. 68–69.

¹⁶ Congar, Divided Christendom, p. 77.

¹⁷ Congar, Divided Christendom, p. 84.

¹⁸ Congar, Lay People in the Church, p. 30.

¹⁹ Congar, Lay People in the Church, p. 35.

²⁰ Congar, Lay People in the Church, p. 113.

²¹ Congar, Lay People in the Church, pp. 180–81.

²² Congar, Lay People in the Church, p. 171.

²³ In Lay People Congar goes to great lengths to demarcate the role and scope of the hierarchy's power, specifically in demonstrating that its ecclesial power is first and foremost Christ's power, mediated by the hierarchy, for the purpose of making “real to us that everything comes from the incarnate Christ, and him crucified” (p. 171). In Tradition and Traditions, Congar, in observing the authority of magisterium within the church, is explicit in limiting the magisterium by placing it after scriptures and tradition: “To return to the figure of the source, the magisterium must be declared secondary and dependent in relation to the revelationis fontes, Scripture and tradition.” Congar, , Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay, trans. Naseby, Michael (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1967Google Scholar, originally published in two parts, 1960,1963), p. 205.

²⁴ Nisus, L'Église Comme Communion et Comme Institution, p. 148.

²⁵ Nisus, L'Église Comme Communion et Comme Institution, p. 204.

²⁶ Möhler, Johann Adam, Symbolism: Exposition of the Doctrinal Differences Between Catholics and Protestants as Evidenced by Their Symbolical Writings, trans. and ed. Robertson, James Burton, intro. Himes, Michael J. (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1997), §36 (p. 337)Google Scholar. Emphasis original.

²⁷ Möhler, Symbolism, § 48 (p. 330).

²⁸ Möhler, Symbolism, § 36 (p. 337).

²⁹ Möhler, Symbolism, § 43 (pp. 304–05).

³⁰ Möhler, Symbolism, § 43 (p. 306).

³¹ Symbolik had twenty-five different editions, translated into Italian, French, and English. See Wagner, Harald “Johann Adam Möhler: Die Kirche als Organ der Inkarnation,” in Theologen des 19. Jahrhunderts, eds. Neuner, Peter and Wenz, Gunther, pp. 59–74 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2002)Google Scholar.

³² Congar, Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 27 (1938), reprinted in Congar, , Sainte Église. Études et approches ecclésiologiques (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1963), pp. 509–10Google Scholar.

³³ Congar, Sainte Église, pp. 12–13.

³⁴ Congar, Sainte Église, p. 13.

³⁵ Congar, Sainte Église, p. 14.

³⁶ Congar provided the hierarchy both temporal and ontological precedence. The hierarchy was prioritized in the history of the church—Christ appointing the apostles, prior to the emergence of the post-Pentecost church—and in the life of believers, where one's entry into communion depended upon the hierarchy. See, Congar, Lay People in the Church, p. 326.

³⁷ Groppe, Yves Congar's Theology of the Holy Spirit, p. 142. Emphasis original.

³⁸ Congar, Divided Christendom, p. 52. “We are remade in Christ and become in Him a new creation; we are members of Christ, intergral parts of the body in which He is the Head; we are the body of Christ and He the animating Spirit of this body; we are collectively the manifestation of this lifegiving spirit in one visible organic reality: the Church is the visible body of Christ, His σωμα,a Christophany: she is His own flesh, His bride” (p. 61).

³⁹ Congar, , I Believe in the Holy Spirit, I (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1983), pp. 22–23Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Congar developed a strong rapport with the Russian Orthodox community that had emerged within France during the twentieth century. He was active in theological dialogue and reflection with Orthodox theologians, who helped awaken in him a further appreciation of Eastern Christian thought. To be sure, the person and work of the Holy Spirit had been prominent in his thought already, but his interaction with the Orthodox, particularly regarding the issue of the Filioque, brought him to consider the Orthodox accusations of the Latin “christomonism.” By this claim, the Orthodox asserted that Roman Catholic theology was guilty of an overreaching Christology, that overshadowed the person and work of the Spirit. “The Spirit is merely added to a Church, its ministries and its sacraments, all of which are already constituted. The Spirit simply carries out a function of Christ” (Congar, The Word and the Spirit, trans. David Smith [San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers, 1986], p. 113). Congar partially concedes the point to the Orthodox, but adds that this lacuna, at least since the council, is no longer as glaring as it had been.

⁴¹ Congar ecumenical interaction with the various traditions of the Reformation was groundbreaking for the Roman Catholic Church. For the subject at hand, a shift in his posture towards Protestantism occurs throughout his writings. Earlier Congar's attitude toward Protestant ecclesiology was sharply polemical. In his reading, Protestant ecclesiology in its essence is nothing more than an association of individuals, who have personally experienced the Holy Spirit. What is absent in their ecclesiological considerations is a Christological relationship between the incarnate Christ and the church. The rejection of any notion of the church as the “continued Incarnation,” has resulted in an anemic ecclesiology of the church as the mystical body of Christ, with further implications to the concepts of apostolicity, tradition, and sacramental theology. Congar's assessment of Protestant thought bears similarity to Möhler's interpretation in Symbolik. (See Congar, Tradition and Traditions, 482–93). By the time of I Believe in the Holy Spirit, Congar has come to a greater appreciation of early Protestant ecclesiology, specifically on account of it pneumatological focus. Luther and Calvin, in having to wage a two-fronted theological war against a rigid catholic hierarchical ecclesiology and the Spirit-led radical reformers, each created a “synthesis” that attended to the role and immediacy of the work of the Spirit within an ecclesiological structure. See Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, I (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1983), pp. 138–43.

⁴² In the third volume of Je crois and La Parole et la Souffle Congar engages in a study of the New Testament in order to demonstrate the correlation of Christology, pneumatology, and soteriology. Congar's goal is a serious reconsideration of New Testament Christology in light of the work of the Spirit. In his reading, the Holy Spirit plays a definitive role in the life of Jesus. Jesus' life as Messiah is marked by certain events that demarcate a new kairos in the history of salvation. These events, worked by the Holy Spirit, “are all moments when Jesus became —and was not simply proclaimed as—the ‘Son of God' in a new way, that is, not from the point of view of his hypostatic quality or his ontology as the incarnate Word, but from the point of view of the plan of God's grace and the successive moments in the history of salvation” (I Believe in the Holy Spirit III, p. 170).

⁴³ Himes, Michael J., “The Development of Ecclesiology: Modernity to the Twentieth Century,” in The Gift of the Church: A Textbook on Ecclesiology in Honor of Patrick Granfield, O.S.B (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2000), pp. 45–67, 59Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Himes, Michael J., Ongoing Incarnation: Johann Adam Möhler and the Beginnings of Modern Ecclesiology (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 327–330Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Möhler, , “Rezension,” in Theologishe Quartalschrift 5 (1823), pp. 495–502, 497.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Himes, “The Development of Ecclesiology: Modernity to the Twentieth Century,” p. 61.

⁴⁷ Himes, Ongoing Incarnation, p. 329.

⁴⁸ Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics I:2 The Doctrine of the Word of God, trans. Thomson, G. T. and Knight, Harold, eds. Bromiley, G.W. and Torrance, T.F. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956), pp. 564–65Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Barth, Church Dogmatics I:2, p. 566.

⁵⁰ Barth, Church Dogmatics I:2, p. 567.

⁵¹ Himes, Ongoing Incarnation, p. 328.

⁵² I am not implying that Barth's thought directly impacted Congar's. Such influence is within the realm of possibility, but at this point such argumentation cannot be substantiated. But Congar's knowledge and interest in Barth is well known. In addition to a course he offered on Barth in 1934, Congar penned two small articles on Barth. See, Congar, “Barth” in Catholicisme. Hier, aujourd'hui demain, I (Paris: Letouzé et Ané, 1949), pp. 1267–68; Congar, “Karl Barth, un homme libre qui aimat Jésus-Christ,” in Signe de temps (January 1969), pp. 13–14.

⁵³ Congar, “L'Ecclésiologie de La Révolution Française Au Concile Du Vatican, Sous Le Signe de L'affirmation de L'autorité.” in L'Ecclésiologie Au XIXe Siècle, ed. Nedoncelle, Maurice (Paris: Les Éditions de Cerf, 1960), pp. 77–114, 107Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ In an earlier piece Congar explained the ecclesiological differences between Einheit and Symbolik by means of Möhler's growing knowledge of Protestant ecclesiology. His interpretation of a Protestant ecclesiology of a solely invisible and interior church, drove Möhler to reevaluate his position of the external reality of the church. Congar, “Sur l'évoution et l'interprétation de la pensée de Moehler,” pp. 209–12.

⁵⁵ Congar, Sainte Église, pp. 96–97.

⁵⁶ This worked was translated into English as “The Spirit, the Spirit of Christ: Christomonism and the Filioque,” in The Word and the Spirit, trans. Smith, David (San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers, 1986), pp. 101–21Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Congar, “The Spirit, the Spirit of Christ: Christomonism and the Filioque,” p. 115. Emphasis added.

⁵⁸ Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit I, pp. 154–57.

⁵⁹ Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit II, p. 12.

⁶⁰ Congar, “The Spirit as co-instituting the Church—are the charisms structuring principles of the Church?” in The Word and the Spirit, pp. 78–84, 81.

⁶¹ Congar, “The Spirit as co-instituting the Church—are the charisms structuring principles of the Church?” pp. 82–83.

⁶² Congar, My Journal of the Council, trans. Mary John Ronayne and Mary Cecily Boulding, eds. Denis Minns (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2012), pp. 711–12. Emphasis original.

⁶³ Congar, My Journal of the Council, p. 202. The quote continues: “And when I [Congar] replied that there is in the Church an experience of the mystery of Christ, he bellowed: Experience! That was talked about at the beginning of the century, it is Modernism!!!”

⁶⁴ Groppe observes that Congar, in some of his later texts, eventually stopped using the “priesthood/laity” distinction, in favor of “ministries/modes of community service.” She writes that Congar “emphasized that the term ‘ministries' takes the plural form, for the church is built up by a multitude of ministries, some ordained and some lay.” Groppe, Yves Congar's Theology of the Holy Spirit, p. 142.

⁶⁵ See fn 4.

⁶⁶ Congar was well aware of the Möhler's historiography leading up to his down day. Congar's “Sur l'évoution et l'interprétation de la pensée de Moehler” functionally serves as a literature review documenting the key works relating to Möhler.

⁶⁷ Warthmann narrates the changing statues of Möhler and the Tübingen School within France prior to the publication of Congar's essays on Möhler. Warthmann's work helps to show that awareness of Möhler in France, and beyond, was well documented. Warthmann, Die Katholische Tübinger Schule, pp. 289–406.