Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T06:46:16.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Unbelief in the Theology of Yves Congar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Gabriel Flynn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Original Articles
Information
New Blackfriars , Volume 85 , Issue 998 , July 2004 , pp. 426 - 443
Copyright
Copyright © The Dominican Council/Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Flynn, Gabriel, Yves Congar's Vision of the Church in a World of Unbelief(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004)Google Scholar.

2 Yves Congar, “The Reasons for the Unbelief of our Time: A Theological Conclusion”, Part I, Integration, 2 (1938), 13–21 and Part II, Integration, 2 (1938), 10–26; also id., “Une Conclusion théologique à l’enquête sur les raisons actuelles de l’incroyance”, La Vie intellectuelle, 37 (1935), 214–249Google Scholar. Following the initial citation, the page numbers of works in the original language will be given in round brackets. Unless otherwise stated, translations from the French are mine throughout.

3 See Congar, , “The Council in the Age of Dialogue”, trans. by Rigney, Barry N., Cross Currents, 12 (1962), 144–151Google Scholar (pp. 146–149), also id., “Voeux pour le concile: enquête parmi les chrétiens”, Esprit, 29 (1961), 691–700Google Scholar (pp. 694–697). See further id., “Reflections on being a Theologian”, trans. by Marcus Lefébure, New Blackfriars, 62 (1981), 405–409 (p. 405); Granfield, Patrick, Theologians at Work(New York: Macmillan; London: Collier-Macmillan, 1967), pp. 251–253Google Scholar.

4 Congar, , “Letter from Father Yves Congar, O.P.”, trans. by Zawilla, Ronald John, Theology Digest, 32 (1985), 213–216 (p. 213)Google Scholar.

5 See Flynn, , “The Role of Affectivity in the Theology of Yves Congar”, New Blackfriars, 83 (2002), 347–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also id., “Le rôle de l’affectivité dans la théologie d’Yves Congar”, La Vie spirituelle, 157 (2003), 73–92Google Scholar.

6 See Kasper, Walter, The Methods of Dogmatic Theology, trans. by Drury, John (Shannon: Ecclesia Press, 1969), pp. 30–31Google Scholar; also id., Die Methoden der Dogmatik: Einheit und Vielheit(Munich: Kösel, 1967Google Scholar).

7 Congar, , Fifty Years of Catholic Theology: Conversations with Yves Congar, ed. by Lauret, Bernard, trans. by Bowden, John (London: SCM, 1988), pp. 14–16Google Scholar; also id., Entretiens d’automne, ed. by Lauret, Bernard, 2nd edn (Paris: Cerf, 1987), pp. 22–25Google Scholar. See further id., Mon journal du Concile, ed. and annotated by Mahieu, Éric, 2 vols (Paris: Cerf, 2002)Google Scholar, II, p. 352 (29 March 1965). In Congar's view, the mission of the Church is directed towards those in situations of unbelief. A territorial notion of mission should, then, be situated within an anthropological definition, rather than in opposition to it.

8 Congar, Mon journal du Concile, I, p. 257 (24 November 1962).

9 See Aubert, Roger, La Théologie Catholique au milieu du XXe siècle(Tournai: Casterman, 1954)Google Scholar.

10 See Weigel, Gustave, “The Historical Background of the Encyclical Humani Generis”, Theological Studies, 12 (1951), 208–230 (p. 217)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fouilloux, Étienne, La Collection “Sources Chrétiennes”: éditer les Pères de l’Église au XXe siècle(Paris: Cerf, 1995), pp. 115–116Google Scholar.

11 See Flynn, “The Role of Affectivity in the Theology of Yves Congar”, pp. 352–359 (pp. 80–88).

12 Congar, , “The Council in the Age of Dialogue”, Cross Currents, 12 (1962), pp. 147–148 (p. 695)Google Scholar.

13 Granfield, Theologians at Work, p. 251.

14 Congar, , “The Reasons for the Unbelief of our Time”, Part I, Integration, 2 (1938), p. 14 (p. 216)Google Scholar.

15 See Congar, , Priest and Layman, trans. by Hepburne-Scott, P. F. (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1967), p. 28Google Scholar; also id., Sacerdoce et Laïcat devant leurs tâches d’évangélisation et de civilisation(Paris: Cerf, 1962), pp. 40–41Google Scholar.

16 Congar, , “The Reasons for the Unbelief of our Time”, Part I, Integration, 2 (1938), p. 19 (p. 222)Google Scholar.

17 Ibid., pp. 15–16 (ibid., p. 217).

18 Congar, “Talking to Yves Congar: Interview by Tony Sheerin”, Part I, Africa: St. Patrick's Missions, (1974), 6–8 (p. 7). See Rahner, Karl, “Atheism and Implicit Christianity”, in Theological Investigations, (hereafter TI), trans. by Harrison, Graham, 23 vols (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1972)Google Scholar, IX, pp. 145–164; also id., Schriften zur Theologie, (hereafter ST), VIII (Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1967), pp. 187–212Google Scholar. Here, Rahner presents an analysis of implicit Christianity or what he says could also be termed “anonymous Christianity”. See further, DiNoia, J.A., “Implicit Faith, General Revelation and the State of Non-Christians”, Thomist, 47 (1983), 209–241 (pp. 235, 240–241)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. DiNoia rejects the concept of implicit faith as the basis for general descriptions of the states of non-Christians and, in a markedly Biblical approach, argues that it is only on the grounds of their fidelity to their living Lord that Christians can confidently affirm the universality of salvation. Furthermore, in a sensitive ecumenical point, he criticizes those overly detailed accounts of how the divine universal salvific will is exercised in the lives of individual non-Christians as being “somewhat implausible and inappropriate in view of what such persons might be expected to say in the course of proposing their own doctrines and pursuing the aims commended by their communities”. See further, Peter F. Ryan, “How Can the Beatific Vision both Fulfill Human Nature and Be Utterly Gratuitous?”, Gregorianum, 83 (2002), 717–754 (pp. 744–754). Ryan, in an insightful analysis of a vexing theological problem, asks how Rahner can hold, with de Lubac, that concrete human beings have an unconditional desire for the beatific vision while denying, with the “pure-nature” theorists, that human nature is unconditionally ordered to it. For a renewed consideration of some of the explicit and implicit criticisms of Rahner's theological vision and the foundations on which it is based, see Marmion, Declan, “Rahner and his Critics: Revisiting the Dialogue”, Irish Theological Quarterly, 68 (2003), 195–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Congar, , “Non-Christian Religions and Christianity”, in Evangelisation, Dialogue and Development: Selected Papers of the International Theological Conference, Nagpur (India) 1971, ed. by Dhavamony, Mariasusai, Documenta Missionalia, 5 (Rome: Gregorian University Press, 1972), pp. 133–145 (p. 134)Google Scholar.

20 See Lubac, Henri de, Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man, trans. by Sheppard, Lancelot C. and Englund, Elizabeth (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), pp. 240–241Google Scholar; also id., Catholicisme: les aspects sociaux du dogme, 4th edn, Unam Sanctam, 3 (Paris: Cerf, 1947Google Scholar), pp. 200–202.

21 See Rahner, , “Anonymous Christians”, TI, trans. by Karl-H., and Kruger, Boniface (Baltimore: Helicon; London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1969)Google Scholar, VI, pp. 390–398; also id., ST(Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1965), VI, pp. 545–554. See further, Sesboüé, Bernard, “Karl Rahner et les ‘Chrétiens anonyms’”, Études, 361 (1984), 521–535Google Scholar; Metz, Johannes Baptist, “Unbelief as a Theological Problem”, trans. by Rattler, Tarcisius, Concilium, 6 (1965), 32–42Google Scholar (p. 40).

22 Rahner, “Anonymous Christians”, p. 398 (p. 554). See also id.,“Observations on the Problem of the ‘Anonymous Christian’”, TI, trans. by Bourke, David (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1976), XIV, pp. 280–294Google Scholar (p. 283); also id., ST(Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1976), X.

23 See Rahner, “Observations on the Problem of the ‘Anonymous Christian’”, pp. 283–284 (ST, X); id., “Membership of the Church according to the Teaching of Pius XII's Encyclical ‘Mystici Corporis Christi’”, TI, trans. by Kruger, Karl-H. (Baltimore: Helicon; London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1963)Google Scholar, II, pp. 1–88 (pp. 83–85); also id., ST(Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1960) II, pp. 7–94 (pp. 89–91).

24 Congar, “Non-Christian Religions and Christianity”, p. 134.

25 Ibid.

26 “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church: Vatican II, Lumen Gentium”, 21 November 1964 (hereafter LG), in Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. by Flannery, Austin, 7th edn, 2 vols (New York: Costello, 1984)Google Scholar, I, para. 17. “Decree on the Church's Missionary Activity: Vatican II, Ad Gentes Divinitus”, 7 December 1965, (hereafter AG), in Vatican Council II, ed. by Flannery, I, paras 5–8. See also The Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples, Instruction on Missionary Co-operation: Cooperatio Missionalis(Boston: Pauline Books & Media, 1999), para. 21Google Scholar.

27 Congar, , This Church That I Love, trans. by Delafuente, Lucien (Denville, NJ: Dimension Books, 1969), p. 59Google Scholar; also id., Cette Église que j’aime, Foi Vivante, 70 (Paris: Cerf, 1968), p. 61.

28 Congar, “Non-Christian Religions and Christianity”, p. 143.

29 Ibid., p. 134. See also Scheffczyk, Leo, “On the Absoluteness of Christianity”, trans. by Walker, Adrian, Communio, 24 (1997), 245–258 (pp. 257–258)Google Scholar.

30 See Congar, “Non-Christian Religions and Christianity”, p. 143.

31 Congar, , Divided Christendom: A Catholic Study of the Problem of Reunion(London: Centenary Press, 1939), pp. 234–235Google Scholar; also id., Chrétiens désunis: principes d’un “oecuménisme” catholique, Sanctam, Unam, 1 (Paris: Cerf, 1937), p. 292Google Scholar.

32 De Lubac, Catholicism, p. 226 (pp. 187–188).

33 Rahner, , “Anonymous Christianity and the Missionary Task of the Church”, TI, trans. by Bourke, David (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1974), XII, pp. 161–178Google Scholar (p. 162); also id., ST(Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1974), IXGoogle Scholar.

34 Lubac, De, Teilhard Explained, trans. by Buono, Anthony (New York: Paulist Press, 1968), p. 34Google Scholar; also id., Teilhard, Missionaire et Apologiste(Toulouse: Prière et Vie, 1966)Google Scholar.

35 See Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Dominus Iesus” On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church(London: Catholic Truth Society, 2000)Google Scholar, paras 4–5.

36 Congar, “Non-Christian Religions and Christianity”, p. 145.

37 See Lennan, Richard, The Ecclesiology of Karl Rahner(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), p. 39CrossRefGoogle Scholar, footnote 105.

38 Matthew 28. 19.

39 See Richard Lennan, op. cit., p. 43, footnote 120.

40 Ibid., pp. 147–148.

41 See Sullivan, Francis A., Salvation Outside the Church?: Tracing the History of the Catholic Response(London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1992), p. 10Google Scholar.

42 Pius IX, “Quanto Conficiamur Moerore: Encyclical of Pope Pius IX on Promotion of False Doctrines August 10, 1863”, in The Papal Encyclicals 1740–1878, ed. by Carlen, Claudia, 5 vols (Raleigh: Pierian, 1990), I, pp. 369–373Google Scholar.

43 Ibid., para. 8. See also Congar, This Church That I Love, pp. 59–61 (pp. 61–63).

44 Pius XII, Encyclical Letter (Mystici Corporis Christi): On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and Our Union With Christ Therein(London: Catholic Truth Society, 1960), trans. by George D. Smith from the Latin text as published in the Osservatore Romano, 4 July 1943.

45 Leonard Feeney was an American Jesuit who publicly accused Archbishop Richard J. Cushing of Boston of being a heretic for allowing that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church. Feeney was dismissed from the Society of Jesus and subsequently was excommunicated but he was, however, reconciled to the Church before his death.

46 See Sullivan, op. cit., p. 140.

47 LG, para. 16.

48 See Ibid., para. 14. See also AG, para. 7; Gérard Philips, L’Église et son mystère au IIe Concile du Vatican: histoire, texte et commentaire de la constitution Lumen gentium, 2 vols (Paris: Desclée, 1967), I, pp. 185–219.

49 LG, para. 8. See also Dulles, Avery, “A Half Century of Ecclesiology”, Theological Studies, 50 (1989), 419–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 430); id., The Reshaping of Catholicism: Current Challenges in the Theology of Church(San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), pp. 138–141Google Scholar.

50 See Sullivan, op. cit., p. 149. See also Catéchisme de l’Église catholique(Paris: Mame/Plon, 1992)Google Scholar, paras 846–847.

51 AG, para. 6.

52 Congar, Fifty Years of Catholic Theology, pp. 14–16 (pp. 22–25).

53 See Mark 16. 15–16.

54 Feiner, Johannes, “Particular and universal saving history”, in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic: Studies in the nature and role of the Church in the modern world, ed. by Vorgrimler, Herbert, trans. by Quinn, Edward and Woodrow, Alain (London: Sheed and Ward, 1968), pp. 163–206 (p. 182)Google Scholar.

55 James Dupuis, “The Salvific Value of Non-Christian Religions”, in Evangelisation, Dialogue and Development, ed. by Mariasusai Dhavamony, pp. 169–193 (p. 189). See also Synod of Bishops, “The Final Report”, Origins, 15 (1985), 444–450 (pp. 449–450)Google Scholar; Dulles, , “A Half Century of Ecclesiology”, Theological Studies, 50 (1989), pp. 441–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 See Schillebeeckx, Edward, Interim Report on the books Jesus & Christ, trans. by Bowden, John (London: SCM, 1980), pp. 122–124Google Scholar; also id., Tussentijds verhaal over twee Jezus boeken(Bloemendaal: Nelissen, 1978)Google Scholar.

57 See Dulles, , “Vatican II and the church's purpose”, Theology Digest, 32 (1985), 341–352 (pp. 344–345)Google Scholar.

58 Ibid., pp. 348–349.

59 Rahner, “Observations on the Problem of the ‘Anonymous Christian’”, pp. 280–281 (ST, X). See also Balthasar, Hans Urs von, Cordula ou l’épreuve décisive(Paris: Beauchesne, 1968), pp. 80–89Google Scholar; Lubac, Henri de, Paradoxe et mystère de l’Église(Paris: Aubier-Montaigne, 1967), pp. 153–156Google Scholar; Kasper, , Faith and the Future, trans. by Nowell, Robert (Tunbridge Wells, Kent: Burns & Oates, 1985), p. 81Google Scholar.

60 Dulles, , “A Half Century of Ecclesiology”, Theological Studies, 50 (1989), p. 432CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 John P. Galvin, “Questions Centered on Vatican II” in “A Changing Ecclesiology in a Changing Church: A Symposium on Development in the Ecclesiology of Karl Rahner”, ed. by Leo J. O’Donovan, Theological Studies, 38 (1977), 736–762 (p. 753).

62 Rahner, “Observations on the Problem of the ‘Anonymous Christian’”, p. 292 (ST, X). Rahner calls for further discussion of “the question already mentioned above as to the meaning and necessity of the mission of Christianity, a question in the light of which it is very often believed that this theory should be rejected”.

63 Congar, , “The Reasons for the Unbelief of our Time”, Part I, Integration, 2 (1938), p. 14 (p. 216)Google Scholar.

64 Congar, , “The Reasons for the Unbelief of our Time”, Part II, Integration, 2 (1938), p. 12 (pp. 228–229)Google Scholar.

65 Ibid., pp. 13–14 (pp. 230–231).

66 Ibid., p. 16 (p. 234).

67 Ibid., p. 19 (p. 238).

68 See Kasper, , “Is God Obsolete?: On the possibility and necessity of thinking about God”, trans. by Breslin, Eamonn, Irish Theological Quarterly, 55 (1989), 85–98 (p. 94)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 Suhard, Emmanuel Cardinal, Growth or Decline?: The Church Today, trans by Corbett, James A. (Montreal: Fides, 1948), p. 9Google Scholar; also id., Essor ou déclin de l’Église: lettre pastorale Carême de l’an de grâce 1947(“[Paris]”: Lahure, 1947), p. 21Google Scholar.

70 Congar, , Église catholique et France moderne(Paris: Hachette, 1978), p. 53Google Scholar.

71 Congar, “The Reasons for the Unbelief of our Time”, Part II, p. 20 (p. 241).

72 Ibid., pp. 25–26 (pp. 248–249).

73 Congar, , Dialogue between Christians: Catholic Contributions to Ecumenism, trans. by Loretz, Philip (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966), p. 23Google Scholar; also id., Chrétiens en dialogue: contributions catholiques à l’oecuménisme, Unam Sanctam, 50 (Paris: Cerf, 1964), p. xxxiiiGoogle Scholar.

74 Granfield, op. cit., pp. 251–252. Congar's reflections are recorded here many years after these events.

75 Congar, Dialogue Between Christians, pp. 23–24 (pp. xxxiii-xxxiv).

76 Congar, Chrétiens en dialogue, p. xxxiv, footnote 11. Only the original French edition provides a detailed statement of the prospectus for the launch of Unam Sanctam. See Congar, Une passion: l’unité, Foi Vivante, 156 (Paris: Cerf, 1974), p. 47. This is a republication of the preface to Dialogue Between Christians except for the last chapter which provides an update of his reflections to 1973.

77 Congar, , “Autour du renouveau de l’ecclésiologie: La collection ‘Unam Sanctam’”, La Vie intellectuelle, 51 (1939), 9–32 (p. 11)Google Scholar.

78 Congar, This Church That I Love, p. 59 (p. 61). Congar writes: “What is the role of the new formula, ‘the Church, universal sacrament of salvation,’ in our theology? It seems to us that this formula replaces the old formula, ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’.”

79 See Buckley, Michael J., At the Origins of Modern Atheism(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987)Google Scholar; Gallagher, Michael Paul, Clashing Symbols: An Introduction to Faith-and-Culture(London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1997)Google Scholar; id., Dive Deeper: The Human Poetry of Faith(London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 2001;Google Scholar Habgood, John, Varieties of Unbelief(London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 2000)Google Scholar; McKim, Robert, Religious Ambiguity and Religious Diversity(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Concilium, 165 (1983); Lumen Vitae, 38 (1983); Lumière et Vie, 12 (1953).