YVES CONGAR’S OF AND MINISTRIES AND ITS

THEOLOGICAL RECEPTION IN THE

Dissertation

Submitted to

The College of Arts and Sciences of the

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

The Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Theology

By

Alan D. Mostrom

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON

Dayton, Ohio

December 2018 ’S THEOLOGY OF LAITY AND MINISTRIES AND ITS

THEOLOGICAL RECEPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

Name: Mostrom, Alan D.

APPROVED BY:

______William L. Portier, Ph.D. Faculty Advisor

______Sandra A. Yocum, Ph.D. Faculty

______Timothy R. Gabrielli, Ph.D. Outside Faculty Reader, Seton Hill University

______Dennis M. Doyle, Ph.D. Faculty Reader

______William H. Johnston, Ph.D. Faculty Reader

______Daniel S. Thompson, Ph.D. Chairperson

ii

© Copyright by

Alan D. Mostrom

All reserved

2018

iii ABSTRACT

YVES CONGAR’S THEOLOGY OF LAITY AND MINISTRIES AND ITS

THEOLOGICAL RECEPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

Name: Mostrom, Alan D. University of Dayton

Advisor: William L. Portier, Ph.D.

Yves Congar’s theology of the laity and ministries is unified on the basis of his adaptation of Christ’s triplex munera to the laity and his specification of ministry as one aspect of the laity’s participation in Christ’s triplex munera. The seminal insight of

Congar’s adaptation of the triplex munera is illumined by situating his work within his historical and ecclesiological context. The U.S. reception of Congar’s work on the laity and ministries, however, evinces that Congar’s principle insight has received a mixed reception by theologians in the United States due to their own historical context as well as their specific constructive theological concerns over the laity’s secularity, or the priority given to lay ministry over the notion of a laity. Recovering the significance of the triplex munera for Congar’s theology of the laity and lay ministry provides U.S.

Catholics opportunity for greater fusion of horizons and understanding of the intrinsic relationship between the laity’s secularity and their ecclesial ministries.

iv

DEDICATION

for Sarah, “We blew up our TV, threw away our paper, Went to the country, built us a home, Had a lot of children, fed 'em on peaches, They all found Jesus on their own”

- John Prine, “Spanish Pipedream”

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Finishing a dissertation is certainly a happy moment, especially since it provides

the opportunity to recognize one’s debts to friends, mentors, and loved ones. The

expressions of gratitude expressed below are only the beginning and do not exhaust my

appreciation.

First, I show appreciation to Dr. William Portier for carefully guiding me

through the process with his characteristic grace, insight, and friendship. A sincere

gratitude is also due to my committee—Dr. Sandra Yocum, Dr. Dennis Doyle, Dr.

William Johnston—for their patience and support throughout the process. A special

thanks to my outside reader, Dr. Tim Gabrielli, for taking on the project on such short

notice and providing useful feedback. My time at the University of Dayton has been

acutely enriched by each of these scholars and mentors, and I am humbled and pleased by their in my project.

I would like to thank my many colleagues and friends at the University of Dayton, with specific mention of Jason Heron, Christine Falk Dalessio, Anthony Rosselli, Ben

Heidgerken, and Josh Brown. Your friendships make the work of theology inspiring and joyful. A singular thanks is owed to Dr. Matthew Levering for his constant support, willingness to mentor me as a young theologian, and profound example of a Thomist theologian.

vi I would also like to acknowledge the generous support of the faculty, staff, and students of the Athenaeum of Ohio—especially Dr. Fr. Endres and Dr. Fr. Brausch—over the last year and a half. Teaching theology to seminarians for the sake of the New Evangelization has been the fulfillment of my theological and vocational dreams.

I owe substantial thanks to the support and encouragement of my family of origin, specifically my parents Howard and Brenda and my Howard III, my sister-in-law

Desiree, and my sister Tamiko. Special thanks to my in-laws Ed and Mary Powers, my sister-in-law Alexandra and brother-in-law Stephen, who have constantly supported my family throughout these years in graduate school and are excellent examples of Christian charity. The deepest gratitude is owed to Sarah, my intensely loving, gifted, and hard- working wife, and our perfectly delightful children: Lucy, Iris, David, Theresa, and

Jacob. Your faith and love for our Lord and your ever-increasing charity toward me, despite my constant working, humble and inspire me to seek the face of Christ daily in prayer and study. “I thank my God every time I remember you, constantly praying with joy in every one of my prayers for all of you” (Phil. 1:3-4). Finally, all honor, praise, love, and glory are due to our great Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of the

Father, who loved us first and gave himself for us.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... iv DEDICATION ...... v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... vi INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Gadamer, Reception Theory, and the ‘Fusion’ of Horizons ...... 2 Criteria for U.S. Theologians ...... 4 Structure of Presentation ...... 5 One: Congar’s Context ...... 5 Chapter Two: Congar’s Theology of the Laity: Jalons Pour Une Théologie Du Laïcat ...... 5 Chapter Three: Congar’s Theology of the Laity after Jalons: Theology of Ministries and the Triplex Munera ...... 6 Chapter Four: Changing Contexts: An Interlude on the Conditions for Congar’s Reception in the United States ...... 6 Chapter Five: Philibert and Lakeland: Revitalization and Secularity of the Laity ..... 7 Chapter Six: O’Meara and Hahnenberg: Diverse and Relational Ministries over against ‘Laity’ and ‘’ ...... 7 CHAPTER ONE ...... 9 CONGAR’S CONTEXT ...... 9 Introduction ...... 9 Congar’s Adaptation of the Triplex Munera to the Laity in Light of the Social Anthropology of Pius XI ...... 11 Modification of Theology of the Laity ...... 15 Pius XI’s Development of Social Munera as Significant Background to Congar’s Adaptation of the Triplex Munera ...... 18 “Munus/munera” in the Social Thought of Pius XI ...... 20

viii The Doctrinal Basis of the : The Power of the Character as Source for Laity Obligation to participate in the Apostolate (especially Catholic Action) ...... 40 Pius XII ...... 40 Summary of the Definition of the Laity to the founding of Catholic Action and of the Lay Apostolate ...... 41 The Layperson in the Pre-Conciliar Theologies of the Lay Apostolate ...... 45 Luigi Civardi’s A Manual of Catholic Action (1943) ...... 45 Roland Fournier’s La Theologie de l’Action Catholique (1940)...... 49 Theodore Hesburgh, C.S.C., The Theology of Catholic Action (1946) ...... 53 Conclusion ...... 58 CHAPTER TWO CONGAR’S THEOLOGY OF THE LAITY: JALONS POUR UNE THÉOLOGIE DU LAÏCAT ...... 60 General Introduction to Jalons pour une théologie du laïcat: Historical and Theological Context ...... 61 Historical Context ...... 61 Theological Context ...... 63 Theme 1: Theological Definition of “Laity” ...... 65 Semantic Background and Congar’s Mistaken Interpretation ...... 66 The Monastic Definition of “Laity” ...... 67 “Laity” as an ecclesial state or condition ...... 67 Congar’s Critique of the Monastic View of the Laity ...... 69 Congar Assimilation and Critique of the Canonical Definition of the Laity ...... 71 Synthesis of Monastic and Canonical Notions of the Laity for a Definition, or Description, of Laity ...... 72 Theme 2: Positioning the Theology of the Laity: The History of ; The -World Relationship and the Church-Kingdom Dynamic ...... 75 Positioning the Theology of the Laity as a Subdivision of Ecclesiology: Conceptualization of the Balance between Fellowship and Hierarchy ...... 75 The Balance of Patristic Ecclesiology: Corporatist Unity vs Roman Absolutism .... 77 The Social Significance of Fidelis for Ecclesiology and the Notion of Laity ...... 78 The Lost Balance of Patristic and Medieval Corporatist Ecclesiology: The Communal Movement and the Anti-Hierarchical Movement ...... 79

ix Ecclesiology Without Balance: Protestant Ecclesiology and Counter-Reform Polemical Ecclesiology Focused on the (Rejection of) Power of Jurisdiction ...... 81 Restoring the Balance: The Historical and Theological Conditions for the Development of Congar’s Theology of the Laity within Contemporary Catholic Ecclesiologies ...... 83 Positioning the Theology of the Laity in the ‘Church-World Relationship’ and the ‘Kingdom-Church Dynamic’ ...... 84 Christ’s triplex munera in Creation and History ...... 84 Christ’s Triplex Munera and the Already/Not-Yet Kingdom of God/Temple ...... 87 Christ’s Triplex Munera in the Two Stages of the Divine Plan ...... 89 Christ’s Triplex Munera and the Church-World Relationship ...... 90 Theme 3: Theological Application of the Triplex Munera to the Laity ...... 92 The Laity’s Participation in Christ and the Church’s Priestly Munus ...... 93 The Laity’s Participation in Christ and the Church’s Royal Munus ...... 97 “Kingship as Form of Life” ...... 98 “Kingship as Power (Pouvoir)” ...... 100 The Laity’s Participation in Christ and the Church’s Prophetic Munus ...... 102 Theme 4: The Apostolicity and of the Laity ...... 103 Theme 5: The Laity and the Church’s Apostolic Function...... 110 Conclusion ...... 125 CHAPTER THREE CONGAR’S THEOLOGY OF THE LAITY AFTER JALONS: THEOLOGY OF MINISTRIES AND THE TRIPLEX MUNERA ...... 127 Introduction ...... 127 Essays on the Laity and Ministries ...... 129 “Ministries and Structure of the Church” (1970) ...... 129 “My Path-Findings in the Theology of Laity and Ministry” (1971) ...... 135 “Some Issues Affecting Ministries” (1971) ...... 139 “On the Trilogy: Prophet--King” (1983) ...... 144 Conclusion ...... 149 CHAPTER FOUR CHANGING CONTEXTS: AN INTERLUDE ON THE CONDITIONS FOR CONGAR’S RECEPTION IN THE UNITED STATES ...... 152 The Situation of the Laity in pre-conciliar U.S. Catholicism to the Present ...... 153

x The 1960s to the Eve of the Expansion of Lay Ministry ...... 155 The Expansion of Ministry to the Present...... 156 CHAPTER FIVE PHILIBERT AND LAKELAND: REVITALIZATION AND SECULARITY OF THE LAITY ...... 158 Introduction ...... 158 The Pre-Conciliar Reception of Congar’s Jalons ...... 161 Congar at the CTSA: 1956, 1959 ...... 162 Francis Keating, “Theology of the Laity” (1956) ...... 162 James Quill, “The Theology of the Lay Apostolate” (1959) ...... 168 Introduction to Philibert and Lakeland: Commonalities of Approach...... 171 Paul Philibert, OP’s The Priesthood of the Faithful (2005) ...... 171 Introduction to Author—Interest in Congar ...... 171 The Priesthood of the Faithful: Acknowledgments to Chapter Three ...... 172 Congar in Chapter Four ...... 177 Congar in Chapter Five ...... 181 Congar in Chapter Six ...... 183 Congar in Chapter Seven ...... 184 Congar in Chapter Eight ...... 186 Conclusion for Philibert’s reception of Congar ...... 187 Paul Lakeland’s The Liberation of the Laity: In Search of an Accountable Church (2004) ...... 189 Introduction ...... 189 Congar in the Introduction ...... 191 Congar in Part 1, “How We Got to Where We Are” ...... 193 Congar in Chapter 2, “The Achievement of Yves Congar” ...... 194 “Stress Points” in Jalons ...... 201 Congar in Part 2, “Where We Go From Here” ...... 205 Conclusion for Lakeland’s Reception of Congar ...... 208 CHAPTER SIX ...... 211 O’MEARA AND HAHNENBERG: DIVERSE AND RELATIONAL MINISTRIES OVER AGAINST ‘LAITY’ AND ‘APOSTOLATE’ ...... 211 Introduction ...... 211

xi Connection to Shift in Context ...... 213 Thomas O’Meara’s Theology of Ministry (1983) and Theology of Ministry: Completely Revised Edition (1999) ...... 215 Overview of O’Meara’s Theology of Ministry (Completely Revised Edition) ...... 216 Congar in Chapter 1: “Ministry: Between Culture and Grace” ...... 219 Congar in Chapter 3: “The Metamorphoses of Ministry” ...... 224 Congar in Chapter 4: “A Ministering Church” ...... 227 Congar in Chapter 5: “Ministers in the Church” ...... 231 Conclusion for O’Meara’s reception of Congar ...... 234 Edward Hahnenberg’s Ministries: A Relational Approach (2003) ...... 235 Congar in Chapter 1: “The Starting Point for a Theology of Ministry” ...... 236 Congar in Chapter 2: “The Triune God”...... 241 Congar in Chapter 3: “The Church Community” ...... 243 Congar in Chapter 4: “ and ” ...... 245 Conclusion to Hahnenberg’s Reception of Congar ...... 249 CONCLUSION ...... 251 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 256

xii INTRODUCTION

Yves Congar’s monumental theology of the laity, Jalons pour une théologie du

laïcat, is arguably the most significant, comprehensive, and influential theological work

on the laity in the history of . His work on the laity has been noted as

influential on the documents of Vatican II, specifically the constitutions ,

Lumen Gentium, and the decree , and continues to be cited in

theological works today.

Though Jalons is a rich and varied examination of the laity, at the heart of

Congar’s theology of the laity is a description of the laity as possessing through

certain necessary function(s), or munus/munera, in the , which are ultimately grounded in, or derived from, two places: 1) the laity’s functions are primarily a specific kind of participation in Christ and the ’s missions to redeem and sanctify a holy people called Church, and 2) for most of the laity, this participation in the

Church’s mission is through a vocation(s) that is realized in the context of everyday life in the secular world. Congar continued this project after the Council, but with the specific focus on the laity’s engagement with ecclesial work through ministries. It is noteworthy that his post-conciliar work on ministries has also made a significant impact on the theology of lay ministry.

Yet, despite the fact that Congar’s theology of the laity and ministries continues to influence theological work today, his influence on U.S. of the laity is a

1 complex reception of Congar’s thought into the idiom of U.S. Catholic theological discourse. Thus, the objective of this dissertation is to trace the shape of the reception of

Congar’s theology of the laity and ministries in the United States in order to argue that the principle achievement of the adaptation of the triplex munera has been either lost or obscured in the shift from Congar pre-conciliar context— defined by Pius XI’s projects of social reconstruction and rechristianization through Catholic Action—to that of a post- conciliar U.S. Catholic context defined by religious pluralism, individualism, consumerism, and ecclesial crisis. Before moving to the body of the dissertation it is necessary to answer two questions: 1) what is the meaning of “reception” and how is it being used in this study; 2) what criteria was used to chose the particular U.S. theologians examined in chapters five and six.

Gadamer, Reception Theory, and the ‘Fusion’ of Horizons Hans-Georg Gadamer was the founder of the hermeneutical approach to texts called reception history, sometimes called reception history, history of effects, or

Wirkungsgeschichte.1 Primarily, reception history refers to the study of way text(s) as they are appropriated, used, interpreted within a context other than its original one.

Gadamer refers to the original context of a text as having a “horizon” of thought in which it was constructed. Within its original context, a text is developed in response to the specific issues, questions, and problems of its own particular time and place, thus constituting a horizon with a set of limits. However, when a text moves outside of its original context, or is received outside its original horizon, its transmission is actively

1 Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method. New York: Crossroad, 1992.

2 mediated, transformed, and effected in its meaning by those who receive it within another horizon of thought. There is never a translation of text from one horizon to another horizon that is merely a one-way translation—as if a text’s transmission were merely a communication its original limited meaning, without being effected by the horizon of thought receiving it. For Gadamer, reception history concerns the specific effects the receiving context imparts to a text’s meaning. When a specific text, then, is received in another horizon of thought there is a combination of horizons of thoughts that come together in what Gadamer called a fusion of horizons. Thus, in a specific work of reception history there is both recognition of a text’s original horizon of thought, the recognition of the horizon of thought in which the text is actually received, and, among other things, an analysis of what is transmitted and what is lost in transmission.

In this dissertation, the original horizon of thought examined is Yves Congar’s historical and theological milieu, the second horizon of thought where Congar’s work on the laity and ministries is received in the post-conciliar U.S. and the specific work of certain post-conciliar U.S. Catholic theologians who use Congar’s work on the laity and ministries in their constructive theological projects. When examining the fusion of horizons, this study examines how Congar’s principle achievement in his theology of the laity—the adaptation of the triplex munera to the laity—was either received obscurely or critically—sometimes being rejected as irrelevant—by its U.S. interpreters.

3 Criteria for U.S. Theologians Congar’s works on the laity and ministries have been received and studied in the

U.S. context since the translation of Jalons into English in 1957. His theological work on

the laity and ministries is also often the subject of work in historical theology, presented

in surveys of theological movements and specific fields of studies. An argument could be

made that each and every reference to Congar’s work on the laity and ministries is an

instance of reception, yet this would be, arguably, too extensive for study. So then, to

limit the field of study into a manageable whole able to be scientifically examined, I have

limited this study to those theologians’ whose theological works incorporate Congar’s

work on the laity and ministries into their own constructive theological projects. These

particular studies are distinctive and useful in that they intentionally appropriate Congar’s

work for their own specific purposes, rather than attempting to re-narrate Congar’s work for a U.S. audience. This specification of theological works studied below means I have excluded a number of historical studies by U.S. Catholic theologians, which study specific aspects of Congar’s theology of the laity and ministries because they do not explicitly aim to integrate Congar’s work into their own particular theological project, but rather re-present Congar’s work as it was developed in his French Catholic context and transmit it for a U.S. audience.

The theologians studied below are Paul Philibert, OP, Paul Lakeland, Thomas

O’Meara, OP, and Edward Hahnenberg. Each of their theological works examined as instances of reception are works of constructive, systematic theology with an aim at practical application. While each theologian address Congar’s context in some way, and consider Congar historical context as a factor in their evaluation of Congar’s work on the

4 laity and ministries, they also primarily engage Congar’s work for the singular purpose of integrating his particular theological judgments and concepts into their own work. This final point is the most important factor in delimiting my study to these specific theologians.

Structure of Presentation Chapter One: Congar’s Context The initial chapter examines two facets of the historical, social, and religious background to Congar’s theology of the laity. First, I examine Pius XI’s usage of the category munus in his social as a probable backdrop to Yves Congar’s seminal theology of the laity, specifically his adaptation of the triplex munera to the laity per se. Second, I examine a broad selection of Catholic Action texts -- an Italian Catholic

Action manual; a French-Canadian scholarly introduction to Catholic Action; a well- known dissertation on the relationship between the sacramental characters and Catholic

Action by a U.S. Catholic theologian --to sketch the basis of the theological study of the laity at the time Congar was writing Jalons une pour théologie laïcat. This vision of the laity also serves as background to Congar’s work; he was generally dissatisfied with the typical theological descriptions of the laity—specifically the notion that the basis of a theology of the laity was the sacramental characters and the Catholic Action mandate.

Chapter Two: Congar’s Theology of the Laity: Jalons Pour Une Théologie Du Laïcat The second chapter is an exposition of the main theological arguments and themes of Jalons une pour théologie du laïcat. The purpose of reconstructing the main arguments and themes is twofold: 1) to demonstrate the significance of the deep background argued

5 for in chapter one, and 2) to provide a list of main arguments and themes to reference

when examining his U.S. theological interpreters. There are five main themes presented in Jalons une pour théologie du laïcat: 1) he provides a definition of the laity; 2) he contextualizes the theology of the laity under the history of ecclesiology, the Church- world relationship, and the Church-Kingdom dynamic; 3) he adapts Christ’s triplex

munera to the laity; 4) he situates the laity within a ecclesiology and

develops a theology of lay vocations and spirituality; 5) he situates the laity in the work

of Catholic Action and their place in the mission of the Church.

Chapter Three: Congar’s Theology of the Laity after Jalons: Theology of Ministries and the Triplex Munera The third chapter has the same function as chapter two, only it is an exposition of

four key essays written by Congar after the Council. Three of the essays examined

concern the theology of ministries that Congar took up in the post-conciliar context of

dramatic cultural change, a priest shortage, and an energized laity eager to share in the

Church’s mission in and to the world. The last essay is a review article he wrote on the

triplex munera. The thesis of the chapter is that Congar, as seen in these essays,

maintained his commitment to the laity’s participation in Christ’s triplex munera, the

secularity of the laity, while also formulating his theology of ministries. This claim

becomes crucial in light of the U.S. reception of his work.

Chapter Four: Changing Contexts: An Interlude on the Conditions for Congar’s Reception in the United States The fourth chapter transitions to the U.S. context and briefly considers the horizon

of expectations for Congar’s U.S. interpreters. The chief conditions that distinguish the

Congar’s U.S. interpreters are the demographic collapse of and its effect

6 on immigrant structure and Catholic institutions, priest shortage and the

development of lay ministries.

Chapter Five: Philibert and Lakeland: Revitalization and Secularity of the Laity The fifth chapter primarily traces the reception of Congar’s theology of the laity

and ministries in the work of theologians Paul Philibert, O.P. and Paul Lakeland.

However, the chapter begins with pre-history to the reception, examining two instances of the immediate reception of Congar’s Jalons by pre-conciliar theologians who viewed

the laity through the lens of Catholic Action theology.

The second part is a close reading of the texts of Philibert and Lakeland and offers

the following general conclusion: both theologians discern certain continuity between

Congar’s early work and his later work on ministries, and both give a certain pride of

place to laity’s mission in the world. Philibert’s interprets Congar’s work through the lens

of the triplex munera and continues to connect it to the secular character of the laity.

Lakeland’s work is also an overt retrieval and updating of Congar’s theology of the laity

for the U.S. context. Lakeland is critical of certain aspects of Jalons, but he ultimately

aims to appropriate the “radical” elements of Congar’s early work into a contemporary

theology of secularity.

Chapter Six: O’Meara and Hahnenberg: Diverse and Relational Ministries over against ‘Laity’ and ‘Apostolate’ The final chapter traces the reception of Congar’s theology of the laity and

ministries in the work of Thomas O’Meara, O.P. and Edward Hahnenberg. Both

theological projects generally interpret the two periods in Congar’s theology as

discontinuous with each other. Fundamental to the argument for discontinuity for both

7 projects is the significance given to Congar’s essay “My Path-Findings in the Theology of Laity and Ministry.” Both theologians find in Congar’s theology of ministries a common vision from which they each build their respective accounts of a diversity of ministries. Differences between the two theological projects are noted for the affect had their reception of Congar’s work.

O’Meara’s project proposes a theory of ministry as a specific type of Christian activity that challenges reductive views of ministry as ecclesiastical office. The work is not dualistic but leans on a tension between office and ministry, which is especially evident in his polemic against a -laity distinction, or division. Both the office- ministry tension and the polemic against clergy-laity distinction, or division, inflect the way he interprets both aspects of Congar’s work in two ways, broadly conceived: 1) it mitigates the relevance of certain of Congar’s major themes and theses in his earlier work; 2) it elevates the significance of his later work, especially the implications of

Congar’s later qualifications about his earlier works vis-a-vis the notion of the laity.

Hahnenberg’s project proposes a relational account of ministry based on communion ecclesiology and the notion of the church as an ordered communion. As said,

Hahnenberg interprets and uses Congar in a way similar to O’Meara, but Hahnenberg’s concerns are neither office nor the notion of “laity,” but ministerial recognition and the dangers of a reductive, anti-ministerial, understanding of the secular character of the laity. Even though Hahnenberg’s framework is similar to O’Meara, his particular concerns mentioned above lead to a more nuanced reception of Congar’s earlier work on the laity.

8

CHAPTER ONE

CONGAR’S CONTEXT

This chapter gives an overview of two key aspects of the historical and theological conditions and background to Yves Congar’s theology of the laity as presented in Jalons pour une théologie du laïcat. One outcome of this overview is it will provide insight into how Congar’s constructive work on the laity addressed certain social and theological issues of his time, which is the purpose of chapter two. Since this dissertation also maps how Congar’s theology of the laity and ministries was received in the U.S. Catholic context, this chapter also operates as lens through which to view how the shift in context affects the interpretation of Congar’s work.

Introduction Yves Congar is considered by many theologians to be one of the greatest Catholic ecclesiologists of the 20th century2 and a master Church historian. His work on the laity

2 Some representative praise of his work as an ecclesiologist: “Yves Congar is not only the leading ecclesiologist of our century…” Thomas O’Meara, in “Beyond ‘Hierarchology’: Johann Adam Möhler and Yves Congar,”: 173. Richard McBrien writes: "By any account, Yves Congar is the most distinguished ecclesiologist of this century and perhaps of the entire post-Tridentine era. No modern theologian's spirit was accorded fuller play in the documents of Vatican II than Congar's." Richard McBrien, "Church and Ministry: The Achievement of Yves Congar," Theology Digest 32 (1985), 203. There are a number of studies of Congar’s ecclesiology, see Timothy MacDonald, The Ecclesiology of Yves Congar: Foundational Themes. Lanham: University Press of America, 1984; Douglas Koskela, Ecclesiality and : Yves Congar and the Road to Unity; Iakovos Canavaris, The Ecclesiology of Yves M.-J. Congar: an Orthodox Evaluation. Ph.D diss. for Boston University, 1968; Dennis Doyle, Communion Ecclesiology. , N.Y. : Orbis Books, 2000; Gabriel Flynn, The Church and Unbelief : A Study of Yves Congar's Total Ecclesiology. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004; Rose Beal, Mystery of the Church, : Yves Congar’s Total Ecclesiology as a Path to Vatican II. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2014.

9 is also generally regarded as one of the definitive works on the laity in the 20th century.3

It is no exaggeration to say that Congar’s theology of the laity has made a significant

impact on the Catholic Church since it was written, both in terms of its effect on ecclesial

“structure” and Christian “life.”4 His most famous work on the laity, Jalons pour une

théologie du laïcat,5 was published in 1953, six years before John XXIII called the

Second Vatican Council. As a at council, Congar’s influence on a number of the

council documents have been noted in his council diary and by many theologians. The

influence of his theology of the laity and lay ministries is also noted on magisterial and

episcopal statements on the laity. One of the things about Congar’s theology that I,

personally, find compelling is that his theology of the laity, ministries, ecumenism,

revelation, and Tradition crosses the boundaries of “left” and “right” in the Catholic

Church. His influence on Catholic thought has been vast and deep. For this reason,

among others, Congar’s theology of the laity merits an account of its reception, especially

in the United States where his work continues to make an impact on several generations

of Catholic theologians.6

Yet, it has become evident that certain key aspects of Congar’s theology of the

laity are often inadequately addressed or even ignored by modern U.S. Catholic

3 Each of the four theologians studied in chapters 5 and 6 refer to Congar’s Jalons as one of the definitive works on the laity. 4 Congar often used binomials in his theology strike a balance between opposites. The most common binomials in his work on the laity are “church/world,” “structure/life,” “organism/organization,” and “ex officio/ex spiritu.” For an examination of his use of binomials in his ecclesiology in general see chapter 9 of Benoît-Dominique de La Soujeole, OP Introduction to the Mystery of the Church. The Catholic University of America Press, 2014. For a study of his use of the binomial “structure/life” see Timothy MacDonald, The Ecclesiology of Yves Congar: Foundational Themes. 5 Jalons pour une théologie du laïcat. : Les Editions du Cerf. There are three French editions in 1953, 1954, 1964. 6 Some recent studies of Congar’s theology include: Andrew Meszaros, The Prophetic Church; Rose Beal,Mystery of the Church, People of God: Yves Congar’s Total Ecclesiology as a Path to Vatican II. Isaac Kizhakkeparampil, The Invocation of the Holy Spirit as Constitutive of the according to Cardinal Yves Congar; Johnson Mudavassery, The Role and Function of Charism in the Theology of Yves Congar.

10 interpreters, typified by those theologians addressed in this study. The burden of the first

chapter is to outline the historical and theological context of Congar’s work, in order to show how it is re-interpreted by Catholic theologians working in the context of U.S. religious pluralism.7

Congar’s Adaptation of the Triplex Munera to the Laity in Light of the Social Anthropology of Pius XI The basic argument of this chapter is Congar’s theology of the laity was primarily an act of , in the sense that the backbone of his theology of the laity,8 his

famous adaptation of the triplex munera to laity, was likely deeply influenced by two

contemporary sources: 1) key foundational aspects of Pius XI’s social anthropology as expressed in his social , 2) and a critique and modification to the dominant views of the theology of the laity during the era of Catholic Action and the .

Also important to the argument is the conclusion that Congar was the first theologian, Catholic or Protestant, to construct a theology of the laity based on a real participation in Christ’s triplex munera, or triple office of priest, prophet, and king.9 This

became apparent when we examined how other theologians constructed their theologies

of the laity at the time. The common approach at the time was to construct the theology

7 There are two recent studies on Congar’s influence in the U.S.: Thomas O’Meara’s essay “Reflections on Yves Congar and Theology in the United States,” in U.S. Catholic Historian (1999), which is not focused on the theology of the laity. Also see Joseph Ollier’s 2008 University of Dayton M.A. thesis, The use of Yves Congar's theology of the laity in current ecclesiology, which primarily focuses on his influence on magisterial documents and does not contextualize his thought. 8 The notion that the triplex munera is the “backbone” is drawn from Aurelio Fernandez, Munera Christi et Munera Ecclesiae: Historia de una teoria, 637: “En esta obra desarolla el P. Congar la misión de los laicos a partir de ese triple oficio; Cabria afirmar que la teología del laicado del conocido dominico está vertebrada sobre los tres munera.” 9 Abbott Francis Mugnier’s 1937, Roi, Prophète, Prêtre: avec le Christ considers the triplex munera as it relates to the Christian per se—a common patristic, medieval, and early modern application—not the laity as an ecclesial group.

11 of the laity on either a notion of power (French “puissance,” Latin “potestas”), or the

baptismal character. The power received, however, was only via participation in the

hierarchical mission. Congar’s innovation was to construct the lay identity

Christologically in terms of service, gift, and ministry (French “fonction,” Latin

“munus/munera”). It is also vital for understanding the significance of Congar’s

adaptation of the triplex munera to the lay condition that at that point in history the

triplex munera was primarily used in Catholic theology only as a category within

Christology and ecclesiology, especially that aspect of ecclesiology concerned with

apostolic powers of orders and jurisdiction.10

So then, what were the intellectual and social conditions that lead Congar to his

theological insight into the laity? Of course, Congar never explicitly recounts the moment

of discovery, though the closest evidence is found in his 1984 article “Sur la trilogie:

Prophète-Roi-Prêtre” (which will be examined more closely in chapter three) where describes his “longstanding interest” in the triplex munera, going back to his 1932

correspondence with the Reformed theologian Auguste Lecerf Pasteur. (Congar was 28!)

He also references his 1941 translation of Josef Fuchs dissertation on the triplex munera

as another example of his long-standing interest in the concept. Now it is certainly possible that he discovered the adaptation of the triplex munera in his study of Scripture

and/or Tradition. I certainly think that Scripture study or the Fathers were a significant

10 The conscious theological use of the triplex munera can be traced back to the patristic period, though it categories can found in the Old and . John Calvin was the first modern theologian to formally thematize the triplex munera, which he adapted to his and soteriology. In the Catholic Church, the triplex munera first became a formal theme in the works of several 19th century Catholic theologians, who adapted it to ecclesiology, particularly to define the hierarchy’s participation in Christ’s power in terms of teaching, governance, and . Outside of these two formal thematizations, the triplex munera has often been used in the to describe the individual Christian’s, or the Church in general, life in Christ. For a historical approach to the development of the triplex munera see Ludwig Schick’s Das Dreifache Amt Christi und der Kirche. (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1982).

12 influence on Congar’s conclusions. However, based on his involvement in Catholic

Action, the liturgical movement and other socially-minded ministries and endeavors, I am

doubtful that Scripture and Tradition are the Q source of the insight. You will see in the

argument below that this seminal insight of Congar’s is, perhaps, equally dependent on,

or conditioned by, the social vision of Pius XI. The second part of the chapter reinforces

the attraction of adapting Pius’ social ontology to the laity. I will briefly outline the

intellectual context in which I think Congar was able to foster his insight into the

theology of the laity.

The ’ social programs of the mid-20th century was driven to realign the

anti-revolutionary Leonine mission of rechristianization to the project of social

reconstruction called for in the wake of deracinated European societies after the two gruesome world wars.11 Both popes recognized that the visions of Leo and Pius X for a restored were quickly losing viability, and with the (1929) this reality ultimately became impossibility.12 In the era of the Lateran treaty, then, one

thing became apparent in terms of the Church’s ability to fulfill its mission in Europe: the

Church could no longer assert its mission by an appeal to its own authority within a

deconfessionalized state. Another path became necessary, and it must be one adapted to

and conversant with the political and social conditions of the time. While this new path

could not return tout court to the social structures of feudal Christendom or the early

modern ancien regime, neither could it capitulate to the political, social, and economic

11 For historical context, see Roger Aubert, The Church in a Secularised Society; Paul Misner’s Social Catholicism in Europe: From the Onset of Industrialization to the First World War. From the perspective of , see Michael Schuck’s That They Be One: The Social Teaching of the Papal Encyclicals, 1740-1989. 12 For context, see David Kertzer’s The and Mussolini: The History of Pius XI and the Rise of in Europe, and Emma Fattorini’s Hitler, Mussolini and the Vatican: Pope Pius XI and the Speech That was Never Made.

13 ideologies of the revolutionary age nor the grassroots, anti-modernisms of the fascists.13

While it is noted that Pius XII is the first pope to reconcile himself to modern liberal democracies,14 Pius XI’s social vision is also noticeable a correlation between the project of rechristianization and the project of social reconstruction. The point of connection between the two projects, if not obvious, is the Christian activity of the laity as a group in the context of everyday life. Through the social teaching of Pius XI, the Church developed a social vision aimed to restore both the spiritual and social roots of a society devastated by war and encroaching . Pius XI’s social vision was intended both as a critique and an alternative to the political and social programs of fascism(s) and statist socialism. One particular way Pius XI addressed and critiqued his opponents, however subtle it may seem to us today, was by reasserting the integrity of a myriad of contested social relations and re-root them within the created order. Put differently, one of Pius

XI’s principle approaches to social reconstruction was to assert the pre-political integrity of certain social relations as the grounds for social unity pace the social anthropologies of fascists and of statist socialists. This is significant for the theology of the laity because it is in the context of these social relations—i.e., especially marriage and family—that the laity expresses their Christian faith and vocation.

To achieve their purpose, the pontiffs drew from the Roman and canonical terminology and reformulated certain social relations in those terms as “officium,”

“iuribus et officiis,” and especially the non-juridical “munus/munera.” It is the argument of this first section of the chapter that this aspect of the pontifical project should be

13Richard L. Camp. The Papal Ideology of Social Reform. A Study in Historical Development 1878-1967. Brill Academic, 1969. 14 Allen D. Hertzke, “The Catholic Church and Catholicism in global ,” in Routledge Handbook of Religion and Politics. edited by Jeff Haynes : 48-50.

14 considered a vital feature of the intellectual, social, and historical horizon of thought that

conditioned Congar’s formulation of the theology of the laity in terms of the triplex munera. A broad rationale for this connection is suggested in the introduction to Jalons.

First, in terms of similar terminology, the text of Jalons is peppered with cognate terms

from the pontifical documents (tasks [tâches], office [charge], function [“fonction”],

obligation [obligation], duty [devoirs]). Congar and the pontifical documents define these

terms in the same way. Second, Congar situates his own work within the trajectory of

social Catholicism, including the social magisterium of the popes and . The fact

that the practical effects of the social tradition directly bears on the lives of the

laity was not lost on Congar. Nor was it lost on him that the social encyclicals were not,

generically speaking, the context for a formal description (or definition) of the

laity.

Modification of Catholic Action Theology of the Laity The second aspect of the social and intellectual context of Congar’s theology of

the laity is a modification made to the dominant views of the theology of the laity during

the era of Catholic Action and the liturgical movement. Pius XI and especially Pius XII

are noted for thematizing the laity, particularly in terms of the laity’s role in Catholic

Action, within a mystical Body ecclesiology. For both popes the social actions of lay

Catholics necessarily flowed from their sacramental participation in the Church’s

worship. As per usual, the magisterium set the parameters for the theological discussion

and speculation. I argue that Congar, in contradistinction to many of his contemporaries,

resisted on Thomistic grounds the trend to make the sacramental characters of baptism

and the cornerstone of the theology of the laity. This does not mean Congar

15 rejected the doctrine of the characters. Rather, it seems for Congar this approach to the

laity is prone to a category mistake: equating moral and intellectual activity of Christians

with specific acts of sacramental mediation.

It was somewhat common in the pre-conciliar era of European Catholic Action for

theologians and theological authors to view the obligations of the lay state as imperatives

directly empowered by their reception of the sacramental characters of baptism and

confirmation. The rationale for this position is twofold. First, there was no formal

theological account of lay activity per se. Moral theology certainly applied to the laity,

but it was not configured according to the specific responsibilities of that state. Another

way to describe it would be that there was no normative practice for describing the sacral

nature of lay action in the world. Certainly a sacredness to lay life was implied, but the

growing consciousness at the time of the laity as an active group in the Church suggested a need to describe their being and action in terms that reflected their Christian dignity. So then, second, the sacramental characters that the Christian receives in baptism and confirmation became an obvious source for describing how the layperson’s worldly activity was also configured to Christ’s and, therefore, an obligatory offering of true worship.

Thus, for many pre-conciliar theologians this approach seemed a sufficient basis for constructing, analogously, a vision of lay activity in the world that could be complementary to the ministry of the hierarchical priesthood. Admittedly, most of these theologies of Catholic Action were particularly addressed to the ad hoc issues presented by their social milieu, and, therefore, should not be interpreted as offering schematized

16 theologies of the laity. In fact, Congar acknowledges that his Jalons is one of the first

attempts at a doctrinal synthesis of a theology of the laity per se.

Nevertheless, Congar, in distinction from his contemporaries writing on the laity,

seems to have held to a stricter interpretation of the characters as spiritual capacities that

should be viewed as reserved for liturgical service/worship. For Congar, the priesthood

that the sacramental characters configure the Christian for is a cultic, sacramental one.

But this is not their only priesthood. The daily lives of the laity, by this logic, could not

be sufficiently and adequately described by a specific spiritual, liturgical capacity to

receive sanctification and sacramental graces through reception of the sacraments.15 They

possess another sort of priesthood that is not a sacramental mediation but an

anthropological feature of human nature. For Congar, this sort of priesthood is better

adapted to the lay vocation in the world than the priesthood received through the characters. Thus, the character may be the basis for describing how sinners can be transformed into creatures capable of offering true worship, but it does not seem to

provide specific insight into the way of life of the group called laity.

Furthermore, Congar, in line with the Thomist school, viewed the character(s) as

supernatural potentia of soul. A potentia in Thomist metaphysics is a ground for action, perfected by habitus, and not in itself a mode of action. An adequate theology of the laity requires a way to describe lay activity in the world as its own unique mode of Christian activity. The language of sacramental characters describes something per se about

Christian existence, not the lay state of life. This, it seems, is the reason Congar chooses

15 Congar. Lay People in the Church. 2nd. ed., 136-137. For an interesting study of the different theories— Francis Mugnier, Yves Congar and Gérard Philips—about the connection between the munus of priesthood with the other two munera, see Cruz Gonzaléz-Ayesta, “Work as “a ”: Reflections on the Laity’s Participation in the Munus Sacerdotale in the writings of the Founder of ,” Romana, no. 50 (2010): 192-206.

17 munera as the basis for his theology of the laity rather than the baptismal or confirmational character. Munera are relations, and the category “laity” refers to a

relation, not existence per se.

Pius XI’s Development of Social Munera as Significant Background to Congar’s Adaptation of the Triplex Munera My selection of the magisterial usage of munera in social and liturgical

encyclicals raises the necessary question of its relevance for foregrounding Congar’s

theology of the laity. How does the development of a Catholic social ontology provide

the deep context for Congar’s seminal theological work on the laity? It is the contention

of this study that for Yves Congar the core of the theology of the laity is not Christian

anthropology per se (i.e., “what is a Christian?”), but rather the description and

categorization of social relations that obtain between members of the Church whose

vocation is sacramental/secular and those members of the Church whose vocation is

sacramental/hierarchical. In a word, for Congar the theological category of “laity” could

account for a specific type of social function of real Christians living in the Church and

world. No longer, for Congar and the Catholic Church is it acceptable for “laity” to serve

merely as a negative or passive term describing the non-specialized or the uninitiated. For

Congar, a theology of the laity addresses a specific aspect of the sociality of Christ’s mystical body that is both theoretical and practical. The position of the laity is then

partially based analogically on an account of human sociality in groups, especially in

large groups such as communities and states. In his essay “Human Social Groups and the

18 Laity of the Church” Congar intimates that his theology of the laity was formed on this

basis.

The development of a modern Catholic social ontology has its roots in the 19th

century pontificate of Leo XIII and continues to the present day in the work of Pope

Francis. After the and the industrial revolution deracinated the social

forms of the ancien regime, Enlightenment political philosophers and politicians of the

19th century began to develop theories of social ontology that guided the reconstruction of

a just society and a re-conceiving of human relationality in a non-hierarchical manner.

Not only were the ancient social forms and institutions dissolved, but the newly

established State refused to grant legal status to certain basic, non-governmental

institutions and social forms. This led liberal and Catholic thinkers to develop arguments

in defense of rights and a sphere of public life distinct from the government: civil society.

From a Catholic perspective an alternative social ontology became necessary to counter

the ideological social vision of Enlightenment theorists, which generally privileged

individualism as the pre-political state of humanity over a social theory that envisioned necessary social bonds. Thus, Leo XIII was the first pope to engage the political philosophies of the Enlightenment and begin to offer a renewed Catholic vision of a flourishing social life that transcended the extremes of individualism, collectivism, and a static vision of social hierarchy common in the ancien regime.

However, it is important to differentiate the social and political environment of

Congar’s immediate context from the generation of Catholics living under the pontificate

of Leo XIII. Leo XIII’s theoretical social ontology was constructed in a different

historical horizon than that of Congar’s generation and the popes that influenced his

19 theology. Rather than facing a theoretical or utopian form of socialism, Congar’s

generation was defined early on by the Russian Revolution of 1917. His twenties and

thirties were not stultified by Bismarck’s Kulturkampf, but were invigorated by the

reconstruction period and demoralized by its different forms of fascism. Perhaps most

important for understanding what political and social realities most influenced his mature

thought was the gruesome realities of a second world war coupled with a post-war period

he characterized as overflowing with spiritual vitality and socio-economic prosperity.

“Munus/munera” in the Social Thought of Pius XI Russell Hittinger describes Pius XI as the first pope to systematically develop a

social ontology16 predicated on the category munus, which provides a way to describe

certain fundamental social relations that precede the jurisdiction of the state:

Pius XI (1922-29), to whom we attribute the teachings on social justice and subsidiarity, is the pope who began to systematically develop the ontology of the munera. During his pontificate, individuals, families, corporations, churches, the state itself, and even international authorities, were said to be the bearers not only of iura (rights) but also of munera—of having roles to play, gifts to give.17

However, the exact meaning and translation of the term munus/munera is not

always clear and therefore must be sorted out before examining its usage by Pius XI.

Hittinger and others note that in English translation, especially, munus/munera is a

polyvalent term that has a variety of meanings: function, office, gift, and service. On

close examination, the typical English translation of munus/munera in both papal

encyclicals and the documents of Vatican II (where it is used 248 times) is typically

16 Hittinger’s use of the notion of a social ontology, which he unfortunately does not define, suggests he is using its common philosophical meaning as the structure, character, or nature of social existence. In brief, for Hittinger a social ontology, in this case Pius XI’s, is a theoretical account of the basic features of human society in re. 17 Russell Hittinger, “Social Pluralism and Subsidiarity in Catholic Social Doctrine.” Annales Theologici 16 (2002): 390-391.

20 rendered “function.” Hittinger considers this an inadequate English translation choice for reasons to do with its present-day association with “functionalism,” which often sets up an opposition between the way something works and what something is:

The word munus is usually, but badly, translated into English as “function.” Living as we do in an age of machines and biological reductionism, the word “function” is apt to conjure the wrong meaning.18

For Hittinger, a strict translation of munus is not necessary, since part of its usefulness in

Pius’ thought is its polyvalence. The plurality of meanings gives the notion of a munus a certain flexibility when it describes social relations both legal and personal. This is why

Hittinger argues munus/munera as a vital aspect of Pius XI’s social vision, even seeing it as a constitutive category of his social ontology whether it is translated as function, gift, service, or office. The richness of the term is one reason Hittinger takes issue with the

18 Ibid., 389. For excellent studies on the canonical use of munus, including the 1983 revision, see Petér Erdö, “Ministerium, Munus et Officium in Codice Iuris Canonici.” Periodica 78 (1989): 411-436; John Huels, “Toward Refining the Notion of Office in Law,” 70 (2010): 396-433; Rik Torfs, “Auctoritas—potestas—jurisdictio—facultas—officium—munus: a conceptual analysis,” in James Provost and Knut Walf, eds. Power in the Church ( 197): 63-73. Torfs description of munus is insightful:

The term munus functions on a macro and on a micro plane in CIC 1983. On the macro level the term munus has an essential role in the determination of the structure of the Code … Munus does not refer to a specific office but to major tasks which operate also through offices. A munus, or macro level, is a task in the sense of Mission; the term is understood existentially, and possibly accorded an initial capital letter. On the micro level, munus may also be translated as ‘task’, but the term is much more limited in application [in terms of the Code]… [In the Code] Munus is not closely elucidated as a concept but recourse to the definition of officium throws light on both officium and munus. In that context, an ecclesiastical office (officium) permanently constitutes every task (munus), in virtue of its divine and ecclesiastical law, as that which is to be exercised for a spiritual purpose. This definition allows of two far from excessively daring conclusions: (a) An officium is a munus enjoying special authority, subject to specific conditions. Every officium is a munus but the contrary is not necessarily true. (b) Inasmuch as the stable condition of an officium distinguishes it from a munus, similarly it may be concluded that a munus is less rigidly structured. It is a more open legal notion and may be creatively shaped…

Another less directly deducible implication of the definition is the following. An officium… involves various rights and duties, can also consist of a number of separate munera…

Munus on the macro level is a major task, A Mission of the Church, and officia may assist toward the fulfillment of that purpose… (69-70) [emphasis added]

21 reductive connotations of the English translation “function,” with its implicit dualism

between function and ontology.

In consideration of Congar’s French context, I cross-referenced the French translations of Pius XI’s encyclicals and discovered a similar tendency to translate munus/munera as “fonction”/”fonctions.” However, this does not present the same problem as it does in English. This is due to the fact that in French usage the noun

“fonction” is a close synonym with “charge” (office), while in present-day English it does not have that connotation. This is especially significant for understanding Congar’s

Jalons, where he typically uses “fonction” instead of “charge” or “officia” to refer to

Christ’s triple office, especially when referring to the laity.

There still remains the issue of what Pius XI meant when he and his writers used munus/munera. It is clear that he did not limit its meaning to a theological/ecclesiastical context but also applied it to existing social relations outside the Church within the order of creation. In fact, Pius XI was the first pope or theologian to formally adapt the term to something other than Christ, the Church in se, and the hierarchical ministry. Just as

Congar was the first to adapt the triplex munera to the lay state, so too was Pius XI the first philosopher or theologian to apply munus/munera to social life within secular society, though we do not know what led to the development of this concept. Hittinger offers a possible explanation:

We do not know exactly who or what moved Pius XI to bring the sacral language of munera into the precincts of ethical and juridical discourse. Pius was formed in the of the Leonine revival, and was trained under one of Leo’s chief teachers, Matteo Liberatore. Liberatore and his mentor, , had adapted Thomism to the political and social disputes of the era. Taparelli is credited with having introduced the term “social justice” and for having made the first systematic case for what Pius XI will later call “subsidiarity.” Both of the Italian Jesuits developed a Thomistic account of natural rights. During the

22 Leonine period, individuals and associations are usually said to bear iura et officia, rights and responsibilities. With Pius XI, however, the munera are introduced, and with this term came a new layer of meanings.

My guess that the idea of munus holds together the Aristotelian notion of an ergon or characteristic function with the more biblical concept of vocation or mission. In so doing, it gets at something not well developed by conventional Thomism. Let us recall that at the time of Pius XI’s pontificate, the overriding issue of social doctrine was not merely whether man is a social animal, naturally ordered to the common good, but more exactly, the status of societies and social roles other than the state. It was these societies — families, youth groups, unions, religious orders — which the totalitarian regimes robbed of their legal personality. Therefore, it wasn’t enough to just repeat the standard formulae of commutative, distributive and legal justice. Without social content, these formulae serve no useful purpose. In fact, arguments to the common good can prove counter-productive in the face of the modern state, which is more than happy to make common the entire range of goods.

In any event, Pius XI decided to make clear that rights are not derived from human nature abstractly considered, but rather from human nature as already bearing (implicitly or explicitly) social munera. On this view, rights flow from antecedent munera (gifts, duties, vocations, missions).19

It is my argument in this section that Congar’s adaptation of the triplex munera in

Jalons is best understood in light of this Pian notion of munus/munera. In a word, just as there is a strong correlation between the mission of rechristianization and the project of social reconstruction, there is also a strong correlation between Pius XI’s notion of social munera and Yves Congar’s theological adaptation of the triplex munera to the laity. The remainder of this section highlights some of Pius XI’s most significant uses of munus/munera in his social encyclicals. Keep in mind that Pius XI’s pontificate spanned the bulk of Congar’s formative years as a theologian—Congar was 18 at the beginning of

Pius XI’s pontificate—and there is evidence in Jalons and elsewhere that Congar was an avid and close reader of Pius XI’s magisterial texts. While I will generally privilege Pius

XI’s use of munus/munera because of its relation to Congar’s use of “fonction”

19 Hittinger, “Social Pluralism and Subsidiarity in Catholic Social Doctrine,” 391-393.

23 (munus/munera), I will also indicate important uses of cognate terms (e.g. tasks [tâches], office [charge], function [“fonction”], obligation [obligation], duty [devoirs]). In terms of which encyclicals of Pius XI, I begin with Ubi Arcano (1922) to set the horizon of

thought, and continue with Quas Primas (1925), Miserentissimus Redemptor (1928),

Divini Illius Magistri (1929), Casti Connubii (1930), (1931), and

Divini Redemptoris (1937) written two years before his death.

A final preliminary note on the development of the use of munus/munera is

helpful here. Pius XI’s use of munus/munera increases somewhat dramatically after 1929,

which I noted was the year the Lateran treaty was completed, which included the Italian

. The significance of this should not be overstated but duly noted: it is well

known that Pius XI eventually doubted that neither Mussolini nor Hitler (the

Reichskonkordat was signed and ratified in 1933) would abide by the legality of the

concordat, which would leave lay movements in these countries, like Catholic Action, in

a certain kind of peril. (The Church also lacked legality in the U.S.S.R. as well.) This

suggests, when we think of the increased use of munus/munera in the construction of a

social ontology, that Pius XI changed the emphases of his approach from a canonico-

theological to theological-canonical. As said above, the fact that munus/munera is

canonical language does not mean it fits the language of and Church-state

relations, due to its polyvalence.

24 Ubi Arcano (1922)20 Ubi Arcano (1922) was the first encyclical of the newly-elected Pius XI,21

promulgated on December 22nd of that same year. In this inaugural encyclical that Pius

XI sets the broader social and spiritual agenda for his pontificate, and lays out the intellectual parameters for the development of his vision of social munera. Despite the absence of the concept of a social munus/munera in this early work, the underlying

concerns are present. In sum, Pius XI envisions a civilization that is not only Christian,

but united and operating corporately. His principle focus, he says, is to solve the “internal

discord” that exists between individuals, social classes, and nations that continued to

plague Europe into the period between the two wars. For Pius XI, this “internal discord”

is nothing less than a poisoning of the internal unity and harmony within and between,

what he calls elsewhere (following Leo XIII), “the three necessary societies”: the Church,

the family, the polity. First, the Church has fallen into disrepair: Christians have

neglected their most basic duties, church buildings have not been restored to their proper

use, remain closed, and the number of clergy has been decimated due to death

on the battlefield. For Pius, this is a sign of a Church in disarray. The solution is a deeper

interiorization of the Church’s mission. Next, the family, society’s most basic cell, had

been divided in the aftermath of the Great War and “penetrated” by “the revolutionary

spirit” of class-warfare and anarchy: “Frequently we behold sons alienated from their

fathers, brothers quarreling with brothers, masters with servants, servants with

masters.”22 Finally, the polity and civil society have been infected by “a chronic and

20 Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio [Encyclical on the Peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ], Vatican Website, December 23, 1922, accessed August 1, 2018, http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius- xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19221223_ubi-arcano-dei-consilio.html 21 Ibid. 22 Ubi Arcano, sec. 13.

25 mortal disease” of class-warfare, which results not only in conflict but social breakdown.

This continuing strife is a sign of a lack of interior peace and unity among people. The pope offers two related diagnoses: 1) these social conflicts and divisions are caused by

European societies dominated and blinded by a kind of materialism and 2) they are caused by a rejection of and the ecclesiastical governance. The meaning of the first is evident, but the rationale for the second is that the absence of divine and ecclesiastical law leads to an unmooring of society from its rational and transcendent foundations.

Pius’ solution first calls for European Catholics to recognize the need for a spiritual peace that will “unite, heal, and reopen their hearts to that mutual affection which is born of brotherly love.”23 The only peace that answers this description, he says, is the peace of Christ, which can only be the peace of justice “compounded almost equally of charity and a sincere desire for reconciliation.”24 Meaning, in the face of a false peace that masks social strife and dissonance, “the only remedy for such state of affairs is the peace of Christ since the peace of Christ is the peace of God, which could not exist if it did not enjoin respect for law, order, and the rights of authority.”25 This leads Pius to argue that the solution to the deracination of European society is to return to

Church and submit to her wisdom: “The Church alone can introduce into society and maintain therein the prestige of a true, sound spiritualism… The Church is the teacher and an example of world good-will, for she is able to inculcate and develop in mankind

23 Ibid., sec. 33. 24 Ibid., sec. 34. 25 Ibid., sec. 40.

26 the ‘true spirit of brotherly love.’”26 The Church is not bound by the logic of the nation-

state, because she transcends the boundaries of the state both in terms of her

and in the interior dimension of the Christian life. This is Pius XI’s reassertion of the

Leonine and Pian (Pius X) rationale for the rechristianization of Europe and the guiding

vision of his revival of Pius X’s Catholic Action in Europe. For Pius XI, the great project

of social reconstruction will be realized in full through 1) Catholic Action, 2) the

missionary movement, and 3) the liturgical movement in order to heal the “internal

discord” and social disharmony of European nations. Pius closes with a summary of his

vision:

Tell your faithful children of the laity that when, united with their pastors and their bishops, they participate in the works of the apostolate, both individual and social, the end purpose of which is to make Jesus Christ better known and better loved, then they are more than ever "a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people," of whom St. Peter spoke in such laudatory terms. (I Peter ii, 9) Then, too, they are more than ever united with Us and with Christ, and become great factors in bringing about world peace because they work for the restoration and spread of the Kingdom of Christ. Only in this Kingdom of Christ can we find that true human equality by which all men are ennobled and made great by the selfsame nobility and greatness, for each is ennobled by the precious . As for those who are in authority, they are, according to the example of our Lord Jesus Christ, but ministers of the good, servants of the servants of God, particularly of the sick and of those in need.27

Quas Primas (1925)28 If Ubi Arcano established the horizons of Pius XI’s social vision, than the 1925

encyclical Quas Primas, promulgated on December 11, is the beginning of Pius XI’s strategic use of munus/munera for realizing his vision. This encyclical can be interpreted

26 Ibid., sec. 42.

27 Ibid., 58. 28 Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas [Encyclical on the Feast of Christ the King], Vatican Website, December 11, 1925, accessed August 1, 2018, http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p- xi_enc_11121925_quas-primas.html

27 as presenting a contrast between Christ’s transcendent royal munera and the overweening claims of earthly rulers. One might imagine the excitement of a 21-year-old Congar, who became in November of that year a Dominican at the Kain-la-Tombe near Tournai in Belgium, voraciously taking in the encyclical, noting its defiance of Mussolini’s oligarchy through the establishment of a new feast day declaring to the world that Christ is the King of kings. The timing of Quas Primas in could not have been more apt, as its promulgation preceded il Duce’s takeover of the Italian government by two weeks.

There are five significant uses of munus in this encyclical that analysis.

The first use of munus comes in §8, where Pius describes Christ’s kingdom as being without limit and enriched by the munera of justice and peace (iustitiae et pacis munera). Christ’s royal munus is not a metaphorical reference to his divinity but is rooted in his sacred humanity and his messianic prerogatives. It is Christ’s royalty, Pius argues, that is widely attested and supported by Scripture, not Mussolini’s claim to authority.

Christ is the long awaited Messiah, the one Yahweh has sent who will govern both and Gentiles. Justice and peace are present in a definitive way in Christ’s messianic kingdom as a result of divinely-inspired royal rule. Unfortunately, munera is untranslated in the English version, so the sentence reads “… his kingdom will have no limits, and will be enriched with justice and mercy.” Considering the semantic range of munus—i.e., office, gift, function, etc.—a better translation would account for Christ’s kingdom as either gifted (munus) with justice and peace, or justice and peace possess an essential function in Christ’s kingdom.

This portrait of political life under Christ the King is a stark contrast to the political condition of Italy in the interbellum period. Italy in the early 1920’s is generally

28 dominated by the violence and terrorism of pro-fascist cheka and Mussolini’s Fascist party. The election of 1924 was marked by political corruption in the form of threats of physical violence, actual violence including murder, and deceptive voting practices.

Justice and peace seem to be absent in Italian life at the time. The growing fascist movement, with its anti- and idolatrous vision of Italy, placed Italian Catholics at the time in a difficult position in terms of Church-state relations. Pius XI’s position, however, was clear. Christ’s royal prerogatives transcended any and all of Mussolini’s claims to represent law and order. It is in this light that Quas Primas should be interpreted. The wisdom and serenity represented under Christ’s royal munus is a clear contrast to the tragic violence and injustice, masquerading as law and order, perpetrated by Mussolini and his fascist party. Quas Primas calls the members of Christ’s kingdom to remember where their devotion truly belongs and renew their allegiance to Christ the

King, year by year, through the newly instituted feast day.

§16 is the next place where Pius employs munus to refer to social and political matters, once again in reference to Christ’s royal office. After establishing the Scriptural provenance of Christ’s Kingship, Pius starts to describe the nature of Christ’s Kingship.

Christ’s Kingship was not seized violently and undeservedly, but is founded on the . Thus, he is due worship and obedience from his subjects. “Christ is our

King by acquired, as well as by natural right, for he is our Redeemer.” His royal power

(potestate) is threefold: he is the law giver, the judicial power, and the executive power.

Yet, we should not confuse Christ’s kingdom with those of the temporal realm. Christ’s kingdom is a spiritual kingdom, therefore its purposes are spiritually regenerative and sacramental. He purchased his kingdom through a priestly act, by offering himself on the

29 Cross, rather than a royal one. This means that Christ’s royal munus cannot be abstracted

from his priestly munus. Rather, these munera are intimately connected: the redemption won through Christ’s priestly sacrifice participates (participare) in his royal munus. This does not mean Christ has no authority (imperium) in civil matters, rather that he

“refrains” (abstinuit) from exercising it.

The next use of munus is an analogy between Christ’s Kingship and temporal rulers, specifically how temporal rulers must align themselves with Christ’s royal dignity in order to properly serve as rulers. Pius’ basic argument goes as follows: since Christ does not rule in the typical manner of temporal rulers, his “government” (principatus) is truly universal. Not only is his kingdom trans-national, but his kingship does not distinguish between individual, family, or State. Every person and every state is under

Christ’s dominion, and “in him is the salvation of the individual, in him is the salvation of society.” If temporal rulers wish to preserve their authority they will not neglect their public office (officium) of obedience and reverence to Christ the King. This is because the authority to rule is not derived from a human basis but is based on God’s gift.

Without divine authorization, there is no difference between ruler and subject. In a word,

Pius XI is claiming that temporal authority is exclusively given by divine right. It is

Christ’s own royal dignity that “invests” (imbuit) temporal rulers with religious significance and “ennobles” (nobilitat) the citizen’s officia of obedience. When rulers recognize that they rule solely by the mandate of Christ, presumably confirmed by the magisterium, then they will begin to rule with wisdom leading to peace. Pius XI draws an analogy between the munus of peace and justice that come with Christ’s kingship and the wise ruler who recognizes Christ’s Kingship: the result of rulers recognizing Christ’s

30 kingship will be their people’s recognition that their leader bears the reflection of God’s

authority. The ramifications of this recognition are the gift (munus) of peace and harmony for their country.

The next use of munus is in the context of Pius’ rationale for establishing the new feast day, Christ the King. The rationale for the feast day is the perceived waning influence of Catholicism, politically and socially, in the interwar period. A feast dedicated to Christ’s regal dignity, then, is aimed to be a remedy to the growing anticlericalism of the times. Anticlericalism, here, is not merely a disregard or disrespect of the clerical office, but, for Pius XI, it has broader ramifications. The goal of instituting a feast day celebrating Christ’s Kingship is the social and spiritual renewal of Europe, especially its most basic institutions: family and the State. For Pius, instituting a feast day is preferred over a teaching document because a feast is perpetual, so it has a broader and longer effect, and because it involves the whole person and not merely the mind.29

The papacy since Leo XIII has taken an interest in social and spiritual renewal of post- revolution Europe. In this way, Pius XI’s encyclical fits into the encyclical tradition of consecrating the world to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Devotion to the Sacred Heart was viewed as political resistance to the secularization of Europe, and, for Pius XI, a subtle recognition of Christ’s Kingship over all things.30 Christ’s Sacred Heart and his Kingship

bring together the ideal of true governance, the governance of soul and body under God.

One sees concrete examples of this dual devotion in the Eucharistic congresses,

on the Sacred Heart, the phenomenon of Eucharistic adoration, and public

taking place throughout Europe at the time. From the Leonine and Pian perspective, these

29 sec. 21 30 See Raymond Jonas, France and the of the Sacred Heart: An Epic Tale for Modern Times. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2000.

31 are examples of political resistance against a totalizing . It is in this context

that Pius reminds his Bishops of their munus to promote through the feast day the true

reign of Christ. Despite the opposition of secular critics, Pius emphasizes that this feast is

not merely one more feast acknowledging Christ’s reign, but the specific object of this

feast is the proclamation of Christ’s regal dignity.

Miserentissimus Redemptor (1928)31 Miserentissimus Redemptor (1928) is, in some ways, an extension of the vision of

Quas primas. If Quas primas serves as the call to consecrate the social order to Christ the

King, Miserentissimus Redemptor (MR) is the initial step for achieving the socio-political

program of rechristianization. The central argument of MR is that the Christian’s call to

consecrate oneself to Christ the King is realized practically when assuming the duty

(officium) of offering reparations (i.e., satisfaction) to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. The

cultic nature of these acts of reparation that belong to every Catholic is an officium.

However, it is interesting that the context of this officium is not described exclusively as

liturgical worship, but occurs in the context of everyday life. Catholics have

received an officium to consecrate their daily activity in terms of a correspondence and

participation in Christ’s redemptive work.

It is important to recognize MR should be interpreted as an extension of the

broader thought of Leo XIII’s Annum Sacrum, which has as its hermeneutical key the

Sacred Heart of Jesus as a symbol of the counter-revolutionary program. For the post-

French Revolution European context, extending perhaps to the pontificate of Pope St.

31 Pope Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor [Encyclical on Reparation to the Sacred Heart], Vatican Website, May 8, 1928, accessed August 1, 2018, https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius- xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280508_miserentissimus-redemptor.html

32 John Paul II, the Sacred Heart of Jesus did not function primarily as a private devotion, as

it seems to have in the United States, but also symbolized the socio-political vision for a return to a Christian society. Thus, the imminent need to promulgate this officium to offer reparations is predicated on the Leonine notion that European society in the post- revolutionary period was defined by an anti-Christian irreverence, sacrilege, and blasphemy against the royal prerogatives of Christ the King and therefore was experiencing a period of deracination from the order of grace (if not also the order of creation). It is in this context that the Christian people of Europe are, as “a chosen people, a royal priesthood,” called to carry the obligation to both resist and overturn the decline of their civilization that was ideally Christian and Catholic.

Thus, for the Catholic audience of MR, especially those engaged in the apostolate of Catholic Action, the Pope’s charge that they take on the officium of offering spiritual reparations for offenses against the sovereignty of God would not have been received exclusively in terms of a call to a private piety. Rather, he imagines their officium would be a concrete responsibility—analogous to the ’s or priest’s officium in the societas perfecta— to be personally realized within their own particular milieu, especially in terms of the socio-political spheres of the interregnum period. As we will see, in later encyclicals Pius XI will begin to particularize this officium in the realm of concrete social settings, describing certain social relations as fundamental to the created order of rational society in a polemic aimed to reassert theocentric order of all societies. For our purposes it is necessary to notice that he will describe these social relations using the terms officium and munus interchangeably. When examined in light of his later encyclicals such

33 as the 1943 Mystici Corporis,32 these specific uses of officium and munera are understood

by Pius XI as analogous uses that should be subordinate to an understanding of the

Christian’s life in the world as a participation in Christ’s triplex munera.

It is possible I am making too much of Pius XI’s language here because of its

subtlety and specificity. It might also seem that its ramifications as a piece of a broader

social vision were likely to be missed by the general reader at the time, mitigating its

significance and usefulness for someone like Congar. However, as I will show, when

perusing the Catholic Action literature of the time, there is ample evidence that the

opposite is true and that the subtle language was being translated into the popular

Catholic literature of the time.

Divini Illius Magistri (1929)33 The next significant uses of munus/munera occur in the 1929 encyclical Divini

Illius Magistri. The primary message of the encyclical is the rights and duties of the

Church, the family, and the state in the education of youth. Munus/munera plays a major

role in the pope’s argument. Contra the educational policies of fascist regimes, which

obligated their educational institutions to promote their nationalist ideology, one of the

pope’s central arguments is the notion that munus and goals of teaching are not solely

defined by the State. Instead he argues that teaching is a mission/role that is rooted in the

created order in itself that precedes the state authority. I will highlight some of the more

explicit usages of munus/munera.

32 Mystici Corporis, sec. 17. 33 Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri [Encyclical on Christian Education], Vatican Website, December 31, 1929, accessed August 1, 2018, http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p- xi_enc_31121929_divini-illius-magistri.html

34 The first uses of munus are found in the beginning part of the encyclical in a

description of the “essential aspects” of Christian education. According to the pope, the

first characteristic aspect of Christian education mentioned is that there must be people

who possess the munus to educate just as there must be subjects in need of education. The

teaching munus requires that the teacher acquires the moral and intellectual qualifications

necessary for their role. The pope adds to this description, perhaps to address an

individualistic view of education, that this teaching munus must not be misconstrued as an individualized activity, as if it could be set apart, or atomized, from the rest of life.

The human person is a social animal, so education concerns more than the mere individual needs of the student. Rather, education has a social end, which must be addressed in the process of learning. According to Pius XI, humans by nature belong to three “necessary” societies: the family, civil society, and the Church. This means the munus of teaching is an essential activity or service found in each of these societies.

The second major usage of munus concerns the state’s and the family’s specific

God-given munera in the education of the young. The pope describes the family’s munus

to teach children as in agreement with the Church’s munus to teach, presumably the munus to preach the Word.34 The family’s munus to teach offspring is defined as a gift of

creation given directly by the Creator. This is significant in that the family’s munus to

educate offspring precedes and delimits the prerogatives of civil society and the state and

their munus in education.

34 Ibid., sec. 30. “In the first place the Church's mission of education is in wonderful agreement [concordat] with that of the family, for both proceed from God, and in a remarkably similar manner. God directly communicates to the family, in the natural order, fecundity, which is the principle of life, and hence also the principle of education to life, together with authority, the principle of order.

35 Pius XI defines one of the state’s primary munera to be the practice of

subsidiarity on behalf of the family and civil society, by which he means the state is

obligated “to protect and foster, but by no means to absorb the family and the individual,

or to substitute itself for them.” Not only does the state practice subsidiarity for the sake

of the family, but it is specifically obligated to protect the family’s munus to educate their

offspring: “In general it is the munera of the State to protect, according to the rules of

right reason and faith, the moral and religious education of youth, by removing public

impediments that stand in the way.”

Finally, Pius XI considers it the particularly important munus of Catholic Action to promote/defend the existence and need for Catholic education. The particularity of promoting/defending Catholic schools, he argues, is not to be viewed as a political act, nor is it considered antithetical to patriotism. Rather it flows from a conscience formed by the Catholic faith to perform “religious work.”35

Casti Connubii (1930)36 Casti Connubii, written one year after Divini Illius Magistri in 1930, concerns the

Catholic doctrine of marriage and reproduction. There is considerable debate about the

immediate causes that led Pius XI to write this encyclical. Speculations on its provenance

include a rebuttal to the Lambeth Conference of 1930, or relaxed divorce laws throughout

Europe. Certain scholars see in Casti Connubii a vision of marriage and reproduction

consonant with the social program of Italian fascism. Certain similarities might be

35 Ibid., sec. 84. “For whatever Catholics do in promoting and defending the for their children, is a genuinely religious work and therefore an important task of "Catholic Action." For this reason the associations which in various countries are so zealously engaged in this work of prime necessity, are especially dear to Our paternal heart and are deserving of every commendation.” 36 Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii [On Christian Marriage], Vatican Website, December 31, 1930, accessed August 1, 2018, https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p- xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html

36 undeniable, though there might be significant nuances worth examining; it is still difficult

to imagine easily equating, especially in light of Mussolini’s racist and nationalist vision,

Pius XI’s account of marriage and reproduction with Mussolini’s. Regardless, Pius XI’s

main concern, it seems, is to assert the primordial foundation of marriage and the

necessary connection between marriage and reproduction, pace the incursions of modern

states into marriage and family law.

The encyclical’s first relevant use of munus refers to parenthood as a natural,

created munus given to parents for the good of their children. Parenthood is described as

“the right and privilege of the married state alone” according to divine and .

The next use of munus refers to the social relations (sociae muneribus) of wife and

mother as those munera that bind a woman to her family. The social munera of wife and

mother should not be viewed as an inferior status nor a sign of oppression—his picture

here is ideal—but rather operate as a characteristic bond needed to secure the particular

social unity that makes the family the basic cell of society.

Quadragesimo Anno (1931)37 Quadragesimo anno, written for the 40th anniversary of Leo XIII’s Rerum

novarum, is arguably the definitive social encyclical of Pius XI, and is particularly

notable for our purposes for its extensive use of munus/munera. There are, at least,

thirteen distinctive uses of munus/munera in the body of this text. These uses of

munus/munera color in part, often indirectly, the pope’s broader vision for the

restructuring of Western society, particularly European society, on the principles of

solidarity and subsidiarity in the wake of the devastations of the First World War. In its

37Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno [Encyclical on Reconstruction of the Social Order], Vatican Website, May 15, 1931, accessed August 1, 2018 http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius- xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno.html

37 most basic sense, munus/munera functions as the medium through which subsidiarity between groups is achieved. Specific, clearly defined roles and responsibilities help define the particular limits and tasks that individuals/groups take on in support of the common good. This is why Pius XI consistently affirms that positions of leadership are created munera and not merely politically or socially expedient positions. For Pius XI, the political authority bears a specific munus as does the economic authorities.

Distinguishing between the political and the economic is a major concern of QA, each sphere bears its own specific competencies and responsibilities.

Pius XI is also concerned to assert that even though the Church does not possess the munera of the political and economic authorities, she is gifted (munus) with the responsibility of discussing the moral implications of politics and economics. QA also contains a stern critique of socialism, of which munus/munera plays a specific part.

According to QA, whose political philosophy is often termed corporatist, society functions properly when each of its members possess specific munera aimed at a specific goal for society at large. This is seen in contrast to a socialist vision of social unity that fails to differentiate individuals and groups from each other in order to reach the goal of a classless society. In fairness, Pius’ corporatist vision also contains an equally harsh critique of the tendency of the capitalist elite to obscure the common good— which includes recognizing the specific munera of the economic sphere—for the purpose of monopolizing capital and wealth. Contra the capitalist vision of society, QA asserts the person’s place in society is determined by their munus/munera and not their position in the labor market. This assertion is based on Pius’ theological anthropology, which argues

38 humans are created social and directed to fulfill their God-given munera/vocations in

order to obtain both temporal and eternal happiness.

Divini Redemptoris (1937)38 The last encyclical of Pius XI examined here is Divini Redemptoris (DR), which was written six years after QA. This encyclical aims to expose the atheistic principles that underwrite bolshevism. Munus makes its first appearance in response to the question:

“What would be the condition of a human society based on such materialistic tenets?”

According to DR, it would be a society defined by the single munus of the economic

sphere. One specific problem with this social vision would be the lack of moral standards

that transcend the utility of the economic: “[a]fter all, even the sphere of economics needs

some morality, some moral sense of responsibility [muneris], which can find no place in

a system so thoroughly materialistic as .”

Another problem with a vision of society that operates through a singular munus

is what Pius XI envisions as the Christian notion that humans by nature possess a variety

of munera [“varied prerogatives”], which DR lists as: “the right to life, bodily integrity, necessary means of existence, right to attend to ultimate goal given by God, the right of

association, the right to possess and use property.”

In fact, in order for a society to have social justice—a society where each of its

parts are afforded their proper needs—it is necessary for its populace to have the capacity

to exercise their own proper social munera. DR offers as an example that neither workers

nor employers can escape the fact that social justice comes with its own set of

responsibilities [officia]. The needs of all members are valued, and a properly working

38 Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris [Encyclical on Atheistic Communism], Vatican Website, March 19, 1937, accessed August 1, 2018 https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p- xi_enc_19370319_divini-redemptoris.html

39 society distributes justice to each of its parts: “just as in the living organism it is impossible to provide for the good of the whole unless each single part and each individual member is given what it needs for the exercise of its proper functions [sociale munus].”39

The Doctrinal Basis of the Lay Apostolate: The Power of the Sacramental Character as Source for Laity Obligation to participate in the Apostolate (especially Catholic Action) Pius XII Despite Pius XI’s achievement in terms of the thematization of social roles in terms of munera, rather than totalitarian grasps for power, he and Pius XII still defined lay participation, particularly in Catholic Action, exclusively in terms of (a lack of) sacerdotal power (potestas). In his encyclicals on the mystical Body (Mystici Corporis) and the liturgy (), Pius XII set the parameters for the theological discussion of theologians and theological writers. As noted, Congar did not base his theology of the laity solely on participation in the sacerdotal power (potestas), nor on the power

(puissance) of the sacramental character alone, despite the fact that was perhaps the definitive aspect of the predominant approach to constructing the theology of the lay apostolate in the pre-conciliar era. As said earlier, Congar’s innovation (aggiornamento) on the Tradition was the application of the triplex munera to the lay condition, which he envisioned as distinct from the characters though not unrelated.

For Congar, the characters do effect a structural change in the anthropology of the

Christian, and therefore the characters impact the Christian life, but they are not the

39 Ibid., sec. 51.

40 principle or characteristic foundation of the lay state or vocation. The distinctiveness of

Congar’s theological choice is not easily apparent in and of itself, and even Pius XI’s

thematization of munus is not a sufficient explanation for understanding Congar within his horizon of thought. The purpose of this section is to offer another frame from

Congar’s context whereby we can understand the uniqueness of his work in its original context. If the Pian use of munus/munera in reference to the secular activities and roles of

the lay faithful formed the remote horizon of Congar’s thought-world, my argument in this section is that Congar’s innovative is more clearly understood in proximity to and contrasted with the then pre-dominant theoretical framework for the lay apostolate. The remainder of this section will be a brief summary of some representative theologies of the lay apostolate from the pre-conciliar period against which Congar’s theology responded.

Summary of the Definition of the Laity Prior to the founding of Catholic Action and Theologies of the Lay Apostolate Taking up the issue of the theology of the laity, Congar summarizes the pre-19th

century Catholic theological view of the laity as limited to a canonical definition,40 which

he describes as principally negative and passive in view. In Congar’s summary he quotes

an anecdote he saw as representative of the negative and passive understanding of the

laity at the turn of the 20th century:

Cardinal Aidan Gasquet relates the anecdote of an inquirer who asked a priest what was the position of the layman in the Catholic Church. ‘The layman has two positions’, answered the priest. ‘He kneels before the ; that is one. And he sits below the pulpit; that is the other.’ The cardinal adds that there is a third that the priest had forgotten: The layman also puts his hand in the purse.41

40 Lay People in the Church, 1st ed., Introduction. 41 Ibid., xxiii.

41 Pius X’s il fermo proposito (1905) ushered in, formally speaking, the era of

Catholic Action, which was developed into an institution by Pius XI and Pius XII.

According to Congar, Pius XI’s revived version of Catholic Action is what laid the

groundwork for a vision of the laity that is not merely a negation of the priest, nor merely

a passive recipient of sacraments.42 The principle aim of Catholic Action was simple: the

rechristianization of society through the leavening work of the lay faithful in cooperation

with the ministry of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. In this way Catholic Action combines

the of the with the proclamation of . There is no essential

bifurcation, nor antinomy, between the practice of the faith in a cultural form and the

proclamation of the faith.

Yet, in an era of increasing secularization, as an extension of the project of

deconfessionalization of the nation-state, the project of rechristianization would be

impossible if it were understood to be as a return to the logic of the ancien regime or a

medieval respublica christiana. The restorationist program of the anti-revolutionary period had failed by the 1920s, evinced by the papal condemnation of Action francaise.

The strategy, then, would be executed from ‘below’, that is, by non-clerics, and would

aim to influence the whole of society in each of its milieu: domestic, civil, and political.

Yet, the project of rechristianization should not be interpreted as a political project tout

court. For the popes from Pius X to Pius XII the goal of Catholic Action was nothing less

than a spiritual revitalization of Europe, whose roots were Christian and Catholic. In

42 “Actually, Pius XI’s Catholic Action revived something fundamental in the Church, and led to the throwing open of the whole question of the laity. In contrast with what had existed before, three features in particular seem new: the insistence on the properly apostolic nature of Catholic Action; the generalized character of the appeal and the wide scope of a movement that was to include all categories; and the pronounced aspect of a lay task, corresponding to the Christian’s engagement in the more clearly recognized secular field. Pius XI’s Catholic Action thus went beyond all partial, accidental and peripheral considerations and touched the very heart of the laity’s ecclesial status.” LPC (361-362)

42 order to realize this project, then, the average layperson had to do her part, which

involved renewed action of the Christian life in modern times as well as a new understanding of his or her specific role in the mystical Body as a member of the laity.

Gone were the days of pure passive laity. For both Pius’, this was the age of a renewed laity, called to action for the sake of Christ the King. Thus, the Catholic Action movement seems to have opened a new era in Catholic thought where the question of the nature, function, and place of the laity needed to be addressed in full.

Little attention is paid today to the typical approach taken by theologians of

Catholic Action to depict the layperson in their theologies of the lay apostolate. Even though there is a broad conformity in thought and approach for the majority of these theologies, it is useful to piece together the theological rationale that undergirded their respective depictions of the laity to see how they were to account for the laity’s positive action and participation in the Church’s mission. These theological projects, though surpassed today, should not be lumped together with that way of thinking that viewed laity as purely passive (if such a characteristic is, in fact, historically accurate). They have value, at least for this project, in showing a necessary stage in the development of a theological depiction of the laity, of which Congar’s work is representative.

Broadly speaking, the approach of most theologians of the lay apostolate followed the formulas of scholastic theology of the manualist tradition. The account of the layperson typically began with a description of the layperson’s right to the apostolate based on the fundamental sociality of the human person. The human person is typically described as a social agent by nature and therefore locates its fulfillment in and through its social relations. Based on the principle of grace perfecting nature, the created reality of

43 human sociality is elevated and perfected in the society of the church. This description of the social person is important because the lay apostolate is located in the world and characteristically concerns human relationships and vocations. The second aspect typical of Catholic Action theologies of the lay apostolate is a definition of the human person, vis-a-vis the layperson, as a moral agent who is a bearer of moral obligations to live a virtuous life. The legitimacy of the Catholic Action movement was based on it being a cooperation/participation between the hierarchy and the laity, with the laity receiving a mandate from the hierarchy to participate in its apostolic ministry. Thus, the mandate would be meaningless unless if the laity were reductively viewed as inherently passive and incapable of cooperation. Thus, ontology of rights and duties were introduced to theological datum of the layperson that thematized their participation as free action. But it seems these two aspects of the layperson’s identity fail to offer a description of what it is that makes a layperson a layperson theologically speaking. What is the theological for saying that the layperson is obligated to a specific apostolate, rather than, say, a merely philosophical and sociological justification? Most theologians of the lay apostolate implicitly recognized this problem and sought a solution that was both rooted in the Tradition and in scholastic thought. The solution was to base the layperson’s obligation to the lay apostolate primarily on the sacramental characters received in baptism and confirmation. The remainder of this section offers a brief survey of theologies of the lay apostolate that based their definition of the layperson on the sacramental character(s). What I offer below is not a criticism of the value or logic of these theological attempts to define the laity, but a description of the general state of the

44 question during the pre-Jalons period, from which Congar distinguished himself theologically.

The Layperson in the Pre-Conciliar Theologies of the Lay Apostolate Luigi Civardi’s A Manual of Catholic Action (1943)43 Civardi’s manual for Catholic Action44 was originally published in Italian as two volumes (volume 2 was specifically about Catholic Action in Italy) and was approved by

Pius XI.45 Its first volume was translated into French and English, and reached a seventh edition by 1943. Civardi’s manual was an important text in the promulgation of the

Catholic Action movement, even Congar cites this work in Jalons.46 In terms of its content, as a manual it aimed to give a generic and theoretic explanation of Catholic

Action, “e.g., what it is, what it aims at, its properties, its connections, etc.”47 It also aims to provide a broad historical background as well as practical applications of its principles.

Civardi’s purpose, then, is not to expound a theology of the laity per se, but provide clergy and laity a theological vision for the distinctive activity of Catholic Action.

43 Civardi, Luigi. A Manual of Catholic Action. Trans. C.C. Martindale, S.J. (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1943). 44 Civardi provides his own definition of Catholic Action: “Catholic Action, properly so-called, and in the narrower sense, is constituted by that organic whole of associations, in which the laity carry out every form of apostolate for the assistance of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and not only with its approbation, but at its special behest and in direct dependence on it, and having rules decided on and sanctioned by its authority. Catholic Action, when endowed with all these requisites, can call itself in the sense that it is officially willed and recognised by the Church as a sacred possession of hers. When we speak of Catholic Action without qualification, it must be understood as used in the narrower sense. To it belong all organisations of men and women, of young people, male or female, which, in fact, lay claim to belong to it.”: 3. 45 The of Nicaea, , passed on the papal : “The Holy Father, therefore, not only prays that your valued work may be widely spread abroad and thus provide a new and efficacious contribution to the increase of Catholic Action which is so dear to him, but whole-heartedly sends you the .”: v. 46 Congar reacts negatively to Civardi’s notion of the laity as the “longa manus of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.” See Lay People in the Church, 1st ed.: 352. 47 A Manual of Catholic Action, ix.

45 However, Civardi does provide a definition of the laity and a rationale for why Catholic

Action is the laity’s obligation to participate in Catholic Action.

After expounding the Pian doctrine of Catholic Action as a co-apostolate to the hierarchy, Civardi briefly defines the laity via as “those members of the

Church who are neither clerics nor religious.”48 The contrast between the laity, on the one hand, and clerics and religious, on the other hand, is centered on the specific nature of their service. Clerics and religious are described as those who “are already actually serving the Church, each in their proper order, according to their special rules and constitutions.”49 The laity, by contrast, is described negatively as “not capable of a ‘true and proper’ apostolate” and possessing “a purely passive role”50 in the Church. However, by receiving the Catholic Action mandate, the laity’s negative situation is transformed into an active role in the apostolate through their sharing in the apostolic powers of the hierarchy. Civardi describes “power” as referring to triple powers of teaching, governance, and sanctification. Through their cooperation and participation in the apostolic powers the laity are “collaborators” in the hierarchical ministry. Referring to

Pius XI’s definition of Catholic Action, Civardi summarizes the position of the laity as

“[c]o-operation: to be the echo of the Hierarchy; here is the special role of the laity in the

Church.”51

Civardi cites an interesting and telling quote from Pius XI that shows us what

Catholic Action represents for the laity: “[t]he call to the laity to participate in the

48 Ibid., 49. 49 Ibid. 50 Ibid., 53. 51 Ibid., 54.

46 hierarchic apostolate constitutes a Vocation truly and properly so called.”52 For Pius XI,

Catholic Action establishes a real lay vocation in the world that is distinct from the

activity (moral and technical) of Catholics living in the secular world.

Civardi’s explanation of lay participation in Catholic Action is based on the

conviction that the laity’s lack apostolic powers for their Christian activities. Because the

laity lacks the power to act apostolically in the world they need an extrinsic cause

authorized by Christ to depute them capable of such action by association, in this case the

hierarchy permits the laity to cooperate/participate in Catholic Action via mandate. One

deduces from this explanation that for Civardi there is nothing distinctive being said

about the laity theologically as to their specific state, except that their activity can be

associated with the apostolic power of the hierarchy. Pius XI’s notion of the laity’s

participation in Catholic Action as a proper vocation is also a vocation only through

participation in apostolic powers. Understanding the logic of this position is essential for

understanding the theological creativity and vitality of Congar’s theology of the laity.

Civardi continues his description of the laity’s participation in the hierarchy’s

mission of Catholic Action with an argument that the deputation to participate comes

with an obligation (duty) to participate.53 It is here that Civardi moves from the canonical/juridical description of the laity’s participation in the apostolate to a theological-sacramental account. The laity bears a duty to participate in Catholic Action for the following reasons: 1) it is a Church teaching that all Christians are obligated to labor for the salvation of souls; 2) all Christians are obligated to practice charity toward

God; 3) all Christians are obligated to practice charity toward neighbor. But the Christian

52 Ibid., 56. 53 Ibid., 58-71.

47 duty to participate in the apostolate should not be viewed as an extrinsic call. Rather, the

obligation flows directly from the ontological foundation of Christian existence.

According to Civardi, “the Apostolate is a duty of the Christian life… for it enters into

the obligations arising from baptism.”54 Drawing on the social metaphor of the Church,

Civardi argues for an analogy between our citizenship in that society called the Church, which we receive in baptism, with that of natural political citizenship. In both cases, the citizens are “agents,” that is, they are obligated by the fact of their citizenship to offer some contribution to the collective social life.

Perhaps sensing the social metaphor may fail to overcome an accusation of extrinsicism, Civardi uses the organological metaphor of the Church (vine and branches, mystical Body) to argue that an organism in itself and its parts possesses a unity of life and a capacity for action. The respective parts of the organism, he seems to suggest, are driven by something analogous to obligation to preserve its corporate life. Thus, in the organism, no member is purely passive but possesses in itself some functionality ordered to common good. Which means, “in any organism, [there is] a solidarity of ,”55

with each acting not as isolated individuals but as members of a collective. Obviously,

the analogy in the supernatural realm of the mystical Body of Christ means that every

baptized Christian must live and act for the sake of itself and its fellow members.

Civardi also sees the sacrament of confirmation as revealing more clearly the fact

that Christians by nature possess the duty and obligations for the apostolate. Where

baptism makes us members, confirmation makes us “perfect Christians” and soldiers of

Christ. The effect of the sacrament is an increase of sanctifying grace, which results in a

54 Ibid., 65. 55 Ibid., 66.

48 spiritual maturity that makes us equipped to engage in the spiritual campaign. According

to Civardi, though he is not original here, the effect of confirmation is a capacity and

infusion of grace in order to work on behalf of the Church’s mission: “Christian warfare

is simply the Apostolate, seen under its epic aspect of struggle and sacrifice.”56 In fact,

“[m]any Fathers and Doctors of the Church and theologians teach that the Confirmation is the of the Christian to the apostolate, and a sort of ‘lay priesthood.’”57

In sum, for Civardi, the layperson is definitively an ordinary member of the

Church who lacks the powers of the hierarchical priesthood and the vowed life of

religious vocation. Civardi does not account for any positive characteristics of the lay

state in itself. He offers no description for distinctive lay vocations, neither familial nor

political ones. Rather, the only mentions of the laity engaged in a vocation is through

participation in Catholic Action, which is a participation—in the order of execution, not

powers—in the hierarchical apostolate. He does not conceive of the laity’s participation

solely in terms of fiat, as if the laity could be deputed to worship without the requisite

spiritual transformation caused by the sacramental character. The laity become capable of

receiving and acting on the hierarchical mandate at their baptism and, even more so, at

their confirmation. These sacraments provide the laity the spiritual potentia for engaging

in spiritual combat in the temporal order, of which Catholic Action is a specialized case.

Roland Fournier’s La Theologie de l’Action Catholique (1940)58 Fournier was a theologian-priest of the Society of the of Sulpice

working at the Grand Seminaire de Montreal and the University of Montreal in Canada.

56 Ibid., 67. 57 Ibid. 58Roland Fournier. La Théologie de l’Action catholique. (Montréal: Grand Séminaire, Granger Frères, 1940).

49 The choice of this work is to demonstrate how common and widespread this particular approach to the laity. Fournier’s work is not a manual like Civardi’s, though, like

Civardi’s, it is generally written in the of neo-. In terms of its content, however, Fournier’s La Théologie de l’Action catholique is a studied contrast to Civardi’s text, which is more propagandistic and formulaic and Fournier’s more properly theological and philosophical with hints of contact with the sociological. It is of note, when consulting Fournier’s bibliographic material, that he has consulted the same sources as Congar, even though Congar does not reference this work nor its author. Yet, the value of Fournier’s work for this study in what I think are its conventional features.

An example of this is found in the work’s third part “Les sources vitales de l’Action Catholique,” which explains what he terms the three active principles of

Catholic Action, of which the final principle is the character of confirmation. What makes this work distinguished from other studies of Catholic in its time period is the author’s attempt to root the theology of Catholic Action in the sociality of the human person elevated by grace. For Fournier, the first principle of the theology of Catholic

Action is not the hierarchical mandate but “[l]’aspect social de la grace.” In brief, he argues the human person should not be viewed as an isolated individual but as created with a natural sociality. Therefore, following the principle of grace perfecting, not destroying, nature, the goal of Catholic Action is to elevate what is natural to human nature, which is her sociality. This leads to the conclusion that implementation of

Catholic Action should be vitally connected to the development of Christian and civic community, ultimately perfected by the gift of grace.

50 Briefly, Fournier’s second part, “les deux societes, realisations concretes de ces

fonds sociaux,” concerns the concrete manner in which Catholic Action should operate in

“temporal society”59 and “spiritual society,”60 which is explicated under the rubric of the

mystical Body.61 This leads Fournier to consider the supernatural foundations of the lay

apostolate: the character of confirmation.62 Fournier divides his chapter on the character of confirmation into four sections: the existence and necessity of the character, the nature of the character, the character’s social value, and the social consecration of the confirmed.

In his introduction to his chapters on the character of confirmation Fournier notes that the apostolate of Catholic Action is based on a double consecration for apostolic action.63 The first consecration is the character, which comes from Christ, the Head of the

mystical Body, while the second consecration comes from the Church in the form of the

apostolic mandate. These two should not be viewed as equal in importance,

however one must have priority. It is character that he sees as more basic and therefore

fundamentally different from the mandate. Unlike the mandate, the character is distinct as

a creative act of Christ, which Fournier describes as “positive, real, physical, and placed

in the soul of the activist of Catholic Action.”64

Fournier’s first two chapters on the character concern what it is that makes the

character foundational for the apostolate of Catholic Action.65 In the sacramental

character Fournier sees something analogous to a Thomist or Aristotelian notion of a

59 Ibid., 89-91. 60 Ibid., 91-92. 61 Ibid., 94-98. 62 Ibid., 103-128. 63 Ibid., 101-102. 64 Ibid.,102. 65 Ibid.,103-112. The first chapter concerns the existence and necessity of the character, and the second chapter concerns the nature of the character.

51 “principle of nature,”66 or a faculty or power of the soul but particular to the Christian life. In these two chapters he simply restates the traditional Thomist position on the identity of the sacramental character in the following way. The sacramental character functions in a similar manner in the Christian as a faculty of the soul functions as the permanent source of a given mode of action of particular kind of being.

Following the Thomist-Aristotelian line, Fournier defines a “faculty” as essentially a capacity, ability, or potentiality for performing a certain set of actions. This is significant for Fournier because he defines principles of action as the foundation for social activity. Principles of action are contrasted to the virtues (he assumes a generic

Thomist view of virtues) on the grounds that the virtues are not permanent because they can be lost. Expressed differently, because a virtue is only a stable form of action and not a permanent source of action like a faculty, Fournier distinguishes the virtues as “quasi- principles of action.” This distinction is important for Fournier because of its implications for his analogy between the natural principles of action and those of the order of grace.

The sacramental character of confirmation is a “passivo-active power” analogous to the natural powers of the spiritual soul, Fournier summarizes Aquinas’ position: “[t]he part of this character might be compared with that of the virtue of prudence; It [the character] is also inherent in the practical intellect”—because they too are the source for an elevated, divinized social action. For Fournier, the character of confirmation gives the militant Christian the power to both offer (active) and received (passive) the effects of sacramental worship. The field for the expression of this power received at confirmation, however, is not exclusively liturgical but extends to “all the relations established between

66 Ibid.

52 man and God” because “by this character the faithful receive deputation to sacred acts relative to the present economy of grace.” Just as the natural principles of action make a person capable of thought and free action distinct from that of non-rational animals, so too do the characters effect a spiritual change in the human person, it is a power that strengthens the Christian “making them fit for their new status as militants of the mystical

Body.”67

Fournier’s argument anticipates the objection that even if the sacramental characters, or the specific character of confirmation, were “principles of action” then that is sufficient grounds for building a theology of Catholic Action and an implicit theology of the laity. Do not priests and bishops receive confirmation, and they are not the subjects of Catholic Action even though they are not laity? How does the character of confirmation distinctively define the lay apostolate (or the laity per se)? In sum, for

Fournier the answer lies in the mission, or mandate, of Catholic Action. Catholic Action is the laity’s participation in the hierarchical apostolate in the order of execution (not powers, which is distinct to orders), which is specifically a mission to christianize the social order. Since the social, or secular, order is the place where the laity is competent, then there is almost a natural similitude between the mission and mandate of Catholic

Action and the potentialities of the character of confirmation. In the end Fournier offers no further justification, leaving open the weaknesses of this position.

Theodore Hesburgh, C.S.C., The Theology of Catholic Action (1946)68 Hesburgh’s Theology of Catholic Action presents a U.S. perspective on the layperson viewed in light of Catholic Action. Again, Congar’s awareness of this particular work is not necessary, though from his footnotes he generally kept up to date

67 Ibid., 114. 68 Hesburgh, Theodore, C.S.C. The Theology of Catholic Action (Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 1946).

53 with Catholic theology in the United States, and Hesburgh’s work, which is based on his

S.T.D. thesis at Catholic University, was quite influential in the pre-conciliar period among theologians writing on Catholic Action and the laity. There is overlap between

Congar and Hesburgh in terms of their source material, specifically Hesburgh’s dependence on C.V. Héris OP’s Le Mystère du Christ69. is somewhat significant both because of its important material on the sacramental characters and the fact that Héris was Congar’s professor at the Saulchoir.

The aim of Hesburgh’s dissertation is to ascertain, theologically, the exact manner the laity participate in the hierarchical apostolate, which, he argues, is ultimately through the character of confirmation. The significance of this study, it seems, is it displaces the crux of the apostolate from the mandate to the sacramental mediation of Christ’s

Priesthood, particularly in terms of the res et sacramentum. Like Fournier, and in a lesser way Civardi, Hesburgh’s work aims to redress the lack of theological speculation and positive doctrine on the laity and the apostolate.

The study is divided into three parts: part one contextualizes the lay apostolate within the pontifical documents of popes Pius IX to Pius XI. The second part delineates the manner in which Christ’s Priesthood and Headship mediates the graces of redemption, as taught in Scripture and the . The third and final part is the most relevant to our study, because it concerns how the character mediates a participation in Christ’s Priesthood. Hesburgh’s gives a brief historical overview of the history of the theology of the sacramental characters of baptism and confirmation and opts to follow

Aquinas’ doctrine. The significance of Aquinas’ doctrine for Hesburgh is the Angelic

Doctor’s ability to argue for the character’s permanence using Aristotelian relational

69 English translation: The Mystery of Christ: Our Head, Priest, and King (Westminster: Newman, 1950).

54 categories (i.e., the category of power [potentia] rather than Albert and ’s use of habitus) as well as his ability to argue that the character is an active power. The significance of whether or not the character(s) are active or passive, or passive and active, is predicated on the predominant approach to thematizing ecclesial activity, which was the canonical language of power (potestas) and office (officia). Since the lay state was typically defined in canon law as a lack of sacramental and jurisdictional potestas, it was difficult to ground the lay condition in anything specifically “lay.” Hesburgh’s work, like

Fournier’s, represented an attempt to offer a metaphysical argument for the essence of the lay apostolate, and by implication the laity as such. In some ways his argument is similar to Fournier’s, but is also more fleshed out. The most relevant aspects of Hesburgh’s work is his argument for the connection between the baptismal character and the apostolate and his argument for the connection between the character of confirmation and the apostolate.

Following Aquinas’ Summa theologiae, Hesburgh offers two readings of the baptismal character: interpreted strictly, the baptismal character is a passive power

(potentia) that enables the Christian to receive sacraments licitly and efficaciously; interpreted broadly, the baptismal character, since it occurs simultaneously with the regeneration of the soul, can be understood as an active power (potentia). Also, since baptism is the sign and cause of incorporation into full membership in the mystical Body of Christ (that is, the beginning of Christian existence), then the baptismal character can technically be viewed as the foundation of the lay apostolate. The reason this is so,

Hesburgh argues, is because the baptized faithful receive in the baptismal character a share in the obligation to live the Christian life and serve Christ through our vocations.

Yet, the obligation to a life of piety is not supererogatory service to Christ’s mystical

55 Body, but an inherent feature of the consecration received through baptism. From a slightly different perspective, the baptismal character can be viewed as the foundation of the lay apostolate when viewed in light of the theology of the mystical Body. In the mystical Body of Christ, the baptized are incorporated, through the baptismal character, into a society of members that are joined together in service to each other—including those only potentially incorporated into the Body. Seen in this light, the baptized faithful are not isolated monads—modern individuals—but already social beings, immediately on birth related to Head and members.

According to Hesburgh, the character of confirmation, on the other hand, is viewed by Aquinas and the common tradition as primarily a positive power that “has an integral part in the life of the Christian layman [sic].” The character of confirmation is not necessarily viewed as “a consecration merely to give or receive the things pertaining to cult.” Rather, following Aquinas, the sacrament’s unique effects are concerned with spiritual maturity, or a “fullness of the Christian life which looks to the activity of social responsibility in the Body of Christ.” Hesburgh notes that in Aquinas there is a broad connection between confirmation “as perfecting the soul in those things which pertain to the cult of God according to the rite of the Christian life” and the practice of the virtue of religion. While religion in its strictest practice is a moral virtue concerned to make the most fitting offering to worship, in its broader meaning—at least for Aquinas—it can refer to the “living of the truth [of faith] in daily life.” Hesburgh puts it more succinctly:

Confirmation on the other hand [when compared to baptism] expands his Christian life to its fullness, and directs this life outward to the benefits of others, especially through the apostolic mediation of truth. And all this is not a passing phase in the Christian life, but a permanent consecration to a participation in the

56 twofold mediation of Christ’s priesthood, continued in the Ora and Labora of the Church’s life of cult, or divine service of God.70

In terms of the power (potentia) of the character of confirmation, Hesburgh notes

it is also both passive and active.71 The character is passive in the sense that it “accounts

for the greater receptivity of the confirmed to receive the sacramental influx of grace.”72

The passive power of the character of confirmation brings the Christian to the fullness of

the Christian life, “and it is from this fullness that the Christian acts.”73

The active power of the character of confirmation is primarily “ordained to the

public profession of the Christian faith.”74 All the baptized are obligated to profess the

faith, but the confirmed are especially deputed (ex officio) to profess the Christian faith in

a public manner. The nature of this public profession is a positive presentation of the faith

that Aquinas compares to “the greatest active power in the Church that conferred on the

ordained priests by the character of .”75 The character of confirmation,

however, does depute the maturing Christian to teach the faith authoritatively as the

ordered do, but rather in a practical manner, which Hesburgh does not specify here. In

conclusion, for Hesburgh the laity’s participation in the Church’s mission— particularly

through participation in Catholic Action, which is collaboration in the hierarchical

apostolate— is properly viewed through the character of confirmation. Like Fournier,

Hesburgh sees a fitting connection between the social aspects of confirmation and the mission of the lay apostolate, especially as envisioned in Catholic Action. In sum,

70 Hesburgh, 174-175. 71 Ibid., 176-183. 72 Ibid., 178. 73 Ibid. 74 Ibid. 75 Ibid., 180.

57 Hesburgh claims to offer a definitive definition or description of the laity, but he also sees the laity’s ecclesial identity as definitively structured and directed by the characters of baptism and confirmation.

Conclusion This chapter argues that the central concept of Congar’s Jalons pour une théologie du laïcat— the adaptation of the triplex munera to the laity as a corrective to a theology of the laity based on the characters of baptism and confirmation—has Pius XI’s notion of social munera as its deep background. The flexibility of the category munus gave Pius XI a way to account for fundamental social relations—i.e., fatherhood, motherhood, family, employer-employee—in the context of liberalism without having to necessarily to pre-modern political forms that often reified social relations. Pius

XI’s notion of social munera gives an account of certain necessary pre-political relationships without negating the benefits of social mobility and the need for freedom to discern vocation and occupation.

This chapter argues that Pius XI’s thematization of munus in the mid-1900s was especially useful for Yves Congar’s theology of the laity in that it provides a way to positively account for the unique situation of the laity as a social group in the ecclesia and in the world. The notion that the laity truly participates in Christ’s triplex munera through their vocations, social and political roles, etc. gives Congar’s account of the laity a more positive basis than either a negative definitions (i.e., the laity are not those who are neither priests or religious), or the theological descriptions of the laity offered by

Catholic Action theologians such as Civardi, Fournier, and Hesburgh, which base the

58 definition or description of the laity on the sacramental characters of baptism and confirmation.

Congar frames his theology of the laity in a historical and theological context that challenges the Enlightenment presuppositions of the French Revolution, specifically an individualist anthropology, which views human sociality as a matter of volition rather than something rooted in the order of rational life and even creation itself. Congar’s theology of the laity presupposes an analogy between the laity as a social group that fits in the ecclesial body as members, each member with his own role(s) fulfill, and the notion that citizens fit in the social body, each with his own role(s) to fulfill. It is

Congar’s organological view of social bodies that undergirds his usage of the triplex munera, and it is this same organological view of society that is lost or rejected in

Congar’s U.S. reception.

59 CHAPTER TWO

CONGAR’S THEOLOGY OF THE LAITY: JALONS POUR UNE THÉOLOGIE DU

LAÏCAT76

This chapter gives a careful re-presentation of Congar’s theology of the laity as

found in his monumental work Jalons pour une théologie du laïcat. The broader purpose

of a re-presentation is to provide a framework for viewing the U.S. Catholic reception of

Congar’s theology of the laity. Usage of Congar’s work on the laity in the U.S. reception

is ad hoc and rarely systematic in its restatement of Congar’s work. It is useful, then, to

know the various aspects/themes from Congar’s work that the U.S. theologians

appropriated for their constructive projects, as well as what they ignored and

overlooked.77 In fact, it is the claim of this dissertation that despite the prominence of

Congar’s themes and work in the work of the majority of the U.S. theologians considered

below, the U.S. reception is marked by a consistent neglect, or perhaps even rejection, of

the central constructive claim of Jalons, which is the adaptation of the triplex munera to the laity as foundational to lay identity. This chapter will treat the essential contributions

76Jalons pour la théologie laïcat was first published in 1953 (Paris: du Cerf), followed by a second (Paris: Cerf, 1954) and third edition (Paris: Cerf, 1964). The English translation, Lay People in the Church, was published in 1957 (London: Bloomsbury Publishing) with a second edition published in 1965, which was reissued in 1985 (London: Geoffrey Chapman). The difference between the first and second editions in English are the addendums at the end of each chapter, there is no new translations made in the second edition. For this study the English quotations come from the second edition. 77 One important note, this chapter does not offer a historical reconstruction of the development of Congar’s theological vision of the laity, but a theological exegesis of his doctrinal and practical themes in Jalons alone.

60 and themes of Congar’s theology of the laity in Jalons pour la théologie laïcat, which isdivided into the following five sections: 1) his definition of the laity, 2) positioning the theology of the laity within the history of ecclesiology, the Church-world relationship, and the Church-Kingdom dynamic, 3) the central constructive claim of the work: his adaptation/application of the triplex munera to the laity, 4) the apostolicity and spirituality of the laity in a communion ecclesiology, and 5) the laity and the Church’s apostolic function.78

General Introduction to Jalons pour une théologie du laïcat: Historical and Theological Context Historical Context Congar’s total theology of the laity, broadly speaking, was formulated over an extensive period of time: approximately 1935 to 1972. Arguably, Jalons pour une théologie du laïcat (1953) [hereafter Jalons] stands alone as Congar’s representative work on the laity, especially in terms of the research agenda it set. Throughout his career,

Congar would return to this work defensively, constructively, and critically. Jalons remains definitive for Congar’s theology of the laity, despite critiques of its continuing importance to our present context or Congar’s later theology of ministries.

78 Justification for these chapters is made evident by the fact that there are no English language studies of Congar’s theology of the laity that aim for a comprehensive representation of his thought on this topic. Instead, most studies fit into one of two categories, 1) those that focus in on a particular aspect of Congar theology of the laity because it fits within the limitations of particular interpretive lens (Groppe views his work of the laity through the lens of the Holy Spirit; MacDonald through the lens of the structure/life binomial, etc.), or 2) those that narrow their focus on specific aspect because of the boundaries of genre (Nichols’ book is introductory and a survey of Congar’s thought in general; A.N. Williams’ essay is a retrospective sketch: Fiorenza’s sketch is too brief). The only study that aims to give a historical reconstruction of Congar’s theology of the laity is Part One of a Spanish language study by the Opus Dei priest Ramiro Pellitero, La Teologia del Laicado en la Obra de Yves Congar (1995). The difference between that study and this one is the mode of examination. Pellitero aims to reconstruct the historical and intellectual development of Congar’s thought in three parts as prelude to an evaluative exam of its theological content. His study is an exercise in historical theology with the aim of representing Congar’s development in realistic terms for the purpose of retrieving Congar’s theology for the present. This chapter is also an exercise in historical theology for the purpose of tracing its reception history.

61 Most Catholic and Protestant theologians consider Jalons pour une théologie du

laïcat to be a classic text in the theology of the laity. While this is arguably true, it could

be argued that a classic text like Jalons is best understood, or at least more clearly

understood, when it is framed within its unique historical horizon and seen in light of the

particular questions of his thought-age.

If that is so, it is hugely informative for our purposes that Jalons was written

during a period of unprecedented lay involvement in the Church in France at the end of

the Third Republic and the beginning of the Fourth Republic, with increased attention

given to the effects of consumerism and capitalism on the social question and

associational life. Congar himself recognized this fact when he self-consciously situated

his work within the period of 1850 to 1953. According to Congar, this was a historical

period where Catholics gradually recognized or rediscovered the laity’s role in the

Church and world within a European context focused on social reconstruction.79

More broadly, this period from 1850 to 1953 includes the development of various

lay movements, most prominently Catholic Action, the liturgical movement, and the

missionary movement within European Catholicism. This period was also marked by a

renewal in the theology and spirituality of marriage as well as a growing awareness of the

dignity and demands of “Christian obligation.” From the magisterial perspective, the

directives of Pius XI and Pius XII’s on lay participation in the hierarchical apostolate reveal a growing awareness of the laity’s vital place in the Church’s mission.

79 Lay People in the Church, Introduction.

62 Theological Context Part of Jalons achievement is its significant thematization and construction of a theology of the laity according to the divisions of Catholic theology. The work’s structure merits a brief overview because it is composed of a mixture of theological genres. It is a massive work (the English translation is almost 500 pages, the French second edition is more than 700 pages) divided into two parts, composed of nine chapters. The structure of the text suggests a movement from historical presentation to synthetic construction. For

example, the first three chapters define the topic of study conceptually, historically, and

scientifically in terms of its locus in theological science. (It is notable that nowhere in his

later career does Congar criticize his historicizing of the question of the laity, nor his

situating the laity theologically in terms of Christology, ecclesiology, and anthropology,

yet he does criticize his attempt at definition of the term.) In contrast, the second part of

the book is, broadly speaking, a constructive proposal of a theological vision of the laity

based on the triplex munera, communion ecclesiology, the laity’s participation in

Catholic Action, and the spirituality of the lay vocation.

Congar’s Jalons takes theological aim at 1) a pessimistic and negative notion of the laity’s place in the Church, and 2) an inadequate theological response to increased lay involvement in ecclesial and social life related to Christian inculturation. In his introduction to Jalons, he refers to a Catholic Truth Society pamphlet written by Cardinal

Aidan Gasquet, who summarily defines the position of the laity as one of subordination and passivity in ecclesial matters, which Congar baldly states, “[i]n a sense that is still so, and always will be so.” The caveat he offers, however, is that in the future the laity will express their subordination and receptivity in another mode and with a different feeling about their position than in the past. Drawing on an analogy between the situation of the

63 laity and that of the proletariat, Congar gestures toward a solution to the laity’s dilemma in a renewed understanding of the organological vision of the Church. Just as a proletarian is made to be subordinate, not by nature but by alienation from active membership and rights in the social organism, in a similar manner the layperson must become conscious of being active members, with requisite rights, of the Mystical Body.

Congar's pessimism stems from what he sees as an inadequate theological response to increased lay involvement. Advances in lay involvement make it clear that the laity need a theology of the laity to match their situation. The gap to be filled was not due to a lack of quality works on the laity, Congar avers, but from the fact that the laity desired more reflection of the laity as such. Part of the problem seems to have been an assumption that laity’s role can only be addressed by canon law, which at that point represented the laity in terms suggesting they were the passive objects of the clergy’s ministry. But an amended Code of Canon Law, Congar says, is beside the point; canon law is not the place to find the needed answers to questions about the nature, purpose, and function of the laity. In fact, canon law is principally concerned with matters of sacramental cultus and is the provenance of priests, and so, he argues, it is unfitting to build a theology of the laity as if it were simply an addendum to canon law. Yet other available options are just as untenable. For instance, Congar criticizes the medieval comparison of the “two parts” of the Christian body – sacerdotal and lay – as an inadequate answer to the contemporary situation because it reduces the laity role to purely secular tasks. Either option fails to address the issues at stake in the theology of the laity, which Congar sees as: the Church/world relationship, an updated pastoral

64 theology, the Christian meaning of history, and a theological understanding of terrestrial

realities.

The only solution, then, is to develop a theology of the laity situated somewhere

between the canonical view, with its concern for sacred tasks, and the secular field of

social and political, with its concerns for secular tasks. This leads Congar to his famous

claim that the real problem is the lack of a “whole ecclesiological synthesis” that covers

the space between terrestrial realities and the liturgy. In such a “total ecclesiology” the

theology of the laity, “laicology,” would play an essential rather than extrinsic part. With

that said, Congar avers that Jalons will not be the “total ecclesiology” but rather a signpost or guide towards it. In terms of what he does set out to accomplish, Congar aims to produce a work avoiding any temptation to construct a dualism between the laity and the hierarchy. Instead, Congar sets out to show the connection between the “life” of the

Church and the “structure” of the Church in a way that shows the fullness of the apostolic

Church. If the Church boldly embraces this reconnection of “life” and “structure” Congar she will experience “a new spring,” perhaps a “vigil of .”80

Theme 1: Theological Definition of “Laity” In the reception history of Congar’s theology of the laity, Congar’s definition of

the laity stands out as the most controversial and debated aspect of his early work.

Congar himself was self-critical of his early definition in the 1953 edition of Jalons,

which he addressed in the 1964 additions to Jalons as well as in his famous 1972 essay

80 Yves Congar, Lay People in the Church: A Study for a Theology of the Laity, Revised Edition with Additions by the Author, Trans. by Donald Attwater, (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1985): xix.

65 “My Path-Findings in the Theology of Laity and Ministries.”81 In a certain sense

Congar’s definition of the laity remains his boldest venture in the theology of the laity

because he aims to demonstrate that lay/cleric is not hopelessly oppositional but can be

viewed as connected and complementary. He attempted to trace in Scripture and theology

foundations for a more positive relationship between lay/cleric in order to suggest that the

binary is not necessary.

Semantic Background and Congar’s Mistaken Interpretation Congar initially attempted to theologically construct his more positive and

relational definition of laity on the biblical notion of the people of God. He viewed the

adjective laikos under the semantic domain of laos, to show it refers already to a

condition of where all persons are viewed in light of consecration. He argued that laikos

(laity) is distinct from ethnos, which refers theologically to the unconsecrated non-Jewish peoples. In the first edition of Jalons, Congar postulated, perhaps even claimed, that the

Christian usage for the first four centuries continued to carry Jewish theological connotations. He later abandoned this theological construct because of its lack of historical support in biblical and patristic texts. In the reception history of his theology of the laity, this feature of Congar’s definition of the laity is heavily criticized.82 In fact, he

himself acknowledged his claims do not match the historical record in the 1964 edition of

Jalons and in “My Path-Findings.”83

81 Yves Congar, “My Path-Findings in the Theology of Laity and Ministries,” The Jurist, XXXII (1971), 169-188. 82 For an early critique of Congar’s attempt to define “laikos” as a positive term, see Ignace de la Pottiere, S.J., “The Origin and Basic Meaning of the Word ‘Lay’,” in The Christian Lives by the Spirit, Alba House, 1976. This article first appeared in 1958 in Nouvelle Revue de Theologie, pp. 840-853. 83 “My Path-Findings in the Theology of Laity and Ministries,” The Jurist, XXXII (1971): 186-188.

66 The Monastic Definition of “Laity” Unable to find sufficient theological-historical grounds to define laikos positively in light of the people of God, Congar’s definition moves forward to consider the reality that the early Christians viewed the category of “laity” or “lay” as an oppositional term to clericature. Congar notes that he is unable to base his definition in the New Testament because a formal distinction of a laity is not clearly present. The first notion of distinct group called “laity” is found in Clement of ’s Corinthian letter, written near the end of the first century. Clement’s letter introduces an oppositional binary ‘cleric/lay,’ in order to indicate a structural distinction within the consecrated laos. Congar notes that this binary is not unique to Clement, but became a common feature of other Church

Fathers’ understanding of the Church. By the fourth century, with the advent of structured monasticism, this simple binary notion of a laity was complicated by the development of a third term, “,” which would serve to further categorize “laity” in oppositional terms. In sum, under this monastic view, the life of ordinary lay people was defined negatively as a concession and compromise to human weakness.

“Laity” as an ecclesial state or condition For Congar, the addition of the category of monk added a dimension to the structure and life of the Church, which immediately impacted the definition and meaning of the theological category of the laity. Monasticism inflected patristic ‘ecclesiology’ with a precision in the common notion of the Christian life:

If the distinction between clergy and laity is essential in the Church’s structure and life, her permanent pattern includes a distinction between three states or conditions, lay, clerical, monastic.84

84 Congar, Lay People, 6.

67 The introduction of three categories into our understanding of how the Church’s life is

permanently patterned in history immediately affected the meaning of the category of

“laity.”

In order to understand more clearly how monasticism would further specify the

meaning of “laity,” Congar introduces a distinction between a “condition/way of life/state

of life” (“forme de vie”) and an “office/function” (Latin: officio/munus).85 The

theological and historical purpose of these categories is to describe specific modalities of

the Christian form of life that begin to emerge after the introduction of monasticism to

the normative life of Christian people.

For Congar, the introduction of monasticism into the pattern of ecclesial life

specified the notion of the lay condition as the basic condition of the life of a Christian,

which would apply to all who call themselves Christian, inclusive of clerics, religious,

and monastic. This became the standard, exclusive definition of the laity, prior to

Congar’s writing, through which the Church viewed the category “laity.” This means the

laity qua laity were not viewed as possessing a Christian officio or munus (with the exception of lay elites, i.e., the king, who were viewed in many pre-modern societies as

possessing privileges accorded to them by God and nature).

In contrast, the definition of the monasticism is not as a basic ecclesial condition,

but is distinct from the other two. The specific distinction is it was viewed as a condition

of life defined by a radical renunciation of the world, aimed at working out one’s

salvation in a manner analogous to “heavenly or angelic life, the life of the Kingdom that

is not of this world.” According to Congar, monasticism by definition is to be removed

85 Congar’s definition of laity, and his theology of the laity and his later theology of ministries, consistently utilized the subtle, typically ambiguous, distinction between officio (office) and function (munus) that is operative in Catholic theology and canon law.

68 from the normative experience of the world of officio. Congar notes that, at least formally, the monk qua monk does not possess an office/function in the Church or society, but is defined exclusively by a state of life.

The clerical condition, on the other hand, is defined especially by an office/function, situated in liturgical service. Eventually, and perhaps very early in church history, the monastic life and the ‘clericature’ would assimilate, with taking holy orders or serving in the diaconate. This ambiguity between clericature and the monastic state would eventually reduce the triple pattern of Christian life into “a double division into men of religion and men of the world,”86 which Congar views as tantamount to setting up a duality between clerics and the laity. This leads to Congar’s insistence that we need a better definition of the laity that does not result in a dualism of cleric/laity.

Congar’s constructive proposal is to examine both distinctions as two complementary approaches (the monastic notion of the laity focused on “way of life,” and the canonical notion focused on officio/function) that can be assimilated into a definition of “laity.”

Congar’s Critique of the Monastic View of the Laity In the early medieval period, the notion of a monastic view of the lay condition as a “way of life” referred formally to the monastic life of the non-ordained religious or even those lay people that were part of the apostolic movements of the 12th century. It did not refer directly to the situation of most Christian lay people who live in the world.

In a certain sense it encouraged “a twofold division of Christians into lay people on one

86 Ibid., 9.

69 side, and monks and clerics on the other” that we already find in Gratian’s text “Duo sunt genera christianorum.”87

Once again, under this monastic view, the life of ordinary lay people was defined negatively as a concession and compromise to human weakness. Congar notes that this negative definition was mitigated by the medieval understanding of Church-state relations:

Church and society formed a single body, in which two powers are operative and two lives are led, somewhat as a man’s body has a right side and a left side.88

In this social, ecclesial vision, clerics and laity represented two orders (ordres), two sovereignties, two states of life, unified in the one respublica christiana. The secular realm was the domain of the laity, while the liturgy was the place of the clerics and monks.

But this picture of a socially and religiously united respublica christiana would be challenged by anti-hierarchical currents in the 14th and 15th centuries, which would transpose the two-sided (social-ecclesial) body into two separated bodies, “each with its own head, of one side the emperor or king, of the other the pope, and later on a head for each country.” In theological terms this turn of events led to two extreme views that would negatively impact the definition of the laity. On one extreme, theologically speaking ecclesiology defined clerically and structurally, something Congar termed a

“hierarchology.” On the other extreme, the Church was defined exclusively in terms of its

“life” (Congar’s term), abstracted from the “structural” or hierarchical principle. In the end, the monastic definition of the laity was incapable of accounting for the ecclesial life

87 Ibid., 11. 88 Congar, Lay People, 13

70 and sanctity of the laity in positive terms and was undone by the dualism introduced by the anti-hierarchical movement, which would reinforce an oppositional relationship between clergy and laity. This oppositional relationship sapped from the monastic category of “laity” any positive theological content. To be clear, Congar is not rejecting the monastic definition of the category of “laity” wholesale, but historicizing it in order to retrieve from it positive data for his definition.

Congar Assimilation and Critique of the Canonical Definition of the Laity Congar situates the canonical/juridical notion of the laity in Bonaventure’s treatment of the connection between the sacramental characters and officio/function. The sacramental characters distinguish between states of life (“Baptism distinguished the faithful from the non-faithful, among the faithful, confirmation denotes the strong… the cleric is distinguished from the layman as having a charge [charge], not only of living by faith and upholding it, but of imparting it.”), but when it comes to the cleric/laity distinction, the layman, who has received the characters imparted at baptism and confirmation, is differentiated from cleric by his role (“fonction”) rather than “way of life” (“forme de vie”). Bonaventure shifts the emphasis from the monastic definition of the lay condition—a differentiation based on degrees of holiness—to the nature of one’s

“preoccupations,” i.e., social or ecclesial role. He compares and contrasts the layperson’s care for children with the cleric’s function. Childbearing is not described by Bonaventure as a concession to weakness, but implicitly a part of the lay function, whereas child- rearing is not “right or proper” to the cleric’s officio/function as a . Congar suggests approval of viewing clericature as an office, function, and a competence, over against as a state of life, and see in Bonaventure’s view something “sociologically and

71 culturally much nearer our own.” His approval of officio/function is applied more concretely to the definition of the laity. This is not to say that Congar is finished defining the laity, since in his view even the canonical definition supplied by Bonaventure is still negative, since it defines the layperson exclusively from the clerical perspective of canon law.

Synthesis of Monastic and Canonical Notions of the Laity for a Definition, or Description, of Laity Congar constructive work is to synthesize the monastic and canonical notions of the laity into two “approximations,”89 which provide an outline of the characteristics of the lay condition. In a re-description of the monastic notion, Congar describes lay people as members of the people of God who are directly ordered by their lay state to heavenly things as their final end. It is inaccurate, Congar argues, to describe the direction of the lay state as temporal/earthly as laity is a theological category. It is more theologically accurate to say the end of the laity’s life and function is ultimately eschatological. This is due to the fact that the laity’s activities in the secular world are not reducible to this- worldly ends but are, more profoundly, participations in the Church’s inheritance of eternal life. Thus, we can distinguish between the lay state as heaven-bound from the lay function and competence, which is directed to the terrestrial: “Lay people are Christians in the world, there to do God’s work in so far as it must be done in and through the work of the world.”90

89 Ibid., 18. 90 Ibid., 19.

72 The difference between state and function, in terms of the laity’s life of faith, is

not a dualism but a duality based on complementarity, or binomial.91 This point is quite

significant for Congar’s work on the laity and his later work on ministries. For example,

Congar insists the laity themselves and their contribution to divine work are both

essential to (not merely a participation in) the Church’s mission. This agrees with the

broader ecclesiological notion of unity wherein the laity works together with clerics and

monks in order that Christ’s Kingdom reach its fullness. The laity’s work is not a

remainder, since for the Church to complete her mission “the Church has to have laity,

faithful who do the work of the world and reach their last end in dedication to that work.”92 This means that for Congar the Church’s mission is not exclusively a spiritual reality, but is more precisely viewed as essentially restorative of the created order itself, which is the material context of the laity’s work.

Congar’s “second approximation” aims to modify the canonical view of the laity in less negative terms and as someone in express opposition to the cleric, in order to provide a clear definition of the laity. If there is something particularly unique in our understanding of the laity, then it will have some quality or qualities that distinguish it.

For Congar, this uniqueness of the layperson might be found in his or her uniquely secular function and competencies.

“Secular” or “laicity” is differentiated by Congar from “secularism” or “laicism.”

Laicity is interest in the secular for its own sake, or on its own terms, while laicism or secularism is a philosophy that presupposes atheism. One way, then, to distinguish the laity’s function is to describe their interests within secular affairs as an interest in the

91 Ibid. 92 Ibid.

73 world for its own sake. Congar illustrates this claim by appeal to a distinction made by St.

Thomas Aquinas in his Scriptum on Lombard’s Sentences and his own Summa Contra

Gentiles. Aquinas’ distinguishes between a philosopher and the fidelis. The philosopher,

Aquinas claims, is distinguished by interest in the nature of things for their own sake,

while the fidelis do not study substances in se, but are solely concerned to find their meaning and transcendent referent. For Congar, this distinction is applicable to a theological definition of “laity" because it describes what is unique in the laity’s and function in the Church’s mission. In this example the philosopher is the one representative, in Congar’s view, of the lay perspective, while the fidelis represents the clerical view.93 Both perspectives are necessary for the Church’s mission but not sufficient, meaning they are incomplete in themselves.

Congar concludes his definition of “laity” by noting how the historical marriage

of the Church and western civilization up to that point created the social, political, and

religious conditions that led to the subordination and of the medieval valuation

of secularity for its own sake. Thus, the enduring risk of an exclusively clerical view

(fidelis), where there is “a loss of respect for the true inwardness of things” and a possibility of forgetting to consider the proper nature and needs of things in themselves, is a real danger to the recovery of a vision of the laity’s condition of life and secular function. In a word, an exclusively clerical view risks reducing things, even the laity who are persons, to “mere means” and therefore neglecting them the justice they are due as creatures. In a clever turn of phrase, while acknowledging a certain degree of legitimacy in modern secularism’s rejection of the clerical vision, Congar notes,

93 In terms of the historical value of this distinction, Congar references the “Albertino-Thomist revolution,” a term undefined at this point, and the modern phenomenon of “laicism,” presumably the French sort, as historical movements that exemplify the philosopher’s perspective.

74 It was against the confiscation of the internal truth of second causes by the First Cause that modern laicism rebelled; fundamentally it was a movement to recapture rights in second causes, that is, in earthly things. The various priesthoods of second causes rose against the alienation of their domain into the hands of the priesthood of the First Cause.94

With the risk of a one-sided clerical view in mind, Congar offers up ’

genius as the “guide” to a positive description of the laity, a description that refuses to

absorb the lay in the clerical, but sets them in relation to each other, each in their own

integrity. It is under the influence of this guide that Congar describes the laity as

the one for whom things exist, for whom their truth is not as it were swallowed up and destroyed by a higher reference. For to him or her, Christianly speaking, that which is to be referred to the Absolute is the very reality of the elements of this world whose outward form passes away.95

Theme 2: Positioning the Theology of the Laity: The History of Ecclesiology; The Church-World Relationship and the Church-Kingdom Dynamic The second theme is broadly concerned with situating the theology of the laity

within the broader context of the history of ecclesiology, the church-world relationship,

and the Church-Kingdom dynamic. We will deal with each aspect in order. The first thing

to note is that the theology of the laity is subordinate to the study of ecclesiology, which

means the theology of the laity is directly impacted by developments in ecclesiology.

This means a complete study of the laity must take into account the historical

developments in ecclesiology.

Positioning the Theology of the Laity as a Subdivision of Ecclesiology: Conceptualization of the Balance between Fellowship and Hierarchy Congar’s contextualization of the theology of the laity within ecclesiology begins

with conceptual markers defining the Church as composed of two basic aspects: the

94 Ibid., 21-22. 95 Ibid., 24. There is similarity between Congar’s position here and Gaudium et Spes’ account of the autonomy of the secular.

75 hierarchical aspect and the fellowship aspect.96 The Church is ultimately a fellowship

between God and those in Christ as well as a fellowship between Christ’s people (i.e., the

fellowship aspect). Yet the Church’s identity essentially includes the means to this

fellowship (i.e., the hierarchical aspect). The character of the fellowship aspect means

those “in Christ Jesus” are not merely an aggregate of individuals, but it is rather a group

(collectivite) person, God’s unified people. Congar draws from the “people” analogy a comparison between the bond of fellowship that makes up the Church and the bond of fellowship that makes up a nation of citizens. For Congar, this analogy is demonstrated in

early Christian and non-Christian usage of ecclesia and is also honored by the biblical data, early scholastic theologies as well as that of the schools, whose ecclesiological vocabulary suggests even a “corporative ideology.”97

The hierarchical aspect is also “at the heart of the ecclesial reality” and radically

distinguishes the Church’s sociological structure from that of other societies.98 Congar’s argument is that purely human societies cannot exist prior to incorporating members from pre-political groups like the family. The Church, on the other hand, pre-exists its members in order to “constitute them...as their mother.”99

Congar argues that the Church’s pre-existence is twofold: in the mind of God via , and within Christ’s human nature, virtually. In fact, all the properties and energies100 needed for the Church’s structuring aspect is rooted in Christ’s nascent triplex

96 Ibid., 28-29. 97 Ibid., 29. 98 Ibid. 99 Ibid., 30. 100 Congar uses the term “energies” in Jalons and some of his later essays on ministries. It is likely drawn either drawn from Aristotle’s notion of work (ergon in Greek; opus in Latin) or from Eastern Orthodox Palamite trinitarian theology, both of which, arguably, carry the same meaning. In either case, Congar’s usage of “energies” is drawn from his Christology, particularly as expressions of Christ’s triplex munera, and is subsequently adapted to the Christ-like deeds of the Church.

76 munera. The Church pre-existed in the mind of Christ in an analogous fashion to the way

the common good of a people pre-exists in the mind of the (idealized) king. The Church’s existence paralleled the actualization of Christ’s messianic mission: the messianic community was born with the establishment of the teachings, worship, and institutions of the new alliance built in her constitution. In sum, Congar argues that the institutional/hierarchical aspect of the Church is not extrinsic and accidental to the

Church’s mission, but directly flow from God’s plan to mediate divine truth via “a humanization of his action.”101

The Balance of Patristic Ecclesiology: Corporatist Unity vs Roman Absolutism Next, Congar contrasts patristic views of ecclesiology with views contemporary

to his own time. He claims the Church Fathers tend to view the Church’s two aspects as a

unified whole that should not be opposed to each other. Drawing from the thought of Otto

von Gierke and Pius XI’s Mystici Corporis,102 Congar attributes the Fathers ability to

maintain a unitary view of the two aspects to their corporative understanding of social

unity. He contrasts the Fathers’ view with the absolutist position of imperial Rome.

Where the absolutist view claims that social unity is maintained by the sovereign power

exercising power over a given territory, imposing a uniform system and ruling the life of

the whole body, the corporative perspective describes social unity as a product of diverse

parts relating together with a spiritual principle of order.

Congar understands Pius XI’s corporative principle of subsidiarity having an

ecclesial basis:

101 Ibid., 32. 102 See Mystici Corporis, sec. 17.

77 the Church was traditionally considered as a body organized and built together at each level of its being, whose total unity was assured by this adhesion to God which faith effects in a deeply realistic way.103 [emphasis added]

This organized and unified life was occasionally concretely expressed from the 10th to

12th century

by a whole graduated and hierarchically-organized system of councils, by which each community itself regulated its daily life in accordance with custom and traditional principles.” This was also the backdrop for the development of the theory of conciliar collegiality.104

According to Congar, the modern absolutism in the 15th and 16th centuries renewed the

vision of Roman absolutism and had a significant impact on how canonists and

theologians structured their de Ecclesia treatises. These works tended to distort the

balanced corporatist view of the patristic and scholastic eras, skewing focus on the

hierarchical aspect over the communal.

The Social Significance of Fidelis for Ecclesiology and the Notion of Laity The balance between the “society of the faithful” aspect of the Church and the hierarchical aspect during the eras of the Fathers and the medieval theologians is more clearly understood when examining the notion of the fidelis as part of the traditional

definition of the Church as societas fidelium. Congar claims that fidelis carried a

sociological and religious significance in the pre-modern . “Faithfulness,”

he argues, has social connotations, particularly as a principle of social agreement.

Faithfulness also evokes a sense of social cohesion or unity, without separating it from

the ecclesial and sacramental dimensions of Christian life. The social, mediatorial nature

of being a member of the faithful is lost in a world

103 Lay People in the Church, 34. 104 Ibid., 35.

78 that is desacralized, individualistic, analytical and academic, a world in which ideas are investigated for their own sake and easily separated from their signs or their sensible embodiments.105

Congar suggests the context of these inflections of fidelis to be the sacralized and

corporative culture of medieval Christendom, where there was no trace of modern

notions of individualism and disembodied rationalism.

The Lost Balance of Patristic and Medieval Corporatist Ecclesiology: The Communal Movement and the Anti-Hierarchical Movement This patristic and medieval synthesis of the two aspects was eventually obscured, perhaps lost, by social, political, and theological trends in the late medieval and early modern periods of European history. This directly impacted the way theologians depicted the laity theologically. Congar attributes the disjunction of the patristic and medieval synthesis to two diverse theological movements in late-medieval Europe, which he calls

the “anti-hierarchical spiritual movement” and the “communal movement.”

In terms of the origins of these movements, Congar postulates the “anti-

hierarchical spiritual movement” can be traced to a revivified Donatism, coupled with an

individualistic view of salvation, though the exact origins are difficult to pinpoint

chronologically. The origins of the “communal movement” are equally difficult to trace,

though he argues its sources are more likely economic, political, and social rather than

theological. For Congar, the impact of the communal movement on ecclesiology was

more a matter of its physical proximity to the life of the late-medieval Church than to the

direct influence of theologians or canonists. For example, Congar sees complications in

church-state relations (Boniface VIII and Philip the Fair; King Louis II and John XXII;

105 Ibid., 36.

79 the theo-political aftermath of the Protestant ) as the remote context for the development of the communal view of the Church. For instance, Congar claims the theological opponents of John XXII (Marsiglio of Padua, John of Janduno, and ) “developed a purely individualist and representative theory of the

Church,”106 which ignored or rejected the hierarchical aspect as well as the traditional corporativist view of the Fathers and early medieval schoolmen for socio-political reasons.

While these theorists seemed to be driven by a critique of the hierarchical aspect, there was concurrently an effective loss of the corporative vision, which led to a leveling of the cleric/lay distinction to the point that there was nothing necessarily unifying individual Christians. The conciliar theories of the 14th and 15th centuries were not driven by a nominalist individualism but by a vision of a unification of clerical and state power in order to relativize the authority of the papacy. For Congar, the central issue, formulated in light of the Great Schism, was concern for the reform of authority, specifically the question of where authority lay at a time of crisis: pope, council, or the whole Church, lay, religious, and clerical.

For Congar, the French Catholic Gallican tradition is also situated within the conciliar tradition and discussed as an example of an overemphasis on the Church pole— he says the Gallicanism of French priests was clerical, while the Gallicanism of bishops was episcopal. But in Congar’s view it is the ecclesiology of the magisterial Reformers that is most one-sided and off balance.

106 Ibid., 40.

80 Ecclesiology Without Balance: Protestant Ecclesiology and Counter-Reform Polemical Ecclesiology Focused on the (Rejection of) Power of Jurisdiction The ecclesiological errors of the 14th through 17th centuries “all represent a tendency in the same direction.” The tendency of these errors was to view the church exclusively under the associational aspect since it features the active part of the members.

The hierarchical aspect was either questioned or disregarded, which led to a reaction by the hierarchy. In this situation, conflict led to the formal development of theological treatises on de Ecclesia, which began at the start of the 14th century. The first formal theological and canonical treatises on the Church were primarily about the Church’s governance, power, and/or authority, though Congar claims these studies were not exclusively one-sided. According to Congar, the decidedly one-sided treatise de Ecclesia becomes more prominent in the Counter-Reformation period as well as the 17th and 18th centuries Gallicanism controversies. The one-sidedness was also marked by an increasing juridical point of view, particularly among clergy, who were the theologians.

Protestant Christianity at the time rejected the notion that the Church mediated divine truth and grace, particularly through her institutions and sacraments. In a real sense, represents the extreme ecclesiological pole that exclusively focuses on the associational life aspect. According to Congar, the Protestant view of the Church’s visible and invisible aspects is viewed dialectically, with no organic unity between them.

The Catholic de Ecclesia treatises in response to Protestant ecclesiology were polemical, apologetical, and controversial and not necessarily seen as complete works. In Congar’s view, these particular responses were unhappily reified into the standard view of in the schools for much of the Tridentine and post-Tridentine period.

81 Obviously, these treatises typically were not even positive depictions of the

institutional aspects, but negative critiques of Protestant ecclesiologies. For Congar,

Robert Bellarmine’s Disputationes de controversiis serves as the exemplar of the post-

Tridentine one-sided ecclesiology. The content of Bellarmine’s book demonstrates the one-sidedness, as Congar summarizes: “the authority of the Church as a rule of faith, of hierarchical powers and very particularly of the , and of the visibility of the

Church and her members.” Other features that suggest an exclusively hierarchical view include the popularity of the notion of the Church as the “perfect society” in the context of the civil power. Congar summarizes this dialectic at the heart of the situation:

Thus whilst Protestants were reducing the Church to an inward Christianity, to salvation, and by so doing were dissolving ecclesiology, Catholic apologists were looking at her above all as the machinery of the , as the hierarchical mediation of the means to salvation.107

In a word, the exclusive focus on the hierarchical aspect and the Church’s power and

authority led not to a full and irenic ecclesiology, but to a “hierarchology.”108 Two noteworthy side effects to the development of a “hierarchology” was a neglect of the place of the mediation of the Holy Spirit in the Church and the place of the mediation of the faithful and their religious nature.

In Congar’s view, the most regrettable aspect of the narrowing of ecclesiology to

a “hierarchology” is that it occurred at a time “when in many parts of ancient

Christendom human society was being secularized.”109 This was a departure from the

common experience in the era of Christendom where it was common to view the clergy

and laity as two sides of the same body. Congar believes that within the medieval world

107 Ibid., 45. 108 Ibid. 109 Ibid., 47.

82 of Christendom, the laity, even within the mundane experience of everyday life, understood themselves to be within the orbit of the Church and not to be viewed as outside of it. Thus, the secularization of society that began in the late medieval period had ramifications of separating the laity from an ecclesial worldview, especially in terms of the ecclesiological development of a hierarchology. In Congar’s words “the common consciousness of the people in their daily life of sorrow, joys, hope” was being divorced from “an institution of clerics whose problems, activities, interests, language were no longer those of the living human community.” This divorce could be described as disruption of the unity and complementarity of the Church’s structure and life. The hierarchology vision led to a liturgical vision that, while theologically and canonically correct, confined and defined worship in purely institutional terms, focused on conformity to rubrics to the neglect of the communal and living dimensions brought to the liturgy through the people’s participation. Thus, for Congar, this exclusively hierarchical view of the Church influenced the direction of the theological treatise de

Ecclesia, which, put negatively, is marked by a neglect of that aspect of the theology of

Church wherein the laity’s role would be defined.

Restoring the Balance: The Historical and Theological Conditions for the Development of Congar’s Theology of the Laity within Contemporary Catholic Ecclesiologies Congar completes his contextualizing of the theology of laity within the ecclesiological vision developed in his own pre-conciliar European Catholic context. He deduces two causes— one remote, the other proximate—for the development of a theology of the laity. According to Congar, the remote causes go “back to the great effort of Catholic restoration that marked the nineteenth century after the collapse of conditions

83 bequeathed by medieval Christianity,” including the Thomist revival of Leo XIII, the defeat of modernism, and the beginnings of the liturgical movement of Pius X.

The second, more proximate, causes are the post-war Catholic Action movement,

liturgical movements, increased enthusiasm for the doctrine of the mystical Body, active

participation in the Mass, and a growing awareness of the fact “that the Church must

develop, and develop through her members.”110 In Congar’s view, the papacy of Pius XI stands out in the post-war period as a major instigator and promoter of these movements.

Congar views the developments in ecclesiology and the theology of the laity as

signs of an express desire to “get beyond the one-sidedness” of hierarchology and “strive after fullness of life.” In order to restore the balance between institution and life, Congar suggests we need a rediscovery of the communal dimension of the Church, which means recognition that the lay members of the Church are religious subjects—akin to the res of the sacramentum.

Positioning the Theology of the Laity in the ‘Church-World Relationship’ and the ‘Kingdom-Church Dynamic’ Christ’s triplex munera in Creation and Salvation History After sketching the ecclesiological visions for the theology of the laity in the

Church’s history, Congar then considers the more conceptual and biblical theological context of the theology of the laity: the biblical notion of a ‘Church-world’ relationship and the dynamic relationship of the Kingdom of God and the Church.

According to Congar, establishing this aspect of his Jalons serves as the “key to the all

110Ibid., 55.

84 the rest” of his theology of the laity.111 Methodologically, Congar expands his

examination of the theology of the laity from its relationship to the realities of Church to

include its significance for the world and the realization of the eschatological kingdom,

which he depicts, in terms of biblical theology, as rooted in our participation in Christ’s

triplex munera.

For Congar, the triplex munera is intrinsic to the fullness of Christ’s messianic

power, which is the mode of action God uses to bring his purpose of divine-human

fellowship to realization in the eschatological Kingdom of God/Temple.112 For Congar,

the theological rationale of the triplex munera is rooted in the broader pattern in salvation

history, specifically in the divine use of instrument/media for the realization of salvation.

In his view, Christ’s humanity as the instrument of salvation is both the ultimate example

of God using creaturely mediations to accomplish his will, and it is the foundation for the

theology of Christ’s triplex munera. In other words, Christ’s saving work is expressed

through his triple office.

Further, for Congar the munera of prophet, priest, and king seem to “correspond

to needs arising from the very structure of things” and even serve as some of the media of

grace in the economy of the . Following biblical scholars like Oscar

Cullmann and Ferdinand Prat,113 Congar sees the triplex munera developing or

111 Ibid., 62. “Our subject does not require that we should study the three messianic functions for their own sake and in detail. We shall return to the priesthood in our next chapter; but to clarify this chapter, which is the key to all the rest, we must briefly consider Christ’s kingship or royal power.” 112 See Congar’s The Mystery of the Temple (Westminster, MD: Newman, 1962) for a related study that Congar viewed as complementary in purpose to Jalons. 113 Ferdinand Prat, S.J., Théologie de S. Paul (Paris: Gabriel Beauchesne, 1930) and Oscar Cullmann, La royauté du Christ et de l'Eglise selon le Nouveau Testament (Neuchâ tel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1971); idem. Christ et le temps (Neuchatel; Paris : Delachaux & Niestlé, 1947).

85 progressing throughout sacred history, coming to fulfillment in the triple office of Jesus

the Christ.

Congar sees within this progression a deeper “one-many” pattern in sacred history wherein God mediates his salutary gifts from one person (Abraham) to a collective of people (), from a collective of people (Israel) to a remnant of people (Judeans), then from a remnant of people (Judeans) back to a single person, Jesus Christ. After the advent of Christ this movement is then inverted, in that Christ’s singular mission is extended throughout the world through the many of ecclesial apostleship (Church).

An analogous pattern can be observed in the development of the triplex munera.

All of Israel’s “mediations and consecrations and ministries” are “brought together” in their fullness in Jesus Christ, who then re-shares them in the Church “amongst a variety of conditions and offices.114

The extent of Jesus’ royal power (puissance) as the Messiah is not limited to the

faithful, but has a cosmic scope. The Incarnate Word exercises his divine governance

through his sacred humanity, which he began to fully enjoy at his ascension. The cosmic

scope is not limited to the supernatural but includes the natural world—all things created.

Christ’s royal munera, and the triplex munera by implication, then, is perfectly fitted for

accomplishing the divine purpose of divine-human fellowship, because it “arises from the

very structure of things” and bridges the orders of creation and redemption/restoration.

114 Congar, Lay People, 62.

86 Christ’s Triplex Munera and the Already/Not-Yet Kingdom of God/Temple How is this royal power of Christ—his triplex munera—made evident? It appears in the Kingdom/Temple of God, which has several aspects: eschatological, progressive, and inward/outward. Typically, God’s “kingdom” refers to his reigning over creation as the Creator, but it can also refer to an effect of divine governance, which is the order of things created by Christ’s exercise of his royal power. The kingdom that is governed by

Christ’s royal power is the type of kingdom where humanity and creation at large are conformed to the divine will. Under the kingly power of Christ the natural and the supernatural are “gathered under...one head” into a “single, hierarchical, total order,” where the higher principle of supernatural creation governs the order of creation. Christ’s resurrection is the first achievement in the triumph of supernatural creation over “nature itself.” It is also Christ’s resurrection and ascension that inaugurate God’s Kingdom in the world. Through his triumph over death the two orders of creation and grace have come together in order to reach the fullness of God’s design of divine-human fellowship.

However, it is necessary to note that in the Kingdom the supernatural creation does not destroy the order of creation, but rather brings it to the perfection that is fit to the natural order.

The purpose or goal of Christ’s triplex munera is to establish the Kingdom on earth. This does not mean the Kingdom of God has been realized. Rather, the Kingdom is established by Christ’s advent but it is unfolded in “two times.”115 The second time, the final time, is the eschatological consummation, while the present era is described by

Congar as the “space-between,” or intermediate time between Christ’s first coming and second coming. Drawing on Aquinas’ theology of the Old Dispensation, Congar further

115 Ibid., 68.

87 explains this point by distinguishing the ways the “heavenly benefits” is mediated in

salvation history. In the Old Covenant they were experienced through expectation and

preparation, in the eschatological consummation the heavenly gifts are experienced in

their fullness, and in the present intermediate state the heavenly gifts are present and

active but not fully. It is the role of the Church, the body that mediates the divine gifts in

the “space-between,” to bring the Kingdom along gradually to its fullness. So then, in a

certain sense Christ’s work is complete, but in another aspect—the aspect that includes

the many—there is still work to be completed.116

In fact, for Congar, the “space-between,” or the time of the Church, is necessary

in the sense that it connects what Christ did once for all to what may also be done by all.

In this sense, the “parousial mystery” makes actual what is only begun in the paschal

mystery. This notion of beginning does not mean that Congar views Christ’s salutary

work on the Cross as somehow unfinished. Nor does it mean the time of the Church is

simply a delay in the divine plan. Rather Congar’s argument for the necessity of the time

of the Church is founded in his emphasis that the mystical body of Christ organically

develops through the collaborative action of its principle with the “elements” of his body.

This full realization of the work of the Cross is the mission of the Church in time, and in

turn it is the undergirding meaning of the laity’s participation in Christ’s triplex munera:

to bring the principle of Christ’s to its completion and fullness in the

final parousial mystery. This means the Church’s mission is organically connected to

Christ’s visible mission as the Son of God insofar as it is a total and complete return of

creation to God. This distinction between two stages in the Kingdom of God has

116 Congar, Lay People, 70: “So in the work of Jesus Christ there is an aspect of ‘done’ and an aspect of ‘still to be done’: already done by one, once for all; still to be done by many, throughout space and time, until he comes again.”

88 immediate consequences for understanding both Christ’s priestly kingship and for

understanding the church-world relationship.

Christ’s Triplex Munera in the Two Stages of the Divine Plan According to Congar, Christ’s priestly kingship—triplex munera—is exercised

differently in the two stages of God’s plan to restore the divine-human relationship. In the

intermediate state he exercises his priestly kingship through the weakness of his Cross,

while in the eschatological consummation it is exercised in its totality —in all of his

power and glory. In the intermediate state, even though Christ has assumed into himself

the triplex munera rooted in the nature of things, his practice of it is limited in the sense

that he has not yet overcome all those who oppose his reign. Instead, in the intermediate

state his power is mediated and a foretaste of his future glory. Thus, the miracles,

healings, graces, and revelations of the “space-between” only hint at the radical transformation the created order will undergo in the eschatological consummation.

In a certain sense, the transformation of the world in the “space-between” are

primarily mediated specifically through Christ’s priestly mode, that of the Cross. In the

priestly mode, Christ through the Church is working to transform the world, but in a way

that “leaves the earthly order untouched in what may be called its Noachic and

anteparousial state.”117 Christ’s priestly action affects a measured change in the world

(and the human person especially) without transforming the economy itself. Congar uses

the treatment of death in 1 Corinthians 15 as an example of this point. In the intermediate

state, death has been overcome by Christ’s resurrection in some essential way—losing its

117Ibid., 75.

89 sting—but still remains until it is completely destroyed in the eschatological

consummation. In a sense, Congar argues, we can see Christ’s priestly path as an

inversion of the path of the first Adam: “Adam sacrificed the order of submissiveness to

kingship, Christ sacrifices kingship to the order of submissiveness.”

Congar further describes Christ’s priestly mode in the intermediate state as a

contrast between “priesthood according to Aaron” and “priesthood according to

Melchizedek.”118 The Melchizedekian type of priesthood is of a heavenly order and links

to Christ’s priesthood in its kingly phase, at the right of the Father in glory. The Aaronic

type of priesthood, however, is sacrificial in that it includes sacrificer and victim. Congar

says this was the character of Christ’s priesthood before his resurrection and ascension.

Even though he fulfilled the Aaronic priesthood in his Cross, Congar argues that Christ

remains active as a priest now in heaven insofar as he continues to share the fruits of his

sacrifice through the mediations of Word and sacraments.

Christ’s Triplex Munera and the Church-World Relationship The connection between Christ’s priestly rule and the intermediate stage of the

Kingdom of God has consequences for how we understand the Church-world relationship, which in turn provides one aspect of the basis of the adaptation of the triplex munera to the laity.119 As hinted at earlier, at the eschatological consummation the

Church-world relationship will be perfectly unified in the sense that the whole of creation

will be subject to the Pneuma, (i.e., supernatural creation), allowing each created thing to

find its own perfection and integrity. The situation is different in the “space-between”

118Ibid., 77. 119 Ibid., 79.

90 where Christ permits the created order a certain autonomy, even allowing ‘the Prince of

this world’ to influence it. What is essential for Congar for understanding the Church-

world relationship is that this intermediate time is neither a return to the “paradisal order”

nor the realized Kingdom of God under Christ’s complete royal/priestly rule. He rejects

theological proposals that argue the Kingdom of God has already been realized on earth

as well as any understanding of the Kingdom-world or Church-world relationship as

inherently dualistic.120 In the time of the Church, even Christ reigns in and through the

faith of his Church and not by might; there is “a certain continuity between the human

work of this world on the one side and the Kingdom of God on the other.”121 For Congar,

the Temple/Kingdom and the world have the same final object, which is to be

transformed for communion with God. In the “space-between” Christ’s advents, the

Church is the germinal seed of the Kingdom on earth.122 While the Temple/Kingdom

cannot be realized by human effort alone, it is, according to Congar, the mission of

Christ’s Church to expand his divine reign over all of creation in the “space-between.” It is here in the space-between that Christ’s triplex munera is applied to the work of the lay faithful as a participation in his messianic energies, occurring both within the Church and in the world. By participating in Christ’s triplex munera in their everyday life in the concrete reality of history and world, the lay faithful really and proleptically share in the eschatological fullness (pleroma) of the future realized Kingdom of God/ Temple. This participation is analogous to the hierarchical priesthood’s participation in the triplex

120 Ibid., 87. 121 Ibid. 122 On 107-108, Congar draws an analogy between the rural bands of French Resistance fighters called the maquis and the Church’s mission in the “space-between.” For the Church our mission is already complete in one sense—because of the victory won for us through Christ’s Paschal mystery—and yet still in the process of completion in another sense.

91 munera, complements it, but remains distinctly the contribution and identity of the laity, who hold a twofold loyalty to God and the world.

Theme 3: Theological Application of the Triplex Munera to the Laity The central, constructive theme of Congar’s Jalons is his specific theological application/adaptation of Christ’s triplex munera to the laity as an ecclesial group/reality, which, up to this point in the history of theology, is an unprecedented insight. This portion of Congar’s work makes up roughly half of the composition of Jalons, with the largest portion concerned with the laity’s and the Church’s priestly function (munus).

The significance of the triplex munera cannot be underestimated. First, it gives the work as a whole its coherence. For instance, through his adaptation of the triplex munera Congar is able to positively connect the theology of the laity to Christ’s person and work. He is able to describe through the triplex munera how the laity as a group is given a share in the dignity of Christ’s mission to save. Further, by sharing in Christ’s work the laity is given a specific participation in bringing the Church’s mission to its fullness/pleroma in the world before the end of history. Both of these achievements show the necessity of the laity for understanding how Christ’s mission continues in the world after his Ascension, and why the Church must be a differentiated body.

In terms of the importance of its significance for the work as a whole, Congar’s usage of the triplex munera further substantiates his description of the laity in the first chapter. For example, Congar’s usage of Bonaventure’s canonical notion that the laity uniquely possesses a function is completed by the adaptation of “function” to Christ’s

92 triplex munera, which are the theological grounds for the laity’s participation in Christ’s

continuing work in the mystical Body and the world. Further examples are shown below.

The clearest mode of presentation is to follow Congar’s order of presentation,

which means starting with Congar’s treatment of the laity’s participation in Christ’s

priestly munus, then his royal munus, and last his prophetic munus. As Congar notes, the

distinction between the three munera does not mean they are independent, unrelated roles

within Christ’s and the Church’s mission. The three munera are distinct yet one in

purpose.

The Laity’s Participation in Christ and the Church’s Priestly Munus Congar’s examination of the laity’s participation in the Church’s priestly munus is difficult to summarize, but risking oversimplification, his argument can be described as twofold: 1) it concerns the disputed question of the definition of lay priesthood, and 2) it addresses the nature and function of the baptismal priesthood. In terms of the first part of the argument, the primary opinions at the time were either to reduce the laity’s

“priesthood” to a metaphor, or to equate it in some way with the sacramental hierarchical priesthood. Congar’s approach for overcoming the impasse was to revisit the definition of priesthood itself. It was common among Catholic theologians at the time to define

“priesthood” principally in terms of the . The normative view of priesthood, then, was that of the sacramental priest whose priesthood was defined as a form of mediation and/or sacrifice. For example, this was the view of Pius XII in his encyclical

Mediator Dei. The implications of this definition for the lay priesthood was that the laity possessed a “priesthood” only in an analogous sense, since they did not mediate the means to Eucharistic graces, nor offer the Eucharistic sacrifice. Depending on the

93 theologian, the analogous sense of “priesthood” was defined as either extrinsic or intrinsic. For those who understand the application of priesthood to the laity as an extrinsic analogy, the lay person is only metaphorically a priest in that he offers sacrifice mystically or affectively. For those who viewed lay priesthood as intrinsic to the lay vocation, the laity was considered priests only insofar as they were deputed to offer divine worship via the characters of baptism and confirmation.

Congar’s definition of lay priesthood is decidedly different. First of all, in

Congar’s view the definitive essence of “priesthood” is not mediation between two parties—as Aquinas does, Congar acknowledges—nor is it a consecration to a sacred task as it was defined by the French school of spirituality. In contrast, Congar describes

“priesthood” as a natural anthropological category that applies universally to all humanity and extends beyond the particularities of Christian sacramental worship into everyday life. In a sense, he seems to have viewed priesthood as a feature of the natural law that humanity naturally possesses, regardless of the deleterious effects of the Fall on our capacity to offer true religion to God. In Congar’s view, all humans are given the quality of priesthood, and the obligation to act in a priestly manner, for the purpose of offering sacrifice.

Thus, Congar defines priesthood as a collective quality of humanity for the purpose of offering sacrifice. He claims that this priestly quality does not preclude the need for an office (munus) of priesthood, but in either case priesthood is defined as a capacity to offer sacrifice. Sacrifice here does not mean exterior sacrifice only but also includes interior sacrifices. The interior form of sacrifice is essential for sacrifice to be rational, while the external form is essential in order for sacrifice to be actualized. For

94 Congar, the essence of the quality and office of priesthood is intrinsically tied to the

human person’s capacity to gratuitously offer one’s self (interiorly) and one’s deeds

(exteriorly) for the sake of the other at a cost to oneself. This self-offering is most

particularly and ultimately realized in the priest’s preference for the honor and praise of

the Creator above all else.

Lest his approach to priesthood seem extrinsic, Congar argues that the quality and

office of priesthood, especially the office of Levitical priesthood, finds its ultimate

fulfillment in the triplex munera of Jesus Christ. In fact, for Congar the natural capacity to offer priestly acts of true sacrifice is not to be considered independent from Christ, but rather flows from the Incarnate Word who is the New Adam and the father of the new

humanity. Without Christ, the human capacity for priesthood is disordered and

incomplete; he is both the source of priesthood (Alpha) and its end (Omega). Even

though natural priesthood is a real priesthood and a spiritual priesthood—Congar calls it

the “spiritual-real priesthood”—it does not automatically mean it will result in right

worship. The natural capacity for priesthood must be elevated by a participation in the

grace of Christ and the triplex munera of Christ.

Nevertheless, Congar considers the category of the “spiritual-real priesthood”

(i.e., natural priesthood elevated by grace) necessary in order to overcome the

metaphorical accounts of lay priesthood common in his day. The “spiritual-real

priesthood” is real ontologically speaking, though it is invisible to ordinary experience,

and it is truly operative in the life of the laity, not just in a metaphorical sense. Even

though he acknowledges that the spiritual-real priesthood is not exclusive to the laity—it

belongs to all Christians, including bishops, clergy, and even those with implicit faith—

95 Congar also considers it to be an essential aspect of the basis of the lay vocation in the

Church. For Congar, the priestly function (munus) of the laity is to extend the mission of

the Church in the world through evangelization, inculturation, and virtuous action aimed

at personal and social justice. Presumably the specification of evangelization as a priestly

function refers to the witness of life, especially the lay person’s self-giving acts of

religion in their worldly vocations. In other words, the graced ordinary activity of the

laity, offered to God through faith, charity, and religion, are priestly acts and are at least

interiorly ordered acts of sacrifice and worship. Only then, Congar argues, can we see the

connection between the “spiritual-real priesthood” and the sacramental realities of the

baptismal priesthood, which is the second aspect on which he bases his theology of the

laity’s priestly activity via Christ’s triplex munera.123

Drawing on Aquinas’ exitus-reditus schema, the spiritual-real priesthood of everyday life is fittingly brought to completion and consummation in the concrete sacrificial order of the Church’s liturgical worship. For Congar, the baptismal priesthood is to be distinguished from the spiritual-real priesthood insofar as the spiritual-real priesthood is moral and ascetical (i.e., natural priesthood elevated by grace) and the baptismal priesthood is related to the sacramental and institutional aspects of the Church.

What sets the baptismal priesthood apart from other priesthoods is that it deputes the

Christian, through the sacramental character(s) of baptism and confirmation, to offer God a form of worship that mysteriously participates in the redemptive action of Christ’s

Passion and Resurrection. This also means the baptismal priesthood is a supernatural participation in Christ’s triplex munera, deputing the believer to receive the sacramental

123 Congar, Lay People, Ch. IV.

96 graces which bring the effect of conformity to Christ’s Cross and the of the

imago Dei.

The Laity’s Participation in Christ and the Church’s Royal Munus The second way the laity share in Christ and the Church’s mission is through

Christ’s royal munus. By establishing the laity’s participation in Christ’s triplex munera,

Congar is able to establish a basis for a definition of the laity that is constructive and

positive. His project is acutely challenged at this point, where he adapts Christ’s royal

munus to the laity even though the laity do not typically participate in the magisterium’s

participation in Christ’s right to govern his Church. In response to this challenge, Congar

depicts this adaptation of the royal munus as a participation in the energies of Christ the

Head that become manifest in two specific ways: 1) as a “form of life” and 2) as a power

(pouvoir) or competence. According to Congar, it is only in these two ways that the laity

participates in Christ’s kingly munus.

Before addressing the two aspects, it is necessary for understanding Congar to grasp his definition of “spiritual kingship,” which he defines broadly as “that which recognizes the divine meaning in things and honours their reference to God… one is king of what one offers.”124 Kingship, it seems, is fittingly related to both ownership and

giving, though obviously priests and prophets are also capable of giving gifts. Thus, for

Congar the notion of spiritual kingship is closely related to the notion of a kingly

priesthood, both of which “enable God to reign and radiate as God, and at the same time

fulfil the meaning of the world.”125 Put differently, spiritual kingship is the way by which

124 Ibid., 234. 125 Ibid.

97 God mediates his eternal Kingdom in history during the time of the “space-between.”126

For Congar both spiritual kingship and a kingly priesthood represent the “soul” of

Christian spirituality.

“Kingship as Form of Life” According to Congar, to speak of something or someone as “kingly” in a theological sense is to refer to the spiritual-real order of reality, though not in the same way a “priestly” action of the Christian describes something of the spiritual order.

Kingship typically refers to something external and and it is used to refer to a person in himself, though only metaphorically. Congar sees “kingly” as a reference to a kind of relation that implies hierarchical order. When “kingly” is used to describe the spiritual in the human per se it is a metaphorical reference to the person’s capacity to exercise power over his capacities and deeds, rational desire and passions. Congar calls this “kingship over self.” He refers to Philo, the Fathers in general, and St. Augustine to the justification of the soul by grace, which allows the Christian to control desire, etc.:

“Before sin, the inner man, submissive to God, dominated the outer man, his passions were under control…”127

The second aspect of the laity’s participation in Christ’s royal munus Congar refers to as our “Kingship over the world.” Central to this aspect is recognition of a paradox in the Christian’s relationship to the world of external things, wherein we are both free from and slave to the world. The Christian is a citizen of two countries: she lives in one but her “setting” and activities belong to the other. She both transcends and is immanent in the world. She is bound by duty to the world but cannot become its slave.

126 Ibid., 234. 127 Ibid., 235.

98 The attitude of her kingly position leads to two opposite attitudes that are vital to the

laity’s royal munus: engagement and refusal.

According to Congar, engagement with the world is necessary insofar as we are

called to bring the reign of God into our world. God has called us for this work and made

us his cooperators. There are three levels of cooperation whereby we practice Christian

kingship in our engagement with the world: 1) the work of creation, 2) the work of

redemption, 3) and the meeting of the two in the Kingdom of God.128

Regarding our kingly power over the work of creation, God has called us to reign,

or have dominion, over the natural order through rational and physical work. Further, the

Christian practices spiritual kingship in connection to bringing out the work of

redemption, not through power, but through holiness. Spiritual kingship in this sense is a

cruciform wisdom, in that kingly power is demonstrated through love and service not

coercive power. The eschatological Kingdom has not fully arrived; therefore Christ and

his people do not reign in the fullness of his regal power. Finally, the Christian practices

spiritual kingship when engaging the world through charisms and miracles, which Congar

refers to as “anticipations of eschatological things.”129 Miracles and charisms are

exemplars of the fact that all things, even now, are subject to Christ the King. Congar

lists several examples of charisms and miracles that show the sovereignty Christ and his

Church as his Body already have over the created order.

The next aspect of Christian kingship Congar refers to as “refusal” of the world.

Refusal is never for its own sake, but is for the sake of something else. From a certain perspective, refusal and sacrifice are aspects of an engagement that the Christian takes on

128 Ibid., 237. 129 Ibid., 240.

99 to express her fidelity to Christ. The Christian partakes in refusals in order to demonstrate her twofold loyalty, love, and duty to God and the world. Thus, refusal and sacrifice are both acts of dominion and kingship. The main ways Christian “refusal” is an example of spiritual kingship are in the refusal of temptation and sin, the refusal of worldly power for the sake of God (especially in the case of martyrdom), the refusal of the world by withdrawing from as in the case of monasticism, and those anticipations of the Kingdom like the sacramental mediation of forgiveness and ministerial powers, which Congar sees as refusals of Satan’s dominion over the world.

“Kingship as Power (Pouvoir)” The notion of “kingship as power” describes the way the laity participates in the governing authority of the Church. It is important to note that to say “power” does not refer to something the laity possess in themselves, via the character received in , but only by their participation in Christ’s royal office. According to Congar, the notion the laity have a role to play in the governance of the Church is not novel but has historical support and is consistent with the Tradition. By noting their participation he is able to concretely connect the notional case that he is building around the triplex munera and the reality of the laity’s participation in the “space-between.” Congar concentrates his attention on five ways the laity have historically demonstrated a participation in the power (pouvoir) of ecclesial governance: 1) in the election and provision to Church offices, 2) in Councils, 3) by actual Kings influencing the selection of hierarchy in the Church, 4) in the life of the local community, and 5) through the

Church’s executive power. The five points are generally self-explanatory, so I will only offer a brief summation of each one.

100 1) The laity’s participation in Christ’s and the Church’s royal munus in the election and

provision of Church offices130: From early on, the laity had been consulted for

episcopal elections at least since the third century, as indicated in the writings of St.

Cyprian. While they did not decide on matters of doctrine and morals, they were

consulted for their opinion and asked for their consent. The rationale for this

consultation was primarily practical: it was the laity who was capable of accounting

for the character of the person being elected. In a sense, for Congar, it was another

instantiation of the solidarity and subsidiarity that exists between the “structure” and

“life” elements within the Church.

2) The laity’s participation in Christ’s and the Church’s royal munus in Councils:

Congar notes the influence of the laity on conciliar decision-making throughout the

Church’s history up to , though it was typically for the same reasons

listed in 1): to show consent and promote the concerns of the ecclesial community.

3) The laity’s participation in Christ’s and the Church’s royal munus in a way

analogous to the ways Kings acted in relation to the Church: As noted earlier, Congar

recognizes that a major seedbed of the theology of the laity is found in the theological

recognitions given to lay elites, especially the place of kings in sacred affairs, in the

pre-modern era of Christendom.

4) The laity’s participation in Christ’s and the Church’s royal munus through the life of

the community: The laity express their sharing Christ’s royal function most typically

in their socio-political activities as members of political society. It is here that they

bring into existence the interior principles of the Kingdom on earth in the time

130 Ibid., 244.

101 between Christ’s advents. The fuller sense of this aspect of the laity’s participation is

explained in depth in his treatment of Catholic Action.

5) The laity’s participation in Christ’s and the Church’s royal munus through the

Church’s executive power: Congar lays out historical examples of the laity sharing in

Christ’s and the Church’s executive power starting with the example of 4th c. North

African Church where they elected laymen to important administrative roles in

ecclesiastical and juridical affairs in collaboration with the bishops. This example is

contrasted with the medieval and modern problem of private churches (Eigenkirchen)

and . The point of this contrast is to argue that the laity’s participation in

executive power is not analogous to a democratic system of governance. The laity in

this situation do not acquire the power (associated with ordination) of executive office

but only share in it through their Christian form of life.

The Laity’s Participation in Christ and the Church’s Prophetic Munus The laity’s participation in Christ and the Church’s prophetic munus considers the term “prophetic” under its most broadly Christian meaning: Christian communication of knowledge of all kinds.131 Congar is clear that the laity does not possess the sacramental character of hierarchical priesthood, which deputes bishops and priests with the power to protect the deposit of faith and authoritatively proclaim the Gospel to the Church and the world. With that said, Congar notes that in the history of the Church it is lay people who see, recognize, and receive the Christian faith from the Lord. The laity, he notes, do not legitimate the apostolic teaching but render it fruitful through their living witness. Congar notes several examples including the ’ depiction of laywomen in the garden who

131 Nichols, Yves Congar, 82.

102 recognize and believe in the risen Lord and report his resurrection to the apostles. He also

notes as an example the role of lay people in the reception of the Nicene , through

their rejection of the imperial faith of the Arians, and the impact of the laity’s Marian

devotion on the definition of Mary’s and her Assumption in the

19th and 20th centuries.

Congar also argues that the laity’s share in the prophetic munus takes place when

lay people actually transmit the faith in teaching and in their spiritual gifts of knowledge

and understanding. Examples he cites include St. Teresa of Avila and as

well as the work of lay apologists such as François-René Chateaubriand and G.K.

Chesterton. Further examples of participation in the prophetic munus are lay people’s contributions to , literature, the teaching of theology, and in the formation of culture in general. Each of these exemplifies a viable and real participation in Christ’s prophetic munus and is not merely metaphorical or derivative cases. Just as the common

priesthood of believers is “spiritual-real” so too is the laity’s sharing in Christ’s prophetic

role.

Theme 4: The Apostolicity and Spirituality of the Laity The fourth theme concerns the place of the laity in the communal life of the

Church and the ecclesiological rationale for the adaptation of the triplex munera to the

laity. In a footnote from the 1964 edition, Congar states his wish to develop this aspect

further, which is arguably what we find in his later essays in the 1970s. It is here that

Congar theoretically elucidates the laity’s place in the ecclesial community by applying

the Thomistic concept of participation and his own notion of “structure and life.” At the

foundational level of ecclesiology, it is necessary to note the Church is principally a

103 divine work. However, God does permit human participation in his divine work, and this

human participation is commonly defined by the term “man of God.” According to

Congar there are two ways to be a “man of God” by participation: by a competence of

office (ex officio) or through one’s life (ex spiritu). Office and life are distinct and

independent from each other, yet they should never be Opposed or viewed as

contradictory. Both can be viewed as distinct activities on behalf of Christ. For instance,

in one’s life you live for Christ through faith and grace. Or, one can do something on

Christ’s behalf as a cause or instrument, participating formally in Christ’s power

(puissance) because one is qualified to act in that function (munus). Both participate in

God’s work, but in different modes. In the case of “life,” God’s work is done “in the

religious subject as such,” who personally acts as Christ’s intermediary.132 In the case of

office, God’s work is done through the religious subject acting on behalf of an institution

and source outside of himself.

According to Congar, the distinction between the two modes of action is based on

the distinction in the New Testament between those members who act via charisms and

those who act via the apostolic power (exousia). In the ecclesial community, the gift of

life in Christ is received by all Christians and is fundamental to Christian existence, while

functions are added to one’s personal existence. This differentiation is tenable because

the mission of Christ’s community is also differentiated in two ways for the purpose of

ensuring continuity with Christ. Thus, the Church’s twofold mission is both a

hierarchical, juridical mission (ex officio) and a mission of life and love (ex spiritu). Both are necessary to fulfill God’s design and the differentiation of function and life provides the opportunity to show the laity’s necessary role in bringing about the fullness of

132 Ibid., 325.

104 Christ’s mission. Thus, even though the reality of institutional ecclesial functions is rooted in Christ’s institution of the Twelve, the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost means the Church cannot be principally viewed as an institution. With the advent of the Spirit,

Christ’s community is alive and acts on behalf of Christ and the Spirit in the world.

For Congar, the organic unity of the twofold mission of the Church is patterned after the theology of the cosmic Christ as Alpha and Omega. The church’s juridical/hierarchical mission is analogous to Christ as Alpha, while the Church’s mission of life and love is analogous to Christ as Omega. Christ is called Alpha in reference to the fact that he, by himself, is the principle of creation and redemption, distributing gifts as the Head of the Body. In this sense, there is continuity between Christ as Alpha and the ex officio mediation of the Church’s mission through governing, teaching, and sanctifying. Yet, Christ is also called Omega in reference to his relationship to us and we are Omega with him insofar as we participate in his life and work in the “space between.”

Thus, there is an organic unity in the cosmic body of Christ. So, Christ as Omega, according to Congar, refers to the completed work, or fullness/pleroma, of “the pasch of

[Christ’s] fellowship-body when he comes again in glory.” It is through Christ as Omega that the members of the mystical Body participate in the construction of the Church, here below, through their “doing” and “living” the will of God in the unfolding of world history. In an analogous way, Congar infers the laity are to be understood as “the pleroma of the hierarchical priesthood,” necessarily bringing about the fullness of the ecclesia.133

This depiction of the unity between two modes of doing God’s work is rooted in a corporatist theory of the social body. In the corporatist vision the unity of a social organism is dependent on a network of mutual relations and services that are ordered

133 Ibid., 328.

105 principally by the head of the community. Abstracting the head or the members from the total vision of society will only disable the community’s ability to achieve its mission, leading to exaggerations, retarding their ability to act together as one. Thus, head and members and the mutuality between them are all necessary for the unity of a social body,

even a supernatural social body such as the mystical Body of Christ. According to

Congar, this corporatist vision was very strong in the early Church, in that they were able

to balance between the vitality of the local Church, with its vast networks of services and

relations with other communities, and the primacy of the apostolic see of Rome as the

representative of the head. Congar’s depiction of the early Church is one where structure

and life were not juxtaposed, but were bonded together and mutually reinforcing.

As shown in theme two, Congar’s history of ecclesiology shows a gradual moving

away from this corporatist vision to what he termed elsewhere as a “hierarchology,”

which failed to capture the dynamic interaction between the hierarchical mission and the

mission of the Church in the life of the people. Hierarchology fails to grasp the vitality of

Christians living together, with each other, in a community of faith and charity. Referring

to events of the inter-war period, Congar suggests that an ultramontane vision of

catholicity and koinonia crimped the practice of solidarity and mutual service between

German and French bishops and also their respective laity: “It was predominately [sic] a

feeling of communion with, and little enough of communion between.”

For Congar the “communion between” is how believers produce the bonds

between diverse members of the ecclesial community, joining them together in the unity

of the Spirit, through which the members share their gifts, time, loves, sufferings, etc.

with each other. You find this teaching consistently in the letters of St. Paul, the Fathers

106 of the Church, and even the medievals. In summary of this point he quotes Cajetan, “That is what gives to churches so far apart as those of Scotland and Spain more than an agreement in faith, hope, charity, the sacraments and obedience to the same head; there is the bond that unites one part to another in a single community whose regulating principle is none other than the Holy Spirit.” It is also noteworthy that the Church has always recognized that the gifts and services used to build and strengthen the communal bonds were not exclusively spiritual. Rather, according to Congar, “[e]verything can be of service in leading to Christ, and therefore in building up his Body…” Much of what builds the ecclesial community is what Congar calls the ‘lateral contributions’: the encouraging word, the example of holiness, Christian friendship, and even a passing kindness. In the same way, the hierarchical apostolic mission is not reducible to its formal participation in Christ’s triplex munera (governing, teaching, sanctifying) but it too builds on the same bonds between persons sharing a common life through their charisms and good deeds. This is what Congar means when he says the Church is a community, it is an ordered society with diverse parts that interact and mutually benefit each other through sharing their God-given gifts and services. In this picture of the ecclesial community, the laity are vital and even necessary. Congar gives a list of examples of such community happening at the time:

One of the features of contemporary Catholic life, especially in some countries, is the multiplication of groups of men and women, or, often, of households and homes, directed to a common leading of Christian life. Everybody has heard of such things: groups of communities of families; ‘back to the land’ associations; biblical, liturgical, missionary, oecumenical (Christian reunion) circles; university ; clubs with particular interests, holiday-camps, and conferences innumerable.134

134 Ibid., 339.

107 Many of these groups arose not at the behest of the hierarchical apostolate, but because there was a felt need (“the structural insufficiency of Catholic society”) to address these needs immediately in a Catholic way and the Church had not provided the support.

Congar acknowledges it would be helpful if the clergy developed the pastoral methods to address these new needs, but it is more essential that the laity learn to build the ecclesial community as well. What is needed is a rediscovery of the Church as a community that is built, in a certain sense, by its members from below, i.e. the rediscovery that the Church is a people in the practice of everyday life. This rediscovery will only take place, Congar argues, if the principle of subsidiarity is acknowledged and applied. Congar says it best:

Now that is a thing which is done, and can only be done, from the bottom. The more authority is exercised at a higher level, the more it gets out of touch with those below, and the more it tends to become external and to substitute the impersonal bond of law for the ties of community. A community begins with persons, or with elementary communities already living as such.135

Drawing on the work of Gabriel Le Bras, Congar points to the fact that in “old France” parishes did not operate purely by canonical forms, but modified the canonical notion of a parish to that of a community composed of interdependent communities, co-existing and collaborating through subsidiarity and solidarity:

According to G. Le Bras, in old France people were attached to parishes through groups of ; and it is noticeable that today a communal parish is a community of communities, finding its support and strength in more elementary groups, when these are authentic and know how to work together.136

Congar follows by saying that an ecclesial community being built from below sometimes tries to create certain concrete relations between the ex spiritu mission and the ex officio mission. The prime example of this is the early Church’s practice of

135 Ibid., 340. 136 Ibid.

108 acclamation of the priest by the people (cited above as an example of the laity’s

participation in Christ’s prophetic munus). The canonical and hierarchical principles were

still observed, but the communal element is also observed. This lends itself to some

critics positing a problem, or even opposition, between hierarchical functions/powers and

personal charisms. Functions and charisms, Congar says, go hand in hand. He notes that

in the early Church the hierarchy assigned charges according to pneumatic or charismatic

qualities and not merely according to moral character. Consequently, the ex officio must

be grounded in, and not merely complemented by, the ex spiritu.

Moving onto related aspect of this theme, Congar addresses the dangers of

viewing the ecclesial community exclusively from “below,” i.e., building the community in abstraction from the hierarchy. For Congar there is no necessary logical or theological reason to see the two aspects of the community in opposition to each other. The solution to this danger is to give each aspect (hierarchical and lay) its proper attention and place for the purpose of producing a balanced theology of the Church.

In the final aspect of this theme, Congar addresses the question how the ecclesial community—studied as ex officio and ex spiritu—cannot remain merely balanced, but must be unified in Christ and the Spirit:

How does the Church, at the various levels of her life from parish to planet, remain one [emphasis added] if men and their groupings are taken into consideration, as well as the objective and hierarchical determinations?—men with their schools of thought, forms of piety, associations for this and for that.137

From the perspective of the theology of the laity, this question must consider the fact that

the laity live not only in the Church but also in the secular world, which means their

concerns are often not clear cut, but prudential matters of debate. Because the mission of

137 Ibid., 344.

109 the laity is not to retreat from the world, but to engage it, there can be serious

disagreement between Christians on political and social matters. Nevertheless, the

Catholic is obligated by a “duty of unity” to understand the choices and opinions of other

members of the Body. In a word, each Catholic owes to other Catholics the chance to

build a “dialogue” with each other on prudential matters in a spirit of oand trust rather

than suspicion and defensiveness. The more members of the ecclesial community discuss

their differences among themselves, Congar hopes, the less difficult the solution will be

to resolve. The other aspect of the “duty of unity” is that the individual members consider

their personal opinions and choices in light of the ecclesial community as a whole.

Congar thinks by doing so one would avoid the narrow-minded extremes of sectarianism and even fanaticism. It is necessary to see the other person’s point of view and “to be conscious of the transcendence of our common point of reference in relation to our respective services.”

Theme 5: The Laity and the Church’s Apostolic Function The fifth and final theme concerns the place of the laity in the Church’s apostolic mission, which, as Congar suggests, has a certain affinity with the laity’s participation in

Christ and the Church’s royal munus. Congar bases the theoretical aspect of his account of the laity’s participation in the apostolic mission on broadly Thomistic and scriptural grounds, but he also grounds his account in the practical experience of lay people in the

European milieu of Catholic Action.

Congar sees the basis for Church’s apostolic mission in terms of St. Thomas

Aquinas’ Johannine theology of the visible missions of the Son and Spirit in history. Just

110 as the Father sends the Son to redeem, and the Father and Son send the Spirit to sanctify,

in an analogous way the Son and Spirit send and animate the Church to bring the

missions to completion. For Congar, the missions of the Persons are significant as the

starting point, since Pius XI connected the laity’s activity in Catholic Action with the

Church’s historic mission to complete Christ’s mission.

According to Congar, Jesus’ mission is found in his name “God saves,” which he

expressed in the words “The Son of Man hath come to seek and to save what was lost”

(Luke 19:10). Congar’s Thomistic doctrine of salvation views it as an integral process in

the sense that it encompasses the whole person and even creation as a whole. This is why

Congar directly connects Christ’s mission to his triplex munera, because the Church

extends Christ’s mission into human history and the world in its totality, not exclusively interiorly. Yet, the Church communicates Christ’s mission to save the created order with the caveat that her participation in Christ’s priestly kingship is only partial until its

eschatological consummation. Congar finds it necessary to distinguish the Church’s

mission and the culmination of her mission in the eschatological Kingdom of God.

Elsewhere he aims to distinguish his eschatological views from those who argue the

eschaton is already realized either in the Church now or even in the social order. For

Congar it is necessary to say that the Church’s mission in the world is real, but not

complete. Salvation is certainly integral, but it is first and directly ordered to the spiritual

salvation of persons, more exactly human souls.

It is in light of Congar’s formal depiction of Christ and his Church’s mission (i.e.,

the mission of evangelization and worship) that he situates the scope and mission of

Catholic Action in the unfolding history of post-revolutionary Europe. According to Pius

111 X, Catholic Action’s mission was to “restore all things to Christ” both in terms of the salvation of souls and the christianization of European society (Il fermo proposito).

Congar sees Pius X’s reference to “all things” as affirming the direct, spiritual efficaciousness of Christ’s redemption and the indirect or partial efficaciousness of the

Church’s mission on the created order. The Church’s mission has within it a certain duality, or, perhaps, dualities, which Congar seems to mean it has both external and internal aspects. Congar points to Christ’s own mission as evidence of these dualities: on the one hand, Christ “exerted his activity externally and visibly [i.e., the visible mission of the Incarnation and his earthly ministry] and also inwardly [i.e., the Holy Spirit’s mission of the sanctification of souls]” by sending the Spirit to sanctify the and the

Apostles to build his Church. The two missions, however, are not dualistic but are united in that the Holy Spirit actualizes inwardly what Christ instituted during his earthly ministry. This unity and duality of mission is extended beyond the visible missions of the

Persons in the Church’s apostolic mission, which Congar sees having an external, functional (ex officio) aspect, which

is why it is an hierarchical mission: not simply because it is given only to some, but because it entails sacred powers, spiritual powers tending to salvation according to the functions of priesthood (sacraments), prophecy (authority of the magisterium) and kingship (authority in spiritual government).

Yet, the Church’s apostolic mission is also ordered to the interior life of believers:

This mission may be characterized as personal, spiritual and universal. Personal and spiritual as distinct from social and juridical: not a mission given as a public charge, ex officio, and involving powers or competences pertaining to an instituted office, but a mission deriving from the personal spiritual possession of inner spiritual energies and life, ex spiritu; a mission to action that requires no hierarchical powers, to action, therefore through influence.138

138 Ibid., 354.

112 Nevertheless, the Church’s twofold mission ex officio and ex spiritu is, in the end, a single mission. For Congar both aspects harmonize as a unit because they have the same object, ordered to the same end, and contain the same content: salvation in Christ

Jesus. Congar finds it necessary to insist on the mission of the Twelve as having priority in the sense that the hierarchical aspect of the mission embraces the totality of what it means to be an apostle and accords with the total means, powers, and charisms of the apostolic mission.139 In this sense the Apostles are the Church essentially and constitute her apostolic mission in that they bring “the three messianic offices into play in their form as powers.”140 While the laity is the Church, even though only unequivocally, they

possess the Church’s mission through their own distinctive participation (empowered by

Christ’s triplex munera) in the distinctive powers (potestas) of the official apostolic

mission. Put differently, for Congar this means the laity indirectly possesses the spiritual

powers (potestas) of the hierarchical aspect, yet they directly share in, associate with, and

complement, the hierarchical aspect of the apostolic mission in terms of the Church’s

objective of fulfilling Christ’s mission.

According to Congar, this claim that the faithful share in apostleship is neither a

modern innovation nor merely an intellectual abstraction. Rather, it is a historical reality

definitive of the Church’s mission in the “space between,” though it was eventually and

tragically eclipsed in later eras. Congar moves next to consider the historical groundwork

for the laity’s place in the Church’s mission. He begins with Pius XI’s teaching that the

rationale for the social and historical movement of Catholic Action is definitely

139 This is the disputed “door” or entry point into a theological question. 140 Ibid., 355.

113 biblical,141 founded on New Testament’s depiction of the faithful’s active cooperation in

the life and mission of the ecclesial community. Yet, Congar notes the historical

realization of lay apostleship, though present in the theology of Church Fathers such as

John Chrysostom, endured a period of great decline so much that in the patristic era the

notion of a lay apostle was given “hardly any place” within the Church after the

legalization of Christianity by Constantine and the development of Christendom. This

lack of recognition continued into medieval and early modern Christendom, which,

Congar argues, limited the laity’s role to that of Christendom’s cultural/political elites—

kings and princes— leaving the layperson the sole duty of obedience to the clergy in

abstraction from the Church’s mission of discipleship, worship, and evangelization.

The historical reduction of lay apostleship to lay elite continued in the era of early

modern Catholicism, especially those engaged in anti-Protestant apologetics. The

situation of the lay apostleship only changed after the dramatic socio-political upheavals

of the French revolution and the rise of market capitalism and industrialism. It was in the

context of democratization and the rejection of feudal social relations, Congar says, that

lay people and priests made fresh contact with the world in terms of a return to

apostolicity, especially lay apostleship. In particular, there was a growing realization that

the Church’s mission could not be put exclusively in the domain of priestly power

(puissance). Rechristianization required the apostolic efforts of lay people, not just that of the clergy. According to Congar, the story and history of the 19th century Church prominently features lay people—not from an exclusive class or estate—involved in variety of culture-building enterprises—from political movements, journalism, social work, and the university—ordered to the fulfillment of Christ’s twofold mission.

141 Ibid., 356.

114 The historical realization of the Catholic Action movement of the 20th century,

Congar argues, was deeply marked by the social Catholicism of the 19th century and the pontificate of Leo XIII. This movement called for the renewal of a society that was deeply fragmented and wounded by the effects of the French revolution and the industrialization. As a movement Catholic Action was formalized by St. Pius X as a practical solution to the social question of the 19th and early 20th centuries. In a word, the backdrop for the Catholic Action movement was the issues of the social question: increased poverty, the breakdown of social bonds, dehumanization of women and children by laissez-faire capitalism, and the neglect of the spiritual life and morality by everyday people.142

But for Congar, however, the story of Catholic Action proper begins with the

“great pope” Pius XI. In fact, Congar credits Pius XI’s program of Catholic Action with reviving the whole question of the laity again, leading to its theological definition.143 In contrast to Pius X’s more militant and reactionary version of Catholic Action, Congar claims Pius XI’s distinctive aims were more formal and constructive: to insist on the apostolic nature of Catholic Action, to broaden the character and include all categories of the movement, and to pronounce the “lay task” (“tâche laique”) especially as it corresponds to the Christian’s engagement with the secular field.

This leads Congar to take up Pius XI’s definition of Catholic Action: “the participation of the laity in the hierarchical apostolate.” It is here that Congar eschews definitions that are too metaphysical:

142 Ibid., 361. 143 Ibid.

115 From this point of view, Catholic Action represents as it were an ecclesiastical order or office constituted by a new, creative ‘participation’...endowed with a quasi-sacramental value.144

Instead of suggesting the laity are defined by Catholic Action, on Congar’s view, it is

better to interpret ‘participation’ as descriptive of the fact that the laity have a part to play

in the mission of the Church, with Catholic Action being a specific

institution/organization created to coordinate the laity’s participation with the hierarchy.145 On this interpretation, the meaning of Pius XI’s term ‘participation’ is not

altered significantly by Pius XII’s later term ‘coordination.’ Both terms, he argues, refer

to the fact that the laity extends the mission of the Church through their activity and

ministry in the Church and world, but they do not possess the “powers” of the hierarchy

nor its particular functions (munera). Thus, the distinction implied in ‘participation’ and

‘cooperation’ refers to the apostolicity of the Church’s mission that was given directly to

the Apostles and their successors.

The main point for Congar is that Catholic Action does not change the laity’s role in the Church’s mission as if a new quality of apostleship were added to them as a group.

Rather, apostleship is constitutive for the baptized through their sacramental incorporation. Thus, Pius XI’s Catholic Action mandate is practically concerned with organically coordinating and harmonizing the apostolicity of the hierarchy with the

apostolicity of the laity in the overriding mission of the Church herself, not adding

apostleship to a functionless laity. The distinction between Catholic Action and the lay

apostleship is that the latter is wider, varied and diverse in its manifestations, and more

generic in its definition than that particular aspect of apostleship articulated by the

144 Ibid., 362. 145 Ibid.

116 Catholic Action mandate. At the time of writing, some Catholics thought the Catholic

Action mandate served as a kind of ordination, perhaps something like a new, quasi-

sacrament of orders.146 But the official teaching of the mandate does not suggest

transmission of hierarchical ministerial powers or authority, but rather serves as a

juridical/canonical device to describe the relationship between hierarchy and organized

groups of laity in the context of 20th c. European concordats with secular

governments.147 We will not see this understanding of Catholic Action in the U.S. context—where there has never been a concordat between the Vatican and the U.S. government— which impacted the way U.S. Catholics inflected European Catholic theologies of the laity.

The mandate of Catholic Action becomes clearer when its mission is examined in light of the hierarchical mission.148 Congar does this by contrasting the internal general

mission of the Christian with the external mission. The internal mission is indeterminate

in that it depends on the state and circumstances of life. Yet, according to Congar, the

external mission, is both vague and specific. For example, the missions of bishops and

priests is specific in that their ministry requires certain powers and authority, which

concern the mediation of the objective means of salvation, yet it is vague in that their

mission is to “an undifferentiated collection of people,” i.e. distinct with diverse

groups of people. Catholic Action, on the other hand, is the opposite. There are no

146 Though Hahnenberg does not note this aspect of Catholic Action, there is a significant overlap between this notion of a quasi-ordination and the notion of baptism as an ordination common among some theologians of lay ministry in the U.S. context. 147 For example, fascist totalitarian states sought to suppress the Catholic Action movement during the pontificate of Pius XI, but he applied to the concordat arguing that to touch Catholic Action is tantamount to touching the Church itself, whose freedom was recognized. This is closely related to Pius XI description of the mandate as carrying a mission quasi ex officio. Thus, the mandate was a creative way to legally introduce the re-christianization into a secularly governed European society that was sometimes hostile to the hierarchy. 148 Congar, Lay People, 371.

117 apostolic powers (puissances) or authority, yet it operated on the presupposition of the

laity’s specific gifts, within a specific milieu, with a specific set of needs to be met. As

Congar sees it, these two missions, when operating in unison, correspond to two modes

of participation in Christ’s messianic energies. The priestly mandate is “fixed” and clear

in that priests have jurisdictional and pastoral authority over the Church, yet the mandate

of Catholic Action appropriate to the laity is diffuse in that it is more concerned with

influence, activity, and . Congar encompasses this distinction in an important

sentence that gets to the heart of his theology of the laity:

The mandate of the hierarchical priesthood involves the exercise of powers, therefore of rights, the Catholic Action mandate involves the exercise of influence and of duties rather than rights.149

It is also essential to recognize, Congar insists, that Catholic Action is a

movement of the laity as a whole and not an individualized, atomized apostolate.150 The mandate, then, belongs to the movement for the purpose of influencing specific sectors of society and life. This does not mean every Christian’s personal mission is altered in respect to every other person, but it does “consecrate the relative providential determining of the mission ex spiritu by position, occupation, circumstances, abilities and actual possibilities of service.”151 In a sense, each member serves the whole and brings

Christ’s work to its fullness through their collaboration in “this great network” of

Catholic Action. This concrete cooperation and participation is what defines Catholic

Action and its hierarchical support, and Congar sees it as the fulfillment of Chrysostom’s

149 Ibid., 372. Translation mine. 150 Ibid. 151 Ibid.

118 adage that the laity is the pleroma of the bishop (this view of the laity was also held by

Pius XI).152

Catholic Action is also attuned to the pastoral realities of postwar Europe, where

society as a whole needs the pastoral work of the whole Church. In this context, and in

any context, the priesthood and laity are to work together as an “organic compound” or a

single “subject” whose activity bears a single responsibility.153 This leads Congar to

consider the duty of Catholic Action, especially in light of magisterial texts. The

pontifical texts suggest a contradiction between a notion of an elite group of the laity

(who would bear apostleship and responsibility) and ‘every Catholic,’ a presupposition

about the laity operative in medieval and early modern societies. If this notion were the

case, apostleship would not be an essential feature of the laity but an added reality by the

hierarchy. Congar points to a solution to this dilemma with a distinction between

doctrinal instruction and pastoral instruction. Pastoral instruction is highly contextual and

particular to the given needs of the audience, which Congar sees as a partial explanation

for the seeming contradiction. In some of these letters the addressee is “elite” in the sense that the person is a leader on lay group such as Catholic Action. In the theoretical or doctrinal texts, Congar finds two identifiable ‘groups’: either a generalized notion of lay apostleship or specific references to Catholic Action movement and the juridical obligations that go with it. This leads him to offer three distinctions being made by the popes (Pius XI and Pius XII), 1) all are called to apostleship and participation in Catholic

Action is a primary duty, 2) when one is involved in Catholic Action it is an activity in the perfection and fullness of the faith in accord with ecclesiastical law, 3) Catholic

152 Ibid., 373. 153 Ibid., 374.

119 Action really and potentially includes all the faithful, some of whom are elite (i.e.,

leaders). However, Catholic Action is not identifiable with the every area of apostleship

and Christian activity. Even though every Christian has a calling and corresponding

duties, not all are called to participate actively in Catholic Action. In a word Congar’s

argument is Catholic Action is a duty for those involved, but apostleship is broadly

viewed as an obligation of every Christian.

He next considers the various forms Catholic Action can take in the broader

modern world.154 First, Congar perceives the danger of reification when the apostolate of

Catholic Action is viewed across diverse social and cultural situations, since its concrete

mission should not be viewed as if it were a monolithic, uniform, and unchanging

organization. Instead, Catholic Action is an organization capable of adaptation and

variation depending on practical needs and opportunities. It should not be viewed merely

as an institution to be defended, but primarily a school of personal formation and moral

action (Pius XI).155 This formation begins with children and is supposed to continue into

adulthood. The particularity of this formation is not merely formal but a

training to understand the real issues confronting the human person, especially the youth,

living in an industrialized, secular society. This is not to say every member of Catholic

Action is meant to engage in social reform and political activities. There is more variety

in terms of involvement and service.

The principle areas where Catholic Action had developed at the time of writing

Jalons, Congar says, are in its missionary activity and “action on structures.”156 In terms of missionary activity, Catholic Action is primarily concerned with the re-evangelization

154 Ibid., 377. 155 Ibid., 378. 156 Ibid.

120 of former Catholic and Christian countries undergoing secularization. The preferred mode of evangelization, according to Pius XI, should mirror that of the early Church, which was to evangelize through one’s contacts, i.e. through one’s work and familial relationships. This work requires the use of one’s charisms and vocation, which are unique to the individual, and should view the evangelization process as the process of conversion not proselytization. But the mission of Catholic Action must be wider than the conversion of individual persons. It should be directed to what Congar calls the given

“milieu.”157

According to the findings of the Catholic Action inquiry method, the human person is deeply formed by society and the social dimension of personhood. Thus, the definition of the human person as a rational animal must also include the social needs and influences at work forming the intellect and will, which are typically the institutions and structures of civil society. This is the meaning of Catholic Action’s “action on structures.” In a telling illustration, Congar draws a parallel between the culture and society-building of feudal Christian kings and the work to be done by people of faith on social groups and institutions living in “our modern feudalism,.158 This kind of work requires not only a renewed apologetics to address the religious questions of the age, but also a “praeambula apostolatus”: “the preparation, defence, ‘disinfecting’ of men in their secular social structures, in their actual life as persons, so that the faith may strike root, grow and bear fruit.”159

157 Ibid., 380. 158 Ibid., 380-381. Nowhere does Congar define his specific meaning of a “new feudalism,” though he does connect the notion to Russian Orthodox philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev’s work The End of Our Time. When the term is viewed in the broader context of Congar’s work and this specific text by Berdyaev it seems to refer to the growing economic inequalities in most European societies in the 1950s. 159 Ibid., 381.

121 Thus, the consequence of the need for rechristianizing the milieu is not merely to promote piety among Christians, but to affect the collective unity of all persons and promote a holistic view of society, seeing social unity as built on its structures, conditions, and interpersonal connections.160 This means Catholic Action, even though it is supposed to avoid party politics, according to the directives of Pius XI, sees part of its mission to be the training of Christians to work at the service of the political common good (religious faith can never be completely privatized). But commitment to the common good of modern political societies does not mean Catholic Action should identify its goals with those of empire. Rather, according to Congar, Catholic Action seeks to build and influence society for the purpose of cultivating a form of life that is open to the Gospel, not to build another empire. In order to cultivate a society to the

Gospel, the goals of Catholic Action and the Church itself are concerned with the human person as “the centre of all social order,” especially the human person’s interior life, which is the “secure foundation for human society.”161

According to Congar, it is for these reasons that the Church cannot close herself off from the world. Fundamental to her divine mission is to form humanity in its fullness, which requires collaboration in building society. From the Christian perspective, the

Church’s contribution to society, and that means especially the laity’s contribution, is not ancillary to society’s well-being, because “the Church is the vital principle of human society” and the laity are the “front line.”162

The meaning of the ecclesial and lay mission to act on the social structures through influence is fundamental to the Church’s participation in Christ’s redemptive

160 Ibid. 161 Pius XII quoted in Lay People, 382. 162 Pius XII quoted in Lay People, 383.

122 mission to restore and redeem the created order, not to produce a social program to exert more direct political power as in Christendom. Catholic Action’s influence, then, is for the sake of the coming Kingdom and is therefore only indirectly concerned with the policies and procedures of the nation-state. For Congar, it is necessary the members of

Catholic Action not confuse their work with the direct achievement of the eschatological

Kingdom of God. The laity’s work is not to transform the social order into the sacral order of the Kingdom of God. In Congar’s words, evocative of Gaudium et Spes, the work of Catholic Action remains “natural to their matter,” i.e., a Christian who is a dentist does not begin to practice Christian dentistry even if she works under the inspiration of faith and charity.163

One can hear in Congar’s concerns here the temptation of Joachimism that his friend would write about twenty years later in La postérité spirituelle de

Joachim de Flore.164 The purpose of the Catholic Action movement, Congar argues, is to recognize and support the created integrity of the natural order as such. One of the failures of the medieval achievement was the collapsing of the natural order into the supernatural order that resulted in the degradation of the mundane and earthly. Catholic

Action looks to redress the social and political order in a more sanguine manner.

With that said, Congar acknowledges that while it is incorrect to collapse nature into supernature, it is equally incorrect to sever their connection by a false extrinsicism.

Even though the Church does not possess in her nature the competence to determine the prudential affairs of society, she does, Congar says, give “the meaning of everything, and this meaning is God, in Christ Jesus.” Because the Church has the competency to explain

163 Ibid., 385-386. 164 La postérité spirituelle de Joachim de Flore (Paris: Lethielleux, 1987)

123 the relationship between the temporal and the supernatural, Congar says the Church is

able to teach the faithful to “christofinalize” everything they do. “Christofinalize” is

Congar’s neologism that seems to mean the ability for Christians to simultaneously order

their actions in temporal matters to their natural end on earth as well as their final,

eschatological end in Jesus Christ. For Congar this preserves the integrity of the temporal

act, while acknowledging the internal intentionality of the act driven by charity derived

from Christ’s power. Congar explains it thus:

He [the Christian] can also, while having the inward final intention of God’s glory… take action whose intrinsic and specifying aim is, not to lead to Christ, but to obtain some temporal result as such: a scientific treatise, for example, or a rise in wages, a housing law, or better care for the sick.165

These types of actions distinguish the particular aims of the Catholic Action movement

from “[p]urely temporal activities of Christians” ordered exclusively to natural ends,

which is not the purpose of Catholic Action.166 According to Congar, the activities of the

Catholic Action movement are “properly and intrinsically religious things,” even though

the temporal matter being influenced does not fall under the Church’s competence. This

is not a mere semantic sleight of hand. Congar is saying that the subjective agency of the

Catholic Action member active in the world has been authorized and deputized for:

The duty of inspiring society with the Christian spirit and implanting the Christian idea of man, with all it calls for from [sic] individuals and families and on the national and international planes, according to the principles of the Church’s social teaching.167

165 Ibid., 386-387. 166 Congar offers two examples of temporal activities by Catholics that should not be viewed as Catholic Action: the Sillon in 1907 and the Mouvement populaire des Familles, which became the Mouvement de Libération du Peuple in 1950. 167 Ibid., 385.

124 This means that Catholic Action lay members use their worldly competencies for the

specific purposes of promoting the final end of the created order that is the unique

provenance of the Church of Christ. Since, as members of Christ’s mystical body, the

baptized person is living in the “space-between” the time of the Church and the time of eschatological fulfillment, which means the baptized person is called to use her gifts and vocation to bring about the pleroma of Christ’s body on earth. In sum, for Congar, this usage of one’s spiritual gifts for the purpose of the realization of Christ’s body on earth is at the heart of the adaptation of the triplex munera to the laity and the purpose of the apostolic action of lay people in the world.

Conclusion Congar’s Jalons pour une théologie du laïcat is a monumental work of theology, drawing on the disciplines of Church history, biblical studies, patristic and medieval theology, modern Catholic and Protestant theology, and the social evangelical teaching of the Magisterium. In this work he offers a definition of the laity based on canon law,

Christology, ecclesiology, and social thought. He roots the laity’s identity in the biblical narrative of salvation history and traces the various ways the laity were thematized throughout Church history. At the heart of Congar’s work is the conviction that the laity cannot be understood as a group unless they are seen as necessary connected to Christ and to the existence of his ecclesia. The laity’s existence in/as the Church is specifically as a group in a necessary relationship to other non-lay members of the Church. Thus, the laity’s relationship to the hierarchy and religious is a necessary relationship, marked by the qualities of mutuality, solidarity, and subsidiarity. Congar accounts for this necessary relationship through an adaptation of Christ’s triplex munera to the laity. The Church had

125 already adapted the triplex munera to the hierarchy and to the general existence of a

Christian. Congar’s genius adaptation of the triplex munera to the laity grounded the laity’s existence in the Church as necessary and necessarily relational. Just as the hierarchy relates to the Church and world through their actions ex officio, so too does the laity relate to the Church and world through their actions ex spiritu. Even though the lay person qua lay does not possess an office in the ecclesiastical structure, they do actively and definitively participate in Christ’s work in the Church and world through a variety of munera, whether expressed in the Church per se or in the world through their vocations.

Congar’s Jalons was not a merely speculative work, but he clearly envisioned his original insight into the laity’s sharing in the triplex munera as having real world application. Congar’s Jalons is at home, so to speak, in a deconfessionalized and increasingly secularized France and Europe at large, where the Church’s social and political status was either challenged or denied by secular authorities or the populace in general. For Congar, Jalons’ focus on the laity’s “fonction” and form of life in the

Church and world was aimed specifically at animating the rechristianizing efforts of

Catholic Action as well as the social reconstruction program of the Catholic Social

Teaching. In particular, Jalons should be viewed as a call to a specific cultural milieu, divided and at war with itself, to reestablish the roots of traditional society that bonded people together and ordered civic and religious life in relation to each other.

In the next chapter we will see that Jalons intended audience was short-lived, which caused Congar to adapt and refocus what he considered relevant in his theology of the laity for his new context.

126 CHAPTER THREE

CONGAR’S THEOLOGY OF THE LAITY AFTER JALONS: THEOLOGY OF

MINISTRIES AND THE TRIPLEX MUNERA

Introduction After Jalons, Congar continued to publish on the laity but added to it a new

topic—lay ministry—which he continued to developed throughout the remainder of his

life.168 It is this body of work that we now examine. Of particular importance for this

study is the fact that the theologians examined in the U.S. Catholic reception generally

view this aspect of Congar’s work on the laity most relevant for their respective works

and their U.S. ecclesial and social context. The main argument of this chapter counters

any notion of significant division between Congar’s earlier work –specifically his

original adaptation of the triplex munera to the laity—and his later work. Distinction, yes,

but division, no. This chapter argues Congar’s theology of ministries continued to affirm

the basic work of Jalons on the secular context of most lay vocations and the

foundational work of the triplex munera for understanding lay activities in as Christian

activity, whether in the ecclesial context or in a secular context.169

168 When distinguishing Congar’s early theology of the laity from his later work, there are two works I excluded A Gospel Priesthood and Christians Active in the World from examination in either chapter. I did so for two reasons: 1) some of the essays collected were adapted into chapters in Jalons and 2) the essays in general are characterized by the same theological vision of Jalons and do not contribute to his theology of ministries. 169 On the diverse forms of secularity in the modern world see José Casanova, Public Religions in the Modern World (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1994).

127 The focus of the chapter will be a set of four essays Congar wrote between 1970 and

1983. It is widely known and acknowledged in this study that Yves Congar’s theology of

the laity underwent a certain revision in the post-conciliar period. These essays were chosen as the representative essays of this period, though they do not all argue for or describe a theology of ministries. Before examining the relevant texts it is necessary to contextualize them, at least broadly, within their historical and ecclesial contexts.

When examining the essays written below it becomes fairly clear that Congar

viewed the post-conciliar period to be an unprecedented time in western Europe,170

perhaps a time of deep rupture with the past, in the history of the Church and human

history. Like his fellow theologians of that time, including , M.-D. Chenu,

and , Congar post-conciliar thought is captivated by the question of

“modern man,” and how to present to modern people the demands of the Christian gospel

in a context that was experiencing increasing secularization. Put differently, Congar’s

theological vision in the post-conciliar era was marked by a growing conviction that

many of the cultural and religious presuppositions of his generation, mostly

presuppositions of traditional European societies, were no longer operative in modern

rational societies and culture. In terms of the theology of the laity, Congar’s post-

conciliar writings are characterized by a growing sense that the thick ecclesial and

cultural sense of the Church that underwrites Jalons was no longer recognizable to the

layperson living in the modern world. In a word, Congar’s later writings bear the obvious

note that the intellectual, ecclesial, historical, and social horizon had dramatically shifted

away from that of Jalons.

170 See “Should We De-Clergify the Priesthood?” in Blessed is the Peace of My Church.

128 Despite this change of context, this chapter argues, as stated above, that Congar’s

later work on the laity is not a total departure from his earlier work but an attempt to

realign his earlier theology of the laity—sometimes resulting in rejection of his former

views and a change of perspective—with the shifts in European culture(s), including the

ecclesial culture of the local Catholic parish.

Essays on the Laity and Ministries “Ministries and Structure of the Church” (1970)171 We begin with Congar’s 1970 article “Ministries and Structure of the Church,”

which is similar in content to the next article, “My Path-Findings in the Theology of

Laity and Ministry” except that this study aims to formally sketch the relationship between ministries and the ecclesial structure, whereas “My Path-Findings” is more a

retrospective of Congar’s theology. In “Ministries and Structures” Congar sketches in

three parts the question of the relationship between ministry and the ecclesial structure: in

the first he examines the historical conditions for the question of ministries, second he

considers which ecclesiological framework best fits the relationship, and last he

distinguishes three types of ministries. The rationale for examining this article is that it

provides insight into how Congar’s theology of ministries developed beyond “My Path-

Findings,” which is the essay considered most representative of his later views.

“Ministries and Structures,” is arguably his most theoretical study of ministries and

understanding it gives a fuller picture of Congar’s later thought. Also, “Ministries and

171 “Ministères et structuration de l'Eglise," La Maison-Dieu 102, (1970), 7-20. This article has never been translated into English. All quotations are my own translation.

129 Structures” furthers our understanding of how Congar envisioned the relationship

between his early and later work.

In the first part Congar sketches the biblical, conciliar, and theological

background to a renewed theology of ministries that is not exclusively instituted,

sacramental, hierarchical ministries. In terms of the biblical grounds, Congar focuses on

the NT evidence, particularly noting that ministries were often affected by their cultural

environment resulting in a kind of pluralism of ministries. In the broadest terms Congar notes that ministry in the NT is often indicated by “ of function [“fonction”] or action.”172 This observation is most pertinent for the purposes of this study. In fact, it is

notable throughout Congar’s post-conciliar study of ministries that he continued to use

the familiar terms of Jalons in connection with the notion of ministries, especially

“fonction” (munus) which he viewed as a more precise category than ministry.173

In sketching a theology of ministries, Congar draws heavily on Vatican II’s communion ecclesiology as the ecclesiological basis, since it prioritizes Christian existence (supernatural ontology174) over institutional and juridical structures. On the

communion ecclesiology view of the Church, all ministries derive their existence from

Christian existence as baptized members of Christ’s Church, even those ministries that

are instituted, sacramental, or hierarchical.

172Yves Congar, Ministères et Communion Ecclésiale: Theologie sans Frontières (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1971), 31-32: “It appears that the Church has been given the ministries she needed (cf. Acts 6:1-6). The many titles designating these ministries are titles of function or action, often borrowed from profane language. These are the tasks that determine ministries. We even have to argue that the donations of the faithful are recognized as gifts of service raised to the Lord, so that we would be dealing less with ministries set only by ministers. Some functions are well defined, others less so.” [translation mine] 173 Ministères et Communion Ecclésiale, 34-35. 174 “Supernatural ontology” for Congar refers to the spiritual transformation of human existence received sacramentally at baptism.

130 Congar next notes that Vatican II opens the possibility to view ministries in terms

of their “fonction”—though not exclusively through the sacramental character of

ordination—because all function in the Church flows from the Church’s evangelical

mission. Not only are ministries derived from function, but Vatican II also repeatedly

refers to ministries and charisms as constitutive in the construction of the Church and her

life. Finally, Congar notes that in the Council’s document on ecumenical dialogue the

Church has moved beyond an exclusive hierarchical view of ministry and

recognized very positively the priestly quality of all the baptized, the functional character of the ministerial priesthood and, finally, the need not to separate instituted and community ministries.175

In the second part of the study, Congar addresses the failure of ecclesiological

models that views ministries as instrumental cause of the Church. Saying the Church is

caused, instrumentally not principally (only God is the principal cause), by ministries

results in proposing that those members in the Church who do not possess recognized or

actual ministries derive their ecclesial being from the ministers/ministries that bring them

into the Church. Such views of the Church have two problems: first, they lead to the

absolutization of the instituted, sacramental, hierarchical ministries, which drastically

narrows the scope of ministries and reduces the significance of non-ordained

ministries.176 He also notes that absolutized views of ministry will easily abstract the

function of ministries in the community, which is precisely how ministries are

contextualized in the NT, especially apostleship. The second even more problematic issue

is that such a view reduces the non-ordained to a secondary ecclesial status, as if they

175 Ibid., 34. As stated later, Congar’s notion of “fonction”/munera is not antithetical to the sacramental characters, each of which he views as potentia, but builds on them by ordering them to social relations inflected by the power of grace. 176 Ibid., 35.

131 were not fully members of the community by their baptism. As will be noted in the

chapter six, Congar’s work in Jalons is often characterized by contemporary theologians

such as O’Meara and Hahnenberg as falling into this position o viewing ministries as the

Church’s instrumental cause. I would argue the more accurate assessment is that his

earlier views were inconsistent, in that the earlier work is marked by the attempt to

neither reduce the ecclesia to its structure or its life. As he famously argued in “My Path-

Findings” Congar summarizes his solution thus,

We can consider the ministries as a structuring within a qualified and vibrant Christian community. The ministry does not create the community as outside and above it. [Ministry] is placed in it by the Lord to encourage and build it. Neither can we say that ministries are from the community; at least we cannot say it outright, but there is a sense in which not only the ministers come from the Church, but in which ministries are formed by the Church, which represent and personify the community.177

Finally, echoing his use of “fonction” in Jalons, Congar concludes against the reduction of ministries to an instrumental cause that instead ministries be viewed as “functions”

[“fonctions”] within a body that ontologically qualify as service and mission” and again

“ministries are functional: they exist to structure a body where each member has a role in life and for all.”178 Ministries, then, instead of being viewed as autonomous possessions

of the ordained are a participation in Christ’s power and authority that exist to serve and

edify the community and the world. Ministries exist within and for the ecclesial

community and function as a path of mediation between Christ the Head and the

members.

177 Ibid., 37. 178 Ibid., 39.

132 The final section, again echoed in “My Path-Findings,”179 is Congar’s attempt to

categorize ministries in their relation to the Church’s structure. Congar first notes

ministries should not be reduced to a matter of legal power. Rather, even though the

ecclesial community is an intrinsically structured community and composed of different

specific functions, it is built up through divinely given graces, the charisms of its

members, and the plurality of ministries. Congar divides ministries into three types: 1)

the occasional or spontaneous, 2) the stable non-ordained, and 3) the ordained public office. Congar’s purpose is not to create a hierarchy of ministries in order of most essential. Each type is necessary for the flourishing of the ecclesial community, yet they are differentiated according to their “fonction” even though, according to Congar, the ordained ministries have a “decisive” place in the community. Nevertheless, the stable ministries—both non-ordained and ordained—are stable not because of an intrinsic power of the minister but because they are founded on an “ontology of grace.”180

Congar closes the article with some brief remarks on the overlap of ministry and

structure in the Church, specifically his own use of the categories “structure and life” in

True and False Reform and Jalons. He describes his own use of “structure” as that

“which gives the Church its identity in the order of faith, sacraments and hierarchical

functions.” He begins by distinguishing his understanding of the external “structure” of

the Church from that Hans Küng, who described the Church’s structures as stable yet

sometimes short-lived and transformable depending on context. In a somewhat surprising

move, Congar concludes that his own view and Küng’s are not entirely antithetical. For

Congar, the duality of the sense of the word “Church,” as seen in the ecclesiological

179 “My Path-Findings in the Theology of Laity and Ministries,” The Jurist, XXXII (1971), 169-188. 180 Congar, Ministères et Communion Ecclésiale, 46. “Ontology of grace” refers to the change in being – “new creature in Christ”—that obtains at the conversion of baptism.

133 metaphors of “people of God,” “the universal sacrament of salvation” and even the

Church as institution, permits a space for debate over what is necessary in terms of ministries in the Church. The only structural matter that is not negotiable is the “ in ministry, that is as the episcopal college, with Peter at the head,” though this theological fact does not mean a return of a vision of the Church as instrumentally caused by the hierarchy, since Congar notes “this [the episcopal college] is not everything, but only ministries.”

Evaluation Based on this essay, specifically his use of the notion of “fonction,” it is difficult to draw the conclusion that Congar’s later theology of ministries is a total shift in perspective from his earlier theology of the laity. Instead, it is more accurate to conclude that Congar viewed ministry as a specification of “fonction”181 and not an unrelated concept. Ministries are precise examples of munus realized in and through the actions of the members of the ecclesial community within the ecclesial community. Thus, the shift that occurs in Congar’s thought is from the broader notion of the laity’s participation in

181 That Congar sees ministry as a specification of munera is made more obvious in his 1964 study, “Ministères et laïcat dans les recherches actuelles de la théologie catholique romaine,” Verbo Caro 18 (1964): I also asked myself about the very word of ministry. It designates by itself something quite definite. One could speak of a wider way (that's what I did in my book Jalons pour une théologie du laïcat.) on the active participation of the faithful in the functions of the Church… Here it is a question of ministries, therefore something more specific, and I will limit myself to this term, leaving aside a description of the active part of the laity in the functions of the Church to keep to their relations with the ministries.”: 127-128. (italics added)

Spanish theologian Aurelio Fernandez affirms the continued importance of the triplex munera in Congar’s later theology as a “fundamental idea” in christology, ecclesiology, and a key to understanding the unity and schism of the Church: “Sobre el mismo tema vuelve en Ministère et Communion Ecclesial. La teoría del triple munus es una idea fundamental, tanto en cristología como en eclesiología, tal como se presenta en su colaboración al centenario de Concilio de Caledonia. En esa trilogía de fonciones descubre Congar la unidad—y también el cisma—de la Iglesia.” in Munera Christi et Munera Ecclesiae: Historia de una teoria: 637.

134 the triplex munera to the laity’s more specific kind of participation in ecclesial ministries.

However, Congar does note a significant shift in his thought that is a departure from

Jalons: he accepts as true the growing awareness within the Church the supposition that

not all actions within the ecclesial community are defined by the priest-laity dyad. In

response to this “new” supposition, Congar develops his notion of ministries, which

permits him to see distinction and relation among myriad members of the ecclesial

community, rather than merely distinction and communion between hierarchy and laity.

“My Path-Findings in the Theology of Laity and Ministry” (1971)182 “My Path-Findings” is without a doubt the most cited and well-known Congar article

on lay ministry. Except for Philibert, each of the U.S. theologians covered in chapters

five and six cite this article at least once. Congar begins this famous essay, somewhat

comparatively, referencing the fact that St. Augustine, near the end of his life, penned a

list of “revisions” to his earlier. The great Dominican himself claims he will not offer a

set of revisions of his own work, but rather “self-criticism and something of a

confidence” and “an overall critical examination of the contribution I have tried to offer

to the theology of the laity and ministries.” In contrast to “Ministries and Structures,” this

essay is not organized by argument, but is rather significantly retrospective and

autobiographical. Congar organizes this essay in the following way: 1) the historical,

social, and religious background to his theology of the laity; 2) his regret over his mode

of procedure in Jalons; 3) his change of perspective over how to characterize communion

within the Church from the couplet “priest/laity” to “ministries/modes of service,” and 4)

182 “My Path-Findings in the Theology of Laity and Ministries,” The Jurist, XXXII (1971), 169-188. Originally published as“Mon Cheminement dans la Théologie du laïcat et des ministères,” in Ministères et Communion Ecclésiale (Paris: Cerf, 1971): 9-30.

135 specific examples of how this change of perspective affected his theological views. The

end result of this examination of “My Path-Findings” is that these later changes in

Congar’s theology do not result in a rupture from his past work, but rather signify an

adaptation of his theology to a change in historical, social, and cultural horizons.

The article begins with one of Congar’s most cited statements in “My Path-

Findings.” With an aim at self-criticism, Congar cites an earlier desire to produce a

“sound and sufficient theology of the laity,” which can only be realized through a “total ecclesiology.”183 Famously, Congar concludes “I have not written that ecclesiology.”

This statement has become in the U.S. reception a sign, or perhaps an admission, that

Congar’s theology of the laity, even in his own estimation, had fallen short of his plan to

produce a “total ecclesiology.” While it is certain that Congar regrets not being able to

write a “total ecclesiology,” it is not clear that he viewed his theology of the laity, or even

the theological notion of the laity, as eclipsed by the advent of the theology of ministries.

It becomes clear on examination of the article that Congar’s goal was to place his earlier

work in a constructive dialogue with the developing notion of a theology of ministries.

Evidence of this bears out in a close reading of the text.

The first example that Congar did not see this article as a rejection of his past

work is in his account of his “slow advance” on the question of the laity. Congar

describes his theological development as a series of “stages” or “aspects” taking him

from the presumed ecclesiology of his early priestly ministry (the Church as an

“organized society constituted by the exercise of powers…”), to his encounters with

mystical Body ecclesiology, his experience of Catholic Action “in the shape of the young

183 Congar, “My Path-Findings,” 169.

136 Christian Workers (JOC),”184 to the period of renewal in the post-war years, particularly

the renewed interest in the laity. The language here is positive, empathetic, and

suggesting progression understanding of the importance of the theology of the laity.185 It

is within these series of development, or stages, that Congar places his own contributions

to the theology of the laity. In fact, it is here that he defends his description of the laity in

Jalons and his account of the laity’s role in the Church, characterized “in positive

fashion” by its secularity.186 What makes this defense more interesting is that Congar

follows his defense of the laity’s secularity with a claim that his work also affirms the

layperson’s rightful place in the “internal life of the Church insofar as it is a positive,

divine institution.” He further claims that his adaptation of the triplex munera to the laity

was precisely to support the intra-ecclesial work of the laity.

Even though it is clear Congar did not reject or regret his description of the laity in Jalons, nor his earlier use of the triplex munera, he does recognize in “My Path-

Findings” two significant problems with Jalons: first, that his earlier mode of procedure

was “inappropriate” insofar as he “risked” defining the ministerial priesthood “purely in

itself,” and, second, that using the terminology of “priesthood/laity” was not the “decisive

coupling” needed to express the mutuality, solidarity, and unity between members of the

ecclesial community.187 Rather than reducing community to a coupling of priesthood and

184 Ibid., 171-172. 185 Ibid.: “They were enthusiastic young people, conscious of bearing the cause of evangelical witness in the milieu of working men. This consciousness fused with the theology of the Mystical Body as it could be found in popularized form in the books of, say, Pere Glorieux, and this fusion led to an “incarnational” spirituality. Young workers continued the of Christ the Worker, the life of a worker constituted a “continuation of the incarnation”—a theme which could lend itself to ambiguity but which Pere Chenu helped us to interpret in terms of realism of grace and Word. Then came the war with its train of fateful events… The upshot was this in the euphoric post-war years of liberty regained, 1946-1947, the question of the status of the laity in the Church forced itself upon us in a new way.” 186 Congar, “My Path-Findings,” 173. 187 Ibid., 174.

137 laity, Congar came to see “ministries/modes of community service” as the decisive

pairing. As he states in “Ministries and Structures,” Congar’s change of perspective is

based on his realization that one’s starting point in theology effects one’s conclusions

and/or results, and some aspects of Jalons’ results were affected by his problematic

ecclesiological starting point. In both essays, Congar argues that Jalons risks suggesting

that the Church’s existence is instrumentally caused by the hierarchical sacramental

ministry. The problems with this starting are stated above, but Congar’s solution is to

propose communion ecclesiology, with a notion of the ecclesia as already structured

community, as the theological starting point. It is within this ecclesiological framework

of structured communion, derived from and caused by Christ the Head and his Holy

Spirit, that the priestly ministry and all other ministries are defined. It is important to note

that Congar does not suggest the category of ministries replace that of priesthood or laity,

only that ministries/modes of community service are more decisive ecclesiologically.

“My Path-Findings” continues with specific examples that demonstrate the practicality and theological vitality of his change of procedure. Without going into too much detail, Congar considers five topics, of which we will examine the last: 1) the necessity of community consent and confirmation in the election of pastors by the faithful people and bishops by the clergy;188 2) the apostolicity of the Church as a whole and not merely the hierarchy;189 3) a defense of his account of lay theologians in Jalons;190 4) the

recognition of the role of women in ecclesial community;191 5) and the secularity/laicality

of the laity’s vocation & spirituality, including a defense of the description of the

188 Congar, “My Path-Findings,” 179. 189 Ibid., 180. 190 Ibid., 182. 191 Ibid., 183.

138 temporal in and Jalons.192 In the first four examples, Congar highlights

the necessity of recognizing that the ministerial capabilities of the non-ordained minister flows from his or her incorporation in the community through the sacraments. In the fifth example, Congar addresses contemporary challenges193 to his characterizing the laity by

their secularity/laicality and concludes with a reaffirmation of his account of the laity’s secularity in Jalons, which he sees as tantamount to the conciliar position.

Even though he offers no fundamental changes to his theology of the laity,

Congar recognizes that the context for understanding lay activity has changed.194 Where

his earlier theology of the laity was formulated in light of the social and spiritual mission

of Catholic Action, in the milieu of Catholic concordats, Congar’s theology of ministries

occurred in a drastically changed social and cultural circumstance. In Congar’s view, the

Christian laity’s vocation would now occur in the confines of the “secular city,”195 where

the ethical and cultic teachings of the Catholic faith were ostensibly becoming more and

more unintelligible to the uninitiated. This change of circumstances requires a

specification of the laity’s ecclesial activity as a form of ministry.

“Some Issues Affecting Ministries” (1971)196 Published in the same year as “My Path-Findings,” Congar takes up the issue of

ministries again but examines it from three different angles not addressed in “Ministries

192 Ibid., 184-186. 193 For a lively example, see “Session VI Discussion,” in Vatican II: An Interfaith Appraisal (University of Notre Dame Press: Notre Dame & London, 1966): 267-272. 194 Congar, “My Path-Findings,” 188: “The world is in the making every day. As is the Church. As is theology. So I am not ashamed to have evolved a little myself nor to be still a researcher.” 195 What is in need of being translated, “carried over,” for the modern layperson is the sacrificial nature of the liturgical and the priestly minister’s role in carrying it out. 196Yves Congar, “Quelques problèmes touchant les ministères,” Nouvelle Revue Theologique, no. 8, (October 1971), 785-800. This article has never been translated into English. Quotations are my own translation.

139 and Structures,” nor “My Path-findings.” He describes the theology of ministries as being addressed at that time by three intimately related questions, derived from concern over the status and meaning of the priesthood in light of ministries.197 The focus of this

summarization is on the first issue—the question of the significance of the sacramental

character, particularly of the character received in orders, in light of ministries—but we

will also briefly summarize the second issue, which concerns the relationship between the

priestly ministry (Orders) and non-ordained ministries.

Theological Starting Point Congar opens his argument by situating and justifying his own starting point, or

“door,” on the question of the priesthood, which is a restatement of his rejection of

hierarchology.198 Congar references several examples typical of hierarchology, such as

the absolutization of ordination, the medieval practice of treating sacramental theology as

an autonomous treatise, a “Christology without ecclesiology,” each of which disconnects

the ordained from the non-ordained members of the ecclesia. Congar gives particular

attention to a view of the sacramental character that interprets it as a “collation of a power

that is personally possessed in an inimitable way,” again, in abstraction from the ecclesial

community.199

For Congar, the second door is the result of “a new situation” or “a new

approach” to ecclesiology: the ecclesiology of the Church as the universal sacrament of

197 Ibid., 785. He describes the three subjects as being in “solidaires” with each other. 198 Ibid. “Hierarchology” refers to defining the Church primarily through the instrumental causality of hierarchical, ordained ministry. 199 Ibid., 786.

140 salvation.200 In this new approach, there has been a considerable rediscovery of an

ecclesiology of the local Church, especially the Eucharistic community as the subject of

holy action of the liturgy. Congar sees in the notion of the Church as universal sacrament

an inclusive way of conceiving the Church that necessarily includes both the continued

apostolic ministry of the successors of the Twelve and the laity in the definition of the

Church. From within this ecclesiological starting point, or “door,” our understanding of

the Church renders the work of the ministerial priesthood more as a “‘priestly ministry’”

and less definitively “as a ‘power’ to consecrate, personally possessed.” In this view all

ministries, especially the priestly ministry exists “for a whole priestly community.”201 In

other words, by entering through this second door, where the priestly minister’s

ordination is inseparable from his call to mission, Congar asks what happens to our view

of the ordination of the minister? This raises the issue of the sacramental character.

Sacramental character Congar’s account of the relationship between the sacramental character and the

theology of ministries is primarily historical-doctrinal and minimally theological.202 The

most basic doctrinal kernel of the sacramental character is that it refers to the non-

repeatable nature of certain sacraments (baptism, confirmation, orders). This teaching

existed before Augustine began the process of doctrinal formalization when he used the

metaphor of “character” to defend the efficacy of baptism against the Donatists.203 The

200 Ibid. Congar does state that there is patristic provenance for the ecclesiology of the Church as sacrament of salvation. 201 Ibid. 202 Ibid., 787-791. 203 Congar notes that this teaching has analogues in the East that are thematized differently, even a diversity of opinions: “Orthodox theologians sometimes find affirmations favorable to an indelible ‘character’ of

141 theological doctrine of the character had its heyday in the medieval period when it was developed in light of Aristotelian metaphysics. Congar notes that the medieval period produced a number of theological opinions on the character, none of which have been developed into doctrine. The Council of Trent provides the only official affirmation on the characters, which is only that the character(s) actually exist. Trent does not weigh in on the medieval or early modern theological opinions, nor does it even suggest the characters are the reason certain sacraments are non-repeatable.204 When it comes to the specific character of Orders, the “official doctrine” of the Church “merely asserts” that

Ordination is definitive without a definitive theological explanation.205

Congar does argue that there is “no question” that the character of Orders is a participation in the eternal priesthood of Christ, though he acknowledges that it is an open question whether or not ordination brings a new kind of participation distinct from that of baptism. His own personal theological judgment is that there is sound theological ground for saying ordination is a unique kind of participation from baptism. Here Congar cites the International Theological Commission’s 1970 document on priestly ministry,

Lumen Gentium no. 10, and Pius XII as supports for this position. The common rationale for asserting two different kinds of priesthoods, rather than two degrees of priesthood206, is that if you say the priest has a higher degree of priesthood than you set him up as a super-Christian over the layperson. Congar’s rationale for two kinds of priesthood are decidedly different: he argues that the participation in Christ’s priesthood that comes through baptism is an ontological transformation—a change in existence—whereas the

Order, sometimes negations, or the idea that this affirmation is not necessary to account for the fact that certain sacraments are not repeated.” 204 Ibid., 788. 205 Ibid., 790. 206Ibid.

142 participation in Christ’s priesthood that comes in ordination is not purely ontological but a transformation of one’s functionality—an ontology of function or ministry”207 —placed within the ecclesial community.

This leads to Congar’s answer to the original question of what happens in ordination in light of the theology of ministries. For Congar, ordination makes one of the faithful “definitively entitled to exercise in His name the acts of the messianic or eschatological ministry of Christ, king, priest and prophet.” For Congar, this position is compatible with the understanding of the Church as universal sacrament of salvation in both the sense of the institution—wherein he is “incorporated in the college or ordo of ministers that are as such ‘ex officio’”—and in the sense of the People of God, in that the ordained “will represent Christ in the midst, at the head and in front of the community of the faithful.” Even though the ordained represents Christ in the midst of the community, for the process of ordination to be complete it is the necessary that the non-ordained members of the ecclesial community “intervene,” or give their approbation, in the process of election.

The Relationship between Two Priesthoods After contextualizing the priestly minister’s character of ordination within the ecclesial community and their specific functioning of the triplex munera, Congar next considers what it is that priestly ministry and lay ministries share in common and what it is that now distinguishes the priestly ministry. His answer to these questions is simple, if not controversial. There are two common features that the two priesthoods share: 1) they

207Ibid.

143 both participate in the messianic/eschatological powers of Christ’s triplex munera in the

“time of the Church,” and, 2) in the Church all the faithful are formed into a community

and receive from the Lord a distribution of “gifts and services by which he builds his

body.” In Congar’s words, in the ecclesial community “all do everything.”208 Each and

every member is called to pray, witness, educate, catechize, teach, reconcile, and preach.

None of these activities and ministries are exclusive to the priestly ministry. In a word,

the communion of the faithful is a community where grace, charisms, and ministries are

constitutive to its entire existence. Yet, the distribution of gifts and service does not mean

there is no differentiation in the community. There is a diversity of ministries in the

ecclesial community, which means that even though “all do everything” they do not do

everything in the same way. For Congar, situates what is unique to the priestly ministry

down to the power received in ordination to absolve sins sacramentally and consecrate

the Eucharist in the sacrifice of the Mass. Congar’s vision of the priestly ministry,

however, is not necessarily minimalist in that its aim seems to be focused on describing

the interdependence and overlap of the diversity of ministries in the ecclesial

community.209 This means it is not Congar’s aim to strip the priestly minister of his

sacramental power, but instead elucidate his exact function in a distilled way to actuate

his relationality to all other modes of community service.

“On the Trilogy: Prophet-Priest-King” (1983)210 Congar’s essay “On the Trilogy: Prophet-Priest-King” is a review essay of

Ludwig Schick’s study of the theological history of the triplex munera.211 This article

208 Ibid., 792. 209 Ibid. 210 Yves Congar, “Sur la Trilogie: Prophète-Roi-Prêtre,” RSPT, 67 (1983): 97-115. This article has never been translated into English. All quotations are my own translation. 211 Schick, Ludwig. Das Dreifache Amt Christi und der Kirche. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1982.

144 does not address the theology of ministries, but it does illuminate the continuing

importance of the triplex munera in Congar’s overall theological corpus. The majority of the article is Congar, following Schick, tracing the development of the usage of the triplex munera in Church history. Examining the development allows Congar to situate

his own novel usage, as well the conciliar usage, of the triplex munera. Of particular

importance for this study are certain instances in the text where Congar clarifies his own

terminology. In particular, it becomes clear that Congar did, in fact, use the French term

“fonction” as a synonym for the Latin term munus in Jalons and his other writings on the laity.212 This clarification is particularly important for two reasons: 1) it strengthens the

argument of chapter one of this study, and 2) it simply clarifies the sometimes ambiguous

terminology of Jalons.

Schick’s study is organized chronologically, following the gradual theological development of the triplex munera from ancient Israel to Vatican II. In its earliest stages in ancient Israel and the Second Temple period, the three offices existed in national Israel as positions of leadership, and eventually came to refer to the figure of the Messiah.

Schick notes that the even though the New Testament does not formalize the three offices together as belonging to Christ, Christ’s ministry is expressed in different places in the

New Testament under the titles of prophet, priest, king, and pastor.

The triplex munera was first used formally as a Christological trilogy by of Caesarea as well as a number of Fathers such Augustine, Hilary, , John

Chrysostom, Aphraates, , and the Pelagian Faustinus. Aphraates,

Chrysostom, and Faustinus also attribute the triplex to the Christian as well. Schick next

notes the presence of the trilogy in the of the East and West. The trilogy also

212 “Sur la Trilogie: Prophète-Roi-Prêtre,” 107, 109.

145 appears in the theologies of certain medieval theologians accounts of the sacramental

character, and also in the work of Albert the Great who attributes it to the Church’s

hierarchy and Aquinas, who uses it in his Christology. Schick attributes the “rediscovery”

of the trilogy in modern times to John Calvin, Osiander, and Bucer. It was Calvin who

used the trilogy to frame his soteriology. Earlier modern Catholic usage of the trilogy,

particularly at the time of the Council of Trent, was vast and extended beyond the

soteriological framework. Congar, citing the work of Paul Dabin, S.J., lists a number of

Catholics theologians using the trilogy in reference to Christ, Christians, and the offices

of the Church. The trilogy next appears in the 19th century and seems to be only used to

describe the functions and powers in the Church (except for Newman, who uses it to refer

to Christians), and is even used in the schema de Ecclesia, composed by Schrader, and

proposed to the Fathers of Vatican I. This approach to the trilogy continued to be used

from the late 19th to mid-20th centuries, by Leo XIII and Pius XII, especially.

Schick ends his work on the history of development with the Second Vatican

Council’s original usage of the trilogy, which was, of course, indebted to the theology of

Yves Congar on this point. Vatican II used the trilogy in reference to Christ, the Church

in general and hierarchically, the individual Christian, and the layperson in particular.

Following Congar’s work, the Council used the more flexible term munera to refer to

both types of participation—hierarchical and lay— in Christ’s eternal priesthood. Congar

highlights Schick’s perceptive observation that the differences in sociological vision and

categories between 19th century theologian George Phillips213 (organological) and

Vatican II (People of God; communion) affected their respective usage of the triplex munera. The conciliar vision of Vatican II clearly accentuates the equality of the

213 Congar, “Sur la Trilogie,” 105-106.

146 members, despite their differences in tasks/office. After completing his observations about the conciliar usage of the trilogy, Congar begins to examine his own adaptation of the triplex munera to the Church and Christian anthropology.

Congar situates his own usage of the triplex in the 19th century debate over the distribution of powers of orders and jurisdiction in the Church.214 One of Congar’s theological achievements was to transpose this debate over power, authority, and office in the Church from an exclusive concern over sacralized forms of action in the Church, exclusively to bishops and priests, and place in the context of a communion ecclesiology with a renewed focus on those members of the Church who are not officeholders but participate in Christ’s “messianic energies” through the graces received in baptism. The remainder of Congar’s essay is Congar reconstructing how he reached his insight, which he based on the insights of his “old masters,” the great Scholastics and especially Thomas

Aquinas.

Congar’s first step in reconstructing his adaptation of the triplex munera to the laity involves an analysis of terminology surrounding the difference between function

(munera) and power (potestas), and even ministerium. For instance, Congar notes there is a traditional distinction, found in Augustine, between potestas and ministerium. In terms of political power it is the state alone that has potestas, and in analogous way in terms of the sacraments it is Christ alone who has the potestas whereas the Church has only ministerium. There is also a significant distinction between potentia and potestas.

According to Congar, potentia refers to “the faculties that allow the person to live and act in a certain form of life and action,” whereas potestas refers to a narrower context, “the order of law and reason.” Further example of the flexibility of potentia is that can be

214 Ibid., 106.

147 either passive or active, whereas potestas is always active. For Congar, the notion of

potentia is synonymous with the more flexible canonical term munera (“fonction” or

competences). In terms of theology, it seems Congar found in Christ’s triplex munera and

the flexibility of the language of munera, seeing that it extends beyond the juridical provenance of canon law and governance, a space to construct a positive, realist vision of lay participation in the Church. Congar adds to this picture the notion that competence

(potentiae) or munera are derived from the mission: “a mission is a task [tâche]

accompanied by the resources necessary for its completion.” In the case of the laity, their

participation in Christ’s triplex munera is a real participation in the Son and Spirit’s

missions to save and sanctify the Church.

A Note on Congar’s Use of “Recognition” In a number of places in the above essays—as well as in Jalons—Congar refers to

the need for ministries to be “recognized.”215 He does not define the term specifically, but

by examining the context it seems clear he envisions “recognition” to be 1) an social

action whereby the believing community confirms the presence of a charism in an

individual, and 2) a legal-canonical action whereby certain ministries that are not defined

by canon law can become so by ecclesiastical authorities in order to ensure their

continued existence and practice.

215 Congar’s account of “recognition” or “recognized” is undeveloped in his theology, though his usage bears many similarities to Charles Taylor’s philosophical and sociological use in “The Politics of Recognition,” in : Examining the Politics of Recognition. Ed. Amy Gutmann. (Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1994: 25-73).

148 Conclusion Congar’s personal understanding of the notion of ministries was as a specification

of his broader understanding of the hierarchy’s and laity’s particular participations in

Christ’s triplex munera. As Congar developed his theology of ministries he continued to

affirm and write on the triplex munera, the backbone of Jalons. Thus, there is no explicit

sign in Congar’s later work on the theology of ministries that suggests he abandoned the

principal claims of his previous work on the theology of the laity. What is clear on a close

reading of the texts above is that Congar set out to make modifications to certain of his

older positions, either for theological, methodical, or practical reasons based on a change

in context. There is no evidence he saw a necessary contradiction—if not, tension—

between his earlier notion of a secular character of the laity and his later sketches of the

laity in ecclesial ministries. For Congar, the connection between the two is what I might

call the macro-perspective of the priesthood of the baptized, which he understood as

constitutive for both Christian existence per se as well as functionality within the

structured community—ordained or lay. For both his earlier theology of the laity and his

later theology of ministries, Congar recognized the necessity and significance of canonical as well as personal or communal “recognition” for their actualization.

With that said, Congar’s work on the theology of ministries coincided with a

change in ecclesiological starting point, which changed both his understanding of the

order of presentation and the type of ecclesiological lens (communion ecclesiology;

church as universal sacrament of salvation). This change of ecclesiological starting point

seems to result in a driving concern to explain what remains unique in priestly ministry

and the sacrament of Orders, not what is unique to the laity. For example, the recognition

that “all do everything,” even if not in the same way, presents difficulties for explaining

149 the necessity of a hierarchical principle. Yet, even within this context, Congar continued

to affirm the place of office and potestas within the ecclesial community flowing from

the ecclesiology of the Church as sacrament. This change of starting point is also related

to Congar’s reflective mood in “My Path-Findings,” leading him to assess his specific

contributions, especially his early ones. It is clear that Congar’s reflection resulted in a

reassertion and reassessment of a number of his earlier opinions/theories.

As we will see in the U.S. reception of Congar’s theology of the laity and

ministries, not of all his ideas and themes are viewed of equal importance by U.S.

theologians. Of major significance in the U.S. reception is shift away from the centrality

of the triplex munera for understanding the laity theologically/ecclesiologically, despite

the fact that the triplex munera was of central importance for Congar both early and late

in his career. One reason for the shift, as suggested earlier, is that Congar’s earlier work

presupposed a social context where an organological vision of social unity prevailed.

Congar’s theology of the laity based on the laity’s share in Christ’s triplex munera

corresponded to the mission of Catholic Action—the rechristianization of Europe—and

the social magisterium of the popes. But Congar’s context gradually changed and in the

late 1960s into the 1970s he began to refocus his work on the laity in order to address the

needs of his society at the time. It is necessary to note that Congar’s later

French/European context was culturally and socially similar to that of the U.S.

theologians discussed below—increased secularization, religious pluralism, parish

voluntarism, civil rights activism, the tumultuous events of the late 1960s, etc.—which

likely accounts for their affinities with Congar’s later work.216

216 Charles Taylor’s Modern Social Imaginaries (Durham, N.C.: Duke University, 2004) and A Secular Age (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University, 2007) situate Congar’s earlier context under the

150 Put broadly, this shift away impacts the theological quality of the U.S. reception

in several ways. Of course, we will see that the driving concerns of most of Congar’s

U.S. interpreters was never to merely to re-present Congar’s thought to their context, but to utilize parts of it for their specific theological purposes. Yet, the result of shifting away from the centrality of the triplex munera—whether the triplex munera is missing altogether, marginalized, or diminished in its representation—is a vital loss in understanding the laity’s participation in the ecclesial mission qua laity, which is the primary value of Congar’s work on the laity and ministries. Abstracting ministry from munera will mean, in some cases, a lack of intelligibility of the meaning and purpose of

Christian ministry and a general understanding of distinction in the mystical Body. The argument that follows considers changes in historical context and horizon of thought to be equally important for understanding the ways in which Congar’s work is received by

U.S. Catholic theologians. The significance of Congar’s own unique milieu for understanding his work on the laity and ministries is often superseded by the cultural and religious situations of his U.S. interpreters, i.e., both their immediate and their remote contexts as American Catholics.

periodization of “The Age of Mobilization,” which is an era defined by conscious attempts to repristinate the religious and social forms of the ancien regime in modern modes. In Taylor’s work, Congar’s later work fits under the periodization of “The Age of Authenticity,” which operates via another social imaginary defined by different forms of individualism and a focus on personal freedom. If Taylor’s periodization is correct, and I think it is, the complexity of Congar’s reception in the U.S. in “The Age of Authenticity” is not surprising but illuminating.

151

CHAPTER FOUR

CHANGING CONTEXTS: AN INTERLUDE ON THE CONDITIONS FOR

CONGAR’S RECEPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

This chapter sketches a basic framework of the social, historical, and religious

horizon of expectations for a U.S. Catholic reception of Congar’s theology of laity and

ministries. The purpose of the proposed sketched framework is not to the determine the

authorial intentions of Congar’s interpreters, but to understand the basic structures by

which the theologians studied comprehend, interpret and appraise Congar’s texts based

on the cultural-theological conventions particular to U.S. Catholics living during the

second half of the 20th century (the time-frame of Congar’s possible reception).

This chapter examines three aspects of the U.S. horizon of expectation relevant to

our study. First, we sketch the situation of the laity in pre-conciliar U.S. Catholicism to

the eve of the Council, highlighting the U.S. reception of Catholic Action in various

hierarchically-run as well as lay-led movements, the demographic shift of

U.S. Catholics to the suburbs and its effect on the existing Catholic immigrant parish

system and subculture.217 We note this was the era of growing awareness of the lay

217 See for the background to this period the following: Jay P Dolan, In Search of an American Catholicism: A History of Religion and Culture in Tension. (New York: , 2002); William M. Halsey, The Survival of American Innocence: Catholicism in an Era of Disillusionment, 1920– 1940. (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980); Hahnenberg, Edward P. “A Patient Firmness: The Beginnings of in the United States, 1967–1987.” U.S. Catholic Historian 35.4 (Fall 2017): 1-29; William Portier, “Here Come the Evangelical Catholics,” Communio 31 (Spring, 2004): 36-66; Peter Steinfels, A People Adrift, The Crisis of the Church in America. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2003).

152 vocation for both clergy and laity. The second aspect sketched is the transformations in

Catholic life that took place in the conciliar periods through the 1960s leading to the eve

of the lay ministry expansion. The final aspect sketched covers the 1970s to the present,

contextualizing the immediate context of the theologians studied. This section sketches

individualism, decline in social capital/civil society, and consumerism as vital challenges

facing the laity and lay ecclesial ministers.

The Situation of the Laity in pre-conciliar U.S. Catholicism to the Present The first era discussed—the era of Catholic Action to the eve of the Council218—

holds a particular significance for at least two, if not three of the theologians discussed,

for the simple reason that this was the context—religious, social, and cultural—in which

they were born. The most significant, formative event of the Catholic Action era (1929-

1959) was the immigration laws that brought an end to the era of the immigrant church.

The immigrant church established over several generations a parish system and a form of

communal life that took the shape of ethnic Catholic subcultures.219 The end of this era

vis-a-vis immigration laws was followed by a process of subsequent, U.S. born,

generations of Catholics in the subcultures assimilating into the American mainstream.

For many, the process of assimilation included an increase in affluence and social

mobility—many of these Catholic joined the middle-class—and a demographic shift from

urban areas—typically the locus of the subculture—into suburban areas. The of

218 For a extensive depiction and assessment of Catholic Action in the U.S. before and after Vatican II, see the essays in Empowering the People of God: Catholic Action Before and After Vatican II. Edited by Jeremy Bonner, Christopher D. Denny, and Mary Beth Fraser Connolly. (New York: Fordham University Press, 2014). 219 For an extensive depiction of the immigrant expansion of U.S. Catholicism, see Jay P. Dolan, The American Catholic Experience: A History from Colonial Times to the Present.. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992).

153 social status also included for many an opportunity for advanced education. These

sociological changes ramify in theological ways, as we will see.

Assimilation and the physical location of parishes had an effect on the parish

system as well as the subculture. The demographic shift from urban centers to the

suburbs also coincided with the end of segregation as well as the phenomena of ‘white

flight.’ Yet, this era was also the era of Catholic Action. One of the decisive events in

U.S. history that helped galvanize the development of many Catholic Action apostolates

was ‘the Great Depression.’ The era of Catholic Action in the U.S. is in some ways

marked by the appearance of Pius XI’s social encyclical Quadragesimo anno, the arrival

of the liturgical movement, papal statements on Catholic Action, and the rediscovery of

mystical Body ecclesiology. Catholic Action, however, was not a monolithic thing in the

United States. In one sense Catholic Action was a special interest of the U.S. bishops and

certain prominent clergy. Their particular achievement during this era was principally

developing the Catholic Action apostolate through a process of institutionalization,

typically guided by priests and bishops. Most lay involvement in Catholic Action was

mediated through “joining the sodality movement, the parish CCD [ of

Christian Doctrine], or local affiliates of the NCCC [National Conference of Catholic

Charities].”220 Yet, there were also grass-roots lay movements that developed alongside

the hierarchically controlled organizations, particularly in the field of domestic missions,

the lay evangelization movement, social justice movements like the

and The Catholic Worker, and others like the publishing house of Frank Sheed and

Maisie Ward and the U.S. engine of liturgically renewal, the Grail movement.

220 Debra Campbell, “The Heyday of Catholic Action and the Lay Apostolate, 1929-1959,” in Transforming Parish Ministry. eds. Jay Dolan, R. Scott Appleby, Patricia Byrne, and Debra Campbell. (New York: Crossroad, 1990): 233.

154 The impact of Catholic Action—both in hierarchically-run institutions and lay-led movements—was to produce a growing awareness of the laity’s active place in the

Church for the last generation of Catholics formed in the subculture. It also had a positive effect on suburban parishes, as many of the leaders of the moments worked to apply the principles of the Church’s social teaching to some of the vexing problems of the times.221

Connected to the growth of interest in social teaching was the new awareness that there was a “theology of the laity.”

The 1960s to the Eve of the Expansion of Lay Ministry The next facet of the horizon of expectations for the reception of Congar’s theology of the laity occurred in the 1960s, which is an era still with us culturally. The

Catholics of this era were still marked by process of assimilation, as it was the coming- of-age period of one of the largest generational cohorts in U.S. history, the Baby

Boomers, many of whom were born in the ethnic Catholic subcultures. In terms of the immigrant parish system and ethnic Catholic subcultures, this was the era when dissolution of the subcultures became irreparable on the wide scale, though its memory continued to ramify and inform the souls of a younger generation.222 In other words, the breakdown of the immigrant parish system, subcultures, assimilation and demographic shift to the suburbs fundamentally conditioned the identities of Catholic Boomer laity

(priests too, of course).

A lot of the questions from the Catholic Action era carried over, but were inflected differently based on a change of circumstances. Like the previous era, U.S.

221 See Leo R. Ward, Catholic Life, U.S.A.: Contemporary Lay Movements. (St Louis: Herder, 1959). 222 William Portier, “Here Come the Evangelical Catholics,” Communio 31 (Spring, 2004): 36-66.

155 Catholics, conservative and liberal, were drawn to questions of social justice and change,

the relationship between the Church and the world, the possibilities of ecumenism, and

the place of God and religion under various forms of secularization. The era was also

marked by certain dissatisfaction with previously held religio-cultural presuppositions,

such as the Church’s relationship to the socially marginalized, and a separation between

religion and politics. This was also an era where the question of the status of the laity was

raised anew in terms of the how and where their spiritual gifts were to play out in the

ecclesial community. Within this era, U.S. began to think more in terms of

spiritual freedom, charisms, and scanning the signs of the times. This way of thinking

would lead them to think of lay action in ways vastly different from Yves Congar writing

in the vestiges of Christendom under the gaze of the Third Republic!

The Expansion of Ministry to the Present The next facet of the horizon of expectations for the reception of Congar’s

theology of the laity occurred not long after the close of the council. In contrast to the

many facets of the Catholic Action era—Catholic Action, liturgical movement, social justice ministries, etc.—the distinctive event of the post-conciliar era in U.S. Catholicism

was a specific one: the rapid and organic expansion of lay involvement in ecclesial

ministries and tasks. Apart from divine providence, there are several explanations how

the expansion of lay ministry occurred. First, I agree with Thomas O’Meara, OP that the

priest shortage is not a sufficient explanation, since in some places the seminaries are

growing, and lay ministry still steadily grows. One explanation is that the laity was

empowered in under-staffed suburban Catholic schools to take up ministerial tasks once

156 occupied by religious sisters. This led practically to an increase in theological education

and, then, pastoral ministries and DRE positions, etc.223

While that explanation is realistic, I will add another complementary explanation,

though somewhat abstract, that the expansion of ministry was a reaction against the

American version of individualism224 that followed from the demographic shift of

Catholics to suburban parishes, and the subsequent nostalgia for the loss of the thick

cultural space of the subcultures. In many ways, I argue, the thick identities of ethnic

Catholic subcultures resisted or repressed the logic of parish voluntarism, creating a

communal sense of civil society, or social capital, and identity—perhaps European in

flavor—that was not translated in the consumerist marketplace of suburbia or in

alienation often found in the urban center. On this argument, the ministry explosion

operated both as a path to renewed, structured community—an “ecclesial canopy,” if you will—within a consumerist context, and remedy against parish voluntarism.225

223 Edward Hahnenberg, “A Patient Firmness: The Beginnings of Lay Ecclesial Ministry in the United States, 1967-1987,” U.S. Catholic Historian 35.4 (2017): 5. 224 For relevant sociological representation of U.S. individualism and its societal effects, see Robert N. Bellah, et al. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. 2nd ed. Berkeley and : University of California Press, 1996), and Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000). 225 This theory is my own, but it is adapted and based on the sociological analysis of Elijah Anderson and his notion of cosmopolitan canopies. See Elijah Anderson’s The Cosmopolitan Canopy: Race and Civility in Everyday Life. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012.

157 CHAPTER FIVE

PHILIBERT AND LAKELAND: REVITALIZATION AND SECULARITY OF THE

LAITY

Introduction The U.S. reception of Congar’s theology of the laity in the post-conciliar period is not a monolithic tradition operating by strict guidelines for interpretation and use. Rather, as noted earlier, the reception and creative use of Congar’s work by Catholic theologians in the U.S. is varied and used for ends different from Congar’s original works. As noted earlier, the meaning of Congar’s work on the laity and ministries is inflected differently in the shift in context from mid-century France to late-20th century U.S. pluralism. The

two theologians, Paul Philibert, OP and Paul Lakeland, addressed in chapter 5 respond to

their U.S. context through their respective theological programs, each of which employs

Congar’s work on the laity in unique ways.

For those knowledgeable of the work of Philibert and Lakeland this might seem a

strange pairing. Philibert’s theological output concerns issues of spirituality and ministry

in the Dominican tradition, while Lakeland’s work follows Schillebeeckx’s theological

engagement with critical theory. The rationale for examining these two theologians’ work

together, however, is based on their shared concern to address the laity’s secular mission

in their U.S. context, in light of Congar’s thought on the laity. Neither theologian

158 juxtaposes Congar’s early work on the laity from his later work on ministries, even though the differences in era are clear. The rationale for Philibert and Lakeland’s work is to galvanize a U.S. Catholic laity to take seriously the call to Christian maturity. For

Philibert, American individualism and consumerism has weakened the laity’s vitality and witness in a secularized culture. His work is a call to action, discipleship, and witness as the baptismal priesthood. For Lakeland, the driving issue is a laity that has not realized the theological significance of their secularity in order to combat the antihuman.

Lakeland envisions a laity fully embracing the world, even the pluralism of the U.S. context, in order to “call the secular world to its own deepest selfhood as a human community.”226 For Lakeland, proclamation of the Gospel goes hand in hand with the process of humanization. He challenges the laity to both recognize in their U.S. context injustice, suffering, and systemic violence and prejudice, and seek to join the Church’s mission in a critical cooperation and dialogue with Enlightenment values.227 In a word,

Lakeland’s call for the laity’s liberation is the call for the laity to broader their understanding of and responsibility for the Church’s mission, which fundamentally includes a politics of humanization.

In the work of both theologians, then, we see them addressing a context considerably different from Congar’s original audience. Congar’s early work aimed to give theological content to basic social relations in a context of a society wrestling with secularization and a Church wrestling with the identity of the majority of its members, because he believed that social reconstruction and rechristianization could restore the lost

226 Lakeland, The Liberation of the Laity, 229. 227 Ibid., 248-255.

159 social structures liquefied by modernity.228 Thus, for Congar, the adaptation of the triplex

munera to the laity provided the connection between social reconstruction and the

ecclesial project of rechristianization.

Philibert and Lakeland’s work, on the other hand, aims to drive home the

importance of the laity’s need for discipleship, responsibility, and necessary relationship

to the Church in a context that is defined by competing religious claims, a consumerist

anthropology that reduces persons to subjects of desire, and an default cultural

individualism that views all social bonds as primarily voluntary rather than rooted in

human sociality and the created order per se. Congar’s work on the laity, then, provides each theologian with the necessary means to address these challenges (the triple mission/munera for Philibert; the laity’s secularity for Lakeland).

Before examining Philibert and Lakeland’s reception of Congar’s theology of the laity, I take a brief interlude to look at the earliest U.S. engagement—a ‘pre-history’ to the reception so to speak—with Congar’s theology of the laity in order to provide a frame of reference for Philibert and Lakeland as well as O’Meara and Hahnenberg. The earlier

U.S. Catholic reception of Congar’s theology of the laity took place in an ecclesial and socio-political context historically distinct from that of Philibert and Lakeland’s at the time of their writing. The theologians engaging Congar’s work in this earlier period were active during the U.S. Church’s engagement with Catholic Action, and the final stages of the dissolution of the immigrant Catholic subcultures as described in the previous chapter, which is obviously a rather different context from the U.S. pluralism that

Philibert and Lakeland address.

228 For an analysis of modernity’s “liquefaction” of pre-modern, traditional social structures see Zygmunt Bauman’s Community (Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2001) and Liquid Modernity (Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2000).

160 The Pre-Conciliar Reception of Congar’s Jalons In a 1999 article by Thomas O’Meara OP in U.S. Catholic Historian, entitled

“Reflections on Yves Congar and Theology in the United States,” the Dominican theologian claimed Yves Congar’s theology was “little present” in the work of American

Catholic theologians from the 1950s to the 1970s. According to O’Meara, the references made to Congar in Catholic journals until after the are at best

“scant.” The shock of this fact is intensified by the fact that Congar’s major theological works were all translated into English, distributed by British and U.S. Catholic publishers, from the mid-1950s to the late 1960s. In fact, Lay People in the Church went through two editions (1957, 1965) and was reprinted in 1959 and 1962.

The first explanation given by O’Meara for the relative absence of Congar’s influential work within U.S. Catholic theology is a general disconnectedness between

U.S. Catholic theology, which was narrowly focused on the formation of priests through manuals, and their European counterparts who were more engaged with modern thought.

The more substantial reason given is U.S. Catholic theologians, marked by a commitment to , were reluctant to engage Congar’s work due to perceived worries over his reputation, especially in light of his 1954 censure and the infamy attached to his beloved Saulchoir and the nouvelle theologie by Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis.

O’Meara’s judgment here fits the standard narration of the reception of nouvelle theologie among Roman-minded U.S. theologians, although I have found two relatively substantial exceptions that tell us something about U.S. Catholic theology in the pre- conciliar period and reinforce the narrative of the previous chapter. Also, and more importantly, these texts merit the honor of being the initial U.S. engagement with Yves

Congar’s theology of the laity.

161 Congar at the CTSA: 1956, 1959 At the 11th annual convention of the CTSA, in 1956, Francis Keating, SJ,

presented an essay entitled “Theology of the Laity.” In this article Keating offers a status

quaestionis of the theology of the laity, of which Congar’s work is central. The second

instance by James Quill was also delivered in the 14th annual convention of the CTSA in

1959, entitled “The Theology of the Lay Apostolate.” I will briefly summarize and

analyze both articles’ reception of Congar’s theology of the laity.

Francis Keating, “Theology of the Laity” (1956) The first paper presented was by Francis Keating, S.J., a professor of theology at

the Jesuit St. Peter’s College in New Jersey. His 1956 CTSA presentation “Theology of

the Laity” seems to be the first constructive engagement with Yves Congar’s theology of

the laity (particularly Jalons) by a theologian from the United States.229 Keating’s essay

is a comparison of the work of Yves Congar and Gerard Philips on the laity. Keating’s

outlined his presentation following the exact pattern of Jalons, which is decidedly

different from Philips, except that he collapses the chapters on the application of the

triplex munera (chs. 4-6) in a single section he entitles “Categories.” This is the first sign

of a reception of Congar’s theology—his pattern of presentation frames the order of

thought and the importance of the issues. The first section introduces the topic’s

importance as a new area of theology that bring with it a bit of controversy, uncertainty,

even frustration, but it is important all the more for Catholic theologians due to the

increase of lay involvement and literature on the laity. The impetus for this judgment is

229 In 1955, an aspect of Congar’s thesis was mentioned in a review essay by Elmer O’Brien, S.J. in Theological Studies, which briefly compared Jalons to Rahner and Philips’ recent work under the heading “States of Life.” Congar’s Jalons is referenced seven times out of 42 footnotes, several times specific chapters and page numbers are cited and compared with Gerard Philips’ Le rôle du laïcat dans l’Eglise, which, according to Elmer O’Brien, was published at the same time as Jalons.

162 reflected in an extended quotation from a 1946 Pius XII allocution.230 Yet, Congar’s

Jalons and Philips Le rôle du laïcat dans l’Eglise are then referenced as recent attempts

to synthesize the various elements in the burgeoning new field of study.

Next, Keating translates Congar’s famous line from Jalons, “there is only one

valid theology of the laity: a complete ecclesiology” at the beginning of his section on

“The Concept of the Layman” and assumes it as the starting point of his own framework

for the theology of the laity. Another instance of reception, the significance of which is

not slight: Keating’s entire section balances on this claim as the rationale for a positive

definition of the laity. As noted elsewhere, Congar’s definition of the lay person in Jalons

is the most often treated, used, and critiqued aspect of his work. Keating next justifies

addressing the definition of the lay person partially as a need to redress the

preponderance of a negative definition of the laity. He addresses the Scriptural data and

then takes up the complex issue of the canonical distinctions between priests, religious,

and lay person just as Congar does in the first chapter of Jalons. In the same section

Keating expounds on the “world” as the context of the lay vocation. Here Keating seems

to tap into the underlying issues in Congar’s transition from defining the laity according

230 Quoted in Francis Keating, “Theology of the Laity” CTSA Presentation, (St. Peter’s College, NJ 1956), 197: “She (the Church) must today, as never before, live her mission; she must reject more emphatically than ever the false and narrow concept of her spirituality and her inner life which would confine her, blind and mute in the retirement of the sanctuary. The Church cannot cut herself off, inert in the privacy of her churches, and thus desert her divinely providential mission of forming the complete man, and thereby collaborating without rest in the construction of the solid foundations of society. This mission is for her essential. Considered from this angle, the Church may be called the assembly of those who, under the supernatural influence of grace, in the perfection of their personal dignity as sons of God and in harmonious development of all human inclinations and energies, build the powerful structure of human intercourse. Under this aspect… the faithful, and more precisely, the laity, are in the front line of the Church’s life; through them the Church is the vital principle of human society. Accordingly, they especially must have an ever clearer consciousness not only of belonging to the Church, but of being the Church, the community of the faithful on earth under the guidance of the common head, the Pope, and of the bishops in communion with him. They are the Church…”

163 to “state” to defining the laity according to “fonction.” Not surprisingly, Keating picks up on a worry of Congar’s that arises when defining the laity in the context of the world: a thematization of “world” that too starkly depicts it as profane and the context for evil. In a word, the paramount concern here is a dichotomization of the “creative functions” and the “redemptive functions” of lay people and priests, respectively. According to Keating, the “Church/world” problematic expressed in the formulation of a theology of the laity must be aware of a temptation to over-identify one group’s functions with either

“Church” or “world.” There has to be a way to avoid defining the laity’s responsibility as solely secular things and the priest’s responsibility as exclusively liturgical/sacramental.

Keating defends Congar’s Jalons on this issue pace the criticism of Elmer O’Brien’s brief criticism in his annual review essay on ascetical and mystical theology in

Theological Studies.

In the second section, entitled “The Framework: Ecclesiology,” Keating, following Congar’s general approach, argues for a return to a mystical Body ecclesiology in line with Pius XII and the contemporary ecclesiological renewal, which offers conceptual alternatives to the limitations and prejudices of the post-Tridentine ecclesiologies. Perhaps there is a slight disagreement with Congar implicit in this section on the issue of the identification of the mystical Body with the Church, Keating says:

“The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.” At least in his early ecclesiological essays, collected in English as The Mystery of the Church, Congar sometimes seems to aver there can be no such exact identification. Admittedly, he does not quote Congar here, but the issue was a controversial one at the time, perhaps Keating is attempting to assert his position without raging controversy with the censured Dominican ecclesiologist. The

164 final remark in this section is Congarian in a particular way. Keating restates Congar’s

that even though the laity does not participate in the hierarchical powers they do

participate Christ’s triplex munera. The first point—that the laity do not share in the

hierarchical powers—was a standard distinction in the theology of the laity at the time

that seemed to always need to be acknowledged (Congar goes to great lengths to assert

the orthodoxy and necessity of this view). But the second point—that the laity participate

in the triplex munera of Christ—is the backbone of Congar’s original project. This is a

distinct claim from that made in Mystici Corporis, the main magisterial text in Keating’s

presentation, which does not apply Christ’s munera to the laity in a mode of participation

as a categorial group. The leads to the largest section of the presentation (seven pages),

entitled “The Categories.”

As said above, Keating summarizes Congar’s treatment of the laity’s participation

in each of Christ’s munus into a single section. He indicates in a footnote his dependence

on Congar and Philips’ examinations of the “traditional triad” as the “structural lines of the theology of the laity.” Before schematizing the triad onto a theology of the laity,

Keating adds a few preliminary caveats that explicitly and implicitly evoke Jalons. First, he mentions Congar’s realization that the totality of the theology of the laity cannot be covered by the triad as his rationale for considering other categories needed to complete a theology of the laity. Second, he briefly notes that the categories should not be viewed as

“rigidly distinct” but analysis of living reality. I cite this because Congar expressed the same concern in Jalons and it was meant to protect his interests to theologize in light of history and pastoral relevance. Keating seems to be of the same mind, but, again,

165 explicitly identifying himself with Congar’s methods may have been avoided on prudential grounds.

It is notable that Keating prescinds from using Congar’s account when examining the laity’s participation in the priestly munus. He explicitly acknowledges that the topic was controversial at the time and responds to a common position represented by

Hesburgh, Rea, and Palmer.231 Congar’s personal position in Jalons is to define

priesthood theologically as a natural anthropological category associated with sacrifice

and worship, rather than the “Jesuit position” referenced by Keating, which defined

priesthood in terms of the Eucharistic sacrifice, leaving the laity’s “priesthood”

metaphorical or analogical. This also means the baptismal priesthood is governed

exclusively by the sacramental character, defined by Aquinas as a super-added potency to

the practical intellect. Keating’s summary of the prophetic role of the laity does not have

any of Congar’s more distinctive insights and is too short to infer any appropriation of

Jalons. Keating’s summary of the lay person’s share in Christ’s kingship explicitly cites

Congar’s account as the most complete study, and explains some of its main features.

According to Keating’s read of Congar, Christ’s kingship is over both the Church—

through its hierarchic powers—and the world, even though his rule will not be complete

until the eschatological fulfillment of creation. In the present, humanity has competence

over the created order, especially as the “molder of civilization, the creator of culture,”

and his work is to bring the natural order to its “Christo-finality.” According to Keating’s

summarization, the Christian “Christofinalizes” (Congar’s term) the created order in three

steps: 1) through being a dedicated Christian, 2) through “Christian animation,” the

231 Keating, 204. See Paul F. Palmer, S.J., “The Lay Priesthood: Real or Metaphorical?” Theological Studies, 8 (1947): 574-613.

166 notion that the Christian influences the maturation (through “unity and integrity”) of the temporal order for the purpose of humanization and freedom from bondage to the world, and 3) the Christian offers an act of spiritual sacrifice to God.

The sections on “The Lay Apostolate” and the “Theology of History and of

Terrestrial Realities” while drawing on Congarian themes, do not seem to depend or refer explicitly or significant implicit way to Congar’s work. Rather, the Keating’s conversation here is with Rahner’s “Notes on the Lay Apostolate,” perhaps a sign of a commonality between German (rather than French) and North American experience of

Catholic Action. Keating does use the language of “duties” and “responsibilities,” but these were common terms of the pre-conciliar European milieu that Congar utilized for a distinct purpose. Yet, I do not see anything distinctively Congarian. The same judgment applies to the section “Theology of History and of Terrestrial Realities,” which highlights the book trilogy of Gustave Thils.

The final section, “The Spirituality of the Layman,” refers directly to Congar’s concerns and constructive views on the issue of “lay spirituality.” He refers directly, without mentioning him, to Congar’s anxiety over the category “lay spirituality” as well as Congar’s concern to describe the particular modality of the Christian life unique to the layperson. The lay person’s apostolate is not only in the world, but positively uses the things of the world as its medium. Here, in Congar’s fashion, Keating affirms the lay apostolate is not a concession, but a positive field of Christian activity. Even more directly Keating cites Congar’s particular claim that the laity have a vocation, a call from

God. The lay person’s vocation, like all vocations, is ordered to worship and evangelization, but the lay person must also join her daily work with that of Christ’s in an

167 act of sacrifice in the Mass. Clearly, the notion of vocation and uniting one’s sacrifice to

Christ’s in the Mass is not a Congarian novelty, but the logic of Keating’s presentation,

and even argument, are consonant with Congar’s Jalons, which he has already demonstrated a certain degree of dependence.

James Quill, “The Theology of the Lay Apostolate” (1959) James Quill, a priest of the of Covington, KY, wrote “The Theology of the Lay Apostolate” at the request of the CTSA’s Committee on Current Problems for the purpose of assessing whether or not a course on the lay apostolate could be worked into the curriculum. At the time of writing, Quill reports that a little more than 40% of the 45 Catholic seminaries did not cover the lay apostolate in their coursework. It seems Quill’s objective was to present a schematic overview of the theology of the lay apostolate in order to assess its viability as a seminary course. Quill’s task, as he represents it, was difficult on two counts. 1) It is difficult to offer a comprehensive overview of the topic due to the vast literature at the time on the laity and the lay apostolate, most of which was practical in nature, and 2) the theology of the laity was considered a new field of theological inquiry at the time. In response to these difficulties,

Quill bases his report on Congar’s Jalons (Quill refers to Congar as “the real giant of the field”). The majority of the citations in the text and footnotes are from the first (“What is a Layman?”) and eighth chapters of Jalons (“The Laity and the Church’s Apostolic

Function”), which concerns definitions and forms of the lay person and the apostolate.

Quill anchors his definition of the laity on the scholastic axiom agere sequitur esse (“act follows existence”) and brushes aside several negative definitions of the laity popular at the time. Quill’s positive definition of the laity is a summary of Congar’s descriptive

168 definition of the laity. Like Congar, Quill views “laity” as a category of social relation

that is defined by its various relationships: ecclesial, sacramental, spiritual,

Christological, secular, clerical, and religious. Quill concurs with Congar’s judgment that

the laity as a group will flourish most fully in an ecclesial situation where there is balance

between the two aspects of the Church—communal and hierarchical, structural and ‘life.’

He breaks with Congar conceptually on the definition of the function of the laity. Instead of following the pattern of participation in the triplex munera laid out in Jalons, Quill adopts the then common position that bases the lay function exclusively on the characters of baptism and confirmation. For example, Quill affirms the position that the laity do not possess the powers of jurisdiction and order, but neglects to note Congar’s positive rejoinder on laity’s participation in the triplex munera. It seems the central insight of

Jalons is missing from Quill and Keating’s view altogether. Instead of noting and receiving the central theological nuances of Congar’s constructive proposal, the early

American reception of Congar’s work on the laity subsumed his perspective into their own.

The next references to Congar concern the mission or apostolate of the laity. Quill here simply affirms his agreement with Congar that the mission of the laity is the renewal or “Christofinalization” of society in the ex spiritu mode. Quill does not represent the nuance Congar’s account negotiates between the laity’s participation in the modes of ex spiritu and ex officio. Instead, Quill contrasts ex spiritu with ex officio in order to assert their harmonization through the papal mandate to collaborate. Quill’s use of Congar fits the paradigm of pre-conciliar theology of the lay apostolate, particularly Catholic Action.

There is no sense that Quill viewed this as a polemical essay, there is no evidence he

169 viewed Jalons as challenging any presuppositions about the laity. Also, in terms of genre,

Quill’s essay is more a descriptive overview rather than a constructive engagement. In fact, despite the absence of key theses, Quill allows Congar to speak in his own voice.

Yet, as stated above, the issue of Quill and Keating missing the significance of Congar’s application of the triplex munera to the laity suggests to me there might have been some dissonance between Congar’s context and the concerns of U.S. Catholic theologians at the time. Congar’s subtle distinctions between a power-based account of the laity versus a munera-based (i.e., service) account surely were quite apparent to European theologians who were entrenched in the remnants of medieval religious culture that still ramified in different ways under modern political regimes. But it is difficult to imagine an American audience, deeply affected by the voluntarism of American religion, generally grasping

Congar’s subtleties, especially when Congar himself left his subtleties rather subtle! In a sense, the pre-conciliar theologies of the lay apostolate that based the lay vocation exclusively on the sacramental character also framed the U.S. theology of the lay apostolate inflect both Keating and Quill’s interpretations of Congar.

As said, these presentations at the CTSA mark U.S. Catholic theologians’ initial engagements in print with Congar’s work. Unfortunately, this engagement would stall for almost thirty years, rendering only broad continuity between this phase in the U.S. reception of Congar’s theology of the laity and the one described below and almost completely disconnected from the reception described in the following chapter. Again, by the time Congar’s work is re-engaged in the U.S. in the 1990s, the cultural scene of U.S.

Catholicism has dramatically shifted: the Catholic subcultures have dissolved, U.S.

Catholics are fully engaged with the issues of religious and cultural pluralism, the cultural

170 and social revolutions have transformed the American intellectual and spiritual

landscapes, and the sex-abuse scandal was unveiled to public, causing a crisis of faith among the Catholic faithful.

Introduction to Philibert and Lakeland: Commonalities of Approach Before analyzing the reception of Congar’s theology of the laity in the texts of

Philibert and Lakeland, it is necessary to briefly account for some of their more

fundamental shared presuppositions about Congar’s work on the laity in general in order

to understand why they are grouped together. First, both theologians presuppose that the

basic insights of Congar’s theology of the laity are his adaptation of the triplex munera to

the laity, and his notion of the laity’s mission as secular. Second, both theologians’

interpretations and usage of Congar’s work presuppose a necessary connection between

Congar’s earlier theology of the laity and his later theology of ministries. Also, each

theologian assumes Congar’s thought on the laity developed significantly over time,

though it seems clear they do not see his later work as an explicit rejection of his earlier

work on the laity (especially Jalons).

Paul Philibert, OP’s The Priesthood of the Faithful (2005) Introduction to Author—Interest in Congar Paul Philibert was a U.S. Dominican theologian of the Province of St. Martin de

Porres, ordained in 1963 and its third Prior Provincial, until his death in 2016. His interest in the theology of Yves Congar is evident throughout his work. He translated two books of Congar’s writings into English, the 1950 classic True and False Reform in the Church

171 (Liturgical Press, 2011) and he also collected and translated a set of Congar’s liturgical essays in At the Heart of : Liturgical Essays of Yves Congar (Liturgical

Press, 2010) that had never been translated into English before. The most relevant text indicating Congar’s influence on Philibert’s work is his 2005 book on the laity The

Priesthood of the Faithful. In the remainder of this section I will trace Philibert’s argument, especially as it evinces a Congarian influence. It is vital to note Philibert’s book is not a historical study of Congar’s work, but a constructive theological work of its own that consciously bears a certain debt to Congar’s thought on the laity in particular and his theological oeuvre in general. So then, tracing Congar’s influence is often not straightforward in terms of citations (though he does cite Congar), but shows itself within the work’s structure, vocabulary, and vision.

The Priesthood of the Faithful: Acknowledgments to Chapter Three In his acknowledgements, Philibert begins with the exclamation that this book was the realization of a “cherished dream,”232 which is a reference to his theological aspiration for the book. Philibert’s “dream” theological aspiration was to lay out the theological foundations for the apostolic mandate of the faithful and the universal call to holiness with reference to Vatican II. In a sense, Philibert’s dream could be viewed as a relecture,233 or rereading, of Yves Congar’s “classic volume” Lay People in the Church, bringing this work up-to-date through adapting it to the developments of Vatican II and forty years of post-conciliar pastoral practice. In a word, Philibert’s claim to update

Jalons strongly suggests The Priesthood of the Faithful is a straightforward example of

232 Paul J. Philibert, The Priesthood of the Faithful: Key to a Living Church (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2005), vii. 233 My term, not Philibert’s.

172 reception. Unlike Keating and Quill, whose main aim was to represent Congar’s work to

their specific context, Philibert’s own view of this work is beyond a simple restatement of

the thesis of Jalons. Rather he explicitly aims to explicate and use Congar’s work on the

laity, especially his early masterpiece, in order to address the concerns of a different

religious and social situation.

Philibert provides a simple rationale for offering a theological rereading of the

theological foundations of the apostolic mandate of the faithful. At the time of writing,

the Catholic Church in the U.S. (which includes the faithful, not merely the clergy) was

in the midst of a series of crises: a crisis of vitality (Mass attendance, Church

involvement, etc.) and a crisis of credibility due to the sex-abuse scandal. One of the

immediate effects of crisis was to undermine the Church’s mission of evangelization and

inculturation during a period of great cultural transformations. For Philibert, any thought

to remedy the effects of this situation required a renewed sense of what is means to be the

“faithful.”

Philibert begins his argument reflecting on the scriptural rationale for renewal,

especially citing examples of renewal in a time of crisis (, the , ecumenical dialogues), this reminder of hope sets the stage for his diagnostic work, specifically the critical situation of the Catholic Church in the U.S. in the late

1990s. Now, in terms of what is significant for this study, we acknowledge Philibert’s

diagnosis is not drawn explicitly from the theology of Yves Congar, though it is

analogous in the sense that Jalons also begins with a diagnosis of his own times.

When comparing and contrasting Congar’s and Philibert’s contextualization of

the laity during a period of crisis with the aim of renewal we see Congar’s theology of the

173 laity happened in an ecclesial context where the notion of laity qua laity has little

conceptual clarity. This same context was concerned to address the need for collaboration

between the Church’s hierarchy and the laity, particularly in the context of Catholic

Action and other social movements. However, for Congar, clericalism was probably the

critical issue impeding the realization of hierarchy-laity collaboration, and a strong

definition of the lay role. Another critical issue that impeded hierarchy-laity collaboration in Congar’s context was the broader socio-political context, which was marked by a variety of fascisms and totalitarianisms that generally undermined the Church’s Catholic

Action programs. However, in contrast to Philibert’s account, Congar did describe his context, despite the socio-political problems, as a time when there was considerable interest of the laity in Christian belief and practice; he even refers to it as a time of

“flowering” or “new Pentecost,” among lay people in the Christian life.

Congar’s context further contrasts with Philibert’s historical narrative, which he frames within the context of the theology of Vatican II, specifically its positive teaching on the laity and their participation in the ecclesial mission. Unlike Congar’s French

Catholic pre-conciliar context, Philibert views the post-conciliar activity and participation of the laity in the Church’s mission to be in decline in the United States. Philibert describes American Catholic life in the 1990s as deeply affected by individualism, consumer-capitalism, as well as the internal crises of the Church at the time. Overall, for

Philibert the particular U.S. historical epoch is one marked by spiritual and cultural declension, i.e., not a “new Pentecost,” though he anticipated renewal. Yet, rather than negotiating through a time of renewal, the Church in the U.S., he argues, is facing a moment of “kairos,” “a time for decision, a time when we perceive everything in a new

174 way.” Despite, at the time of writing, a growing number of active laity, the Church in the

U.S. still faces a critical moment that will impact her future in the United States. At the

center for Philibert’s work is especially what he calls

the need for large numbers of nominal Catholics… to be formed in an adult faith that can transform their Church as provider of spiritual commodities, and themselves as spiritual consumers.234

Moving forward, stronger examples of Congar’s influence are found near the end

of Philibert’s contextualization chapter. Near the end of the chapter, Philibert argues for

the identification of the Church as both the hierarchy and lay people together in order to

discredit the definition of the Church exclusively in terms of the bishops and priests, or

exclusively in terms of lay members.235 According to Philibert—here he is in line with

Congar’s work on the laity and that of the Second Vatican Council—the relationship

between the bishops, priests, and faithful is defined by a sense of co-responsibility to and for each other, especially in terms of Christian charity and continued commitment to the ecclesial mission. This claim is practically identical to Congar’s appeal in Jalons to solidarity and subsidiarity as foundational to ecclesiology. Philibert evokes and appropriates Congar’s thought in this instance (his thought is taken up by the Council), as foundational to overcoming the sex-abuse crisis and its effects on the Church. As stated, this is one of Congar’s central claims in Jalons as it relates to what is essential for a theological definition of the laity: when defining and/or describing the laity as a “role”

234 Philibert, Priesthood of the Faithful, 11. 235Ibid. 18-19: “However, the true theological relationship of the ordained to the laity is not widely known or well understood. Bishops and priests themselves too often understand their role as utterly sacred personalities, beyond the reach of ordinary social understanding or accountability. As attorney Schlitz says, “One reason why a pastor could get away with abusing dozens of children in the past is that those who had evidence of such abuse—such as congregants or the victim’s parents—simply could not believe that a pastor could commit such conduct. Needless to say, no one is laboring under that illusion today.” This crisis has been the occasion for a very public correction of the faulty notion that the ordained were beyond the reach of accountability.”

175 we must attend to its implied relationship to and between other groups (priests, religious)

within the ecclesial community.236 As support, Philibert does not simply cite Jalons, which frames the interrelationship of laity and priesthood in terms that suggest priority to hierarchical priesthood. Instead, Philibert quotes Congar in a 1988 interview with

Bernard Lauret237 where he recognized in the post-conciliar period a change in inter-

relational dynamics of the hierarchical priesthood and the laity.

I was criticized because I had defined the laity in terms of the clergy. Today it is the case, rather, that the clergy need to be defined in relation to the laity, who are quite simply members of the people of God animated by the Spirit.238

For Philibert, Congar’s modification of his sociological understanding of the

inter-relational dynamics of priesthood and laity seems to provide a useful way for

navigating through the sex abuse crisis toward renewal. For example, like Congar,

Philibert admonishes bishops, priests, and faithful to “internalize” the fact that there is

not two Peoples of God, but one unified People which are established by baptism,

received in faith through the Holy Spirit. Once the oneness of the ecclesial body is

internalized, the whole priesthood of the baptized—not just the laity—will take on

together “the struggle for justice, the toil of love, the labor for community, and the

compassionate ministry of mercy of all the faithful.” Certainly the gospel mission of the

Kingdom moves the faithful “out” into the world, but the strength of the Body—animated

by the Spirit of Christ—is in the unity and mutuality of its various parts. For Philibert,

this theme is useful insofar as it helps his audience envision a way forward beyond the

sex-abuse crisis as well as the socio-cultural issues that sap ecclesial vitality in the U.S.—

236 As we will see, this is decidedly different from O’Meara’s approach to the question of the distinction between the non-ordained/ordained, which tends to negate the notion of “role.” 237 Fifty Years of Catholic Theology: Conversations with Yves Congar (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988). 238 Philibert, Priesthood of the Faithful, 19.

176 the social imaginary of American individualism that obscures unity in community, the

vapidity of spiritual consumerism—to the detriment of a renewed vision of the Church’s

mission and life that requires the participation and cooperation between all of its members.

Chapters two and three have no explicit quotations or references to Congar that would suggest strong or weak reception, though a few of the themes covered—baptism as the sacramental and spiritual basis for the Christian life and ministry, the Church as sacrament, the organic connection between Eucharistic and the mission of the faithful, i.e., the life of the Church as perpetual epiclesis—are themes found explicitly in

Congar’s works, especially Jalons, Un peuple Messianique and his trilogy on the Holy

Spirit, I Believe in the Holy Spirit. But deciphering the exact character of Congar’s influence on these topics in Philibert can be tenuous. For instance, in Un peuple

Messianique Congar covers the image of the Church as sacrament, but there is no clear textual evidence that Congar is specifically an influence, especially since the ecclesiological notion of “Church as sacrament” was somewhat of a ecclesiological commonplace by the time Philibert was writing. In my estimation, the fact alone that a number of these themes and ideas were theological commonplace in the post-conciliar era is deterrent enough from attributing any kind of specific reception or appropriation of

Congar, even in the weak sense of the term.

Congar in Chapter Four In the fourth chapter, “A Priesthood Embracing Christ’s Body,” Philibert’s takes up again the topic of the foundational notion of a priesthood of the laity and its collaboration with the priesthood of orders. In a manner analogous to the structure of

177 Jalons, Philibert constructs this work on the triplex munera, with chapters 1-4 serving as the historical, ecclesiological, and theological foreground to the constructive aspect.

Chapter four contains a number of Congar references, specifically from his Vatican II diary (not Jalons). It is my contention that Philibert references Congar’s Vatican II diary point to the fact that Philibert strongly identifies Congar’s early theology of the laity with that of the conciliar documents. He does not explicitly try to synthesize “early” Congar with “later” Congar, but joins them together as a significant witness of the conciliar proceedings.

Almost from the start, Philibert frames this chapter using several direct references to Congar’s Vatican II journal, which are further examples of reception. Philibert draws significance from Congar’s connection to the event of Vatican II as peritus. Again, despite the absence of direct quotations or references to Jalons, its influence is strong in thematically. For example, Philibert frames the argument of this chapter by using the great Dominican’s life, which includes Jalons, as an exemplary embodiment of the transition and development of the Church’s theology of priesthood before and after the

Council. Philibert starts the chapter with the self-evident claim that the calling of Vatican

II was one of the most momentous occasions in recent church history. Pope St. John

XXIII’s call for aggiornamento would inaugurate a new era in the Church’s history when the Church would redress her mission of evangelization in the context of the modern world. Congar is cited as one of the witnesses of these events whose “remarks can give us a context for understanding the idea of priesthood that eventually emerged out of the

178 work of the Council.”239 In other words, Philibert sees Congar’s thought as, in some way, framing the conciliar understanding of the priesthood.

Philibert deploys Congar’s personal history, particularly his struggles with the

Roman theologians under Pius XII and then his “rehabilitation” by John XXIII, to illustrate the momentous transition, the dramatic change in evangelical strategy, occurring within the Church at mid-century. Drawing from Congar’s Vatican II journal,

Philibert highlights Congar’s monumental influence on the conciliar figures and documents (amid great physical suffering) in the dramatic process of transforming the

Church’s mode of engagement with the modern world, especially in terms of its complacency in ecumenism and insensitivity in pastoral practice among the poor.240 In terms of reception, Philibert seems to suggest an analogue between the momentous event of the calling of Vatican II with his own call to the lay faithful to rediscover their baptismal priesthood and renew the Church of his own context. This sense of analogue is supported by the Philibert’s citations of texts by Pope St. John Paul II, whose 1988 post- synodal Christifideles laici and the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic

Church, which suggests he understood them to be sources for implementing the conciliar vision of aggiornamento within the context of the late 20th century.

Another aspect of Philibert’s use of Congar’s conciliar experience is in the way he contrasts Congar’s experience of the Council with the experience crafted for mass consumption by the medium of television, devised by “the Vatican old guard,” which is presumably a reference to Roman theologians such as . According to

Philibert, the experience of the Council as mediated by television—he focuses on the

239 Philibert, Priesthood of the Faithful, 56. 240 See Yves Congar, My Journal of the Council (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 2012)

179 sedia gestatoria and the Opening Mass—and the so-called “old guard” was intended to evoke the Council as a moment and display of glory,

whose aim was to trump the pretensions of any earthly power and (surely) to give ostentatious witness their faith in God’s providential presence within the institution of the Roman Catholic Church.241

Congar’s interpretation, as noted by Philibert, was to view these events as a display of what needed to change in the Catholic Church. Rather than a Church displaying an

“ostentatious” celebration of her overcoming the world, Congar longed to see a servant

Church remember her mission to the nations, to other cultures, especially those underrepresented in the Church at the time. He longed to see the Church incorporate the ideas behind the liturgical movement—i.e., the active participation of the laity through their baptismal and spiritual-real priesthood. Philibert describes Congar’s reaction to the opening of the Council as a response to an “entrenched clerical attitude” that defined priesthood exclusively along the lines of the ordained. For Congar this situation was unacceptable representation of the Church’s mission and liturgy, which led him, according to Philibert, to dedicate his whole life’s work to “the retrieval of the theology of the priesthood of all the faithful as proclaimed in the Scriptures and understood through the early centuries of Christian theology.”242 In fact, Philibert claims:

Largely as a result of Congar’s previous scholarship and his ceaseless assistance to the commissions of the Council, council documents emphasize the theology of the priesthood of the Body of Christ at several critical points.243

241 Ibid., 57.

242 Ibid., 59. 243 Ibid.

180 Philibert goes on to exposit two paragraphs from , two from Lumen Gentium, Christifideles laici, the Catechism, all of which were influenced by

Congar’s theological insights into the laity’s priesthood and sacrifice. However, as stated earlier, it is beyond the scope of this study to examine the reception of Congar’s theology of the laity in conciliar and magisterial documents.

Congar in Chapter Five After establishing in general terms the doctrine of the priesthood of the faithful in chapter four, chapter five examines more specifically the prophetic “mission” or task flowing from the baptismal priesthood. Philibert’s presentation follows Congar’s

Thomistic representation of the laity’s relationship to Christ’s triplex munera: the lay faithful share in the triad of Christ’s offices by participation in the Body of Christ.

Philibert also echoes Congar’s approach in the way he traces the theological development of the three offices in reference to Christ: both begin by finding the three offices in the

Old and New Testaments, the , and then the post-Nicene Church

Fathers. Like Congar, Philibert views the medieval period as a turning point in the history of the triplex: no longer was it applied to the whole Church, including the faithful, but was exclusively applied to priests and bishops. Philibert notes it was John Calvin who revived the triplex munera in terms of his Christology in the modern era. According to

Philibert, the inclusion of Christ’s triplex munera and its application to the lay faithful as well as the hierarchy was in large part due to Congar’s influence. Philibert draws importance to Congar’s conviction that the offices (priest, prophet, king) bear a “close mutual interrelationship,” or perichoresis, where the working of one affects the other two. In Philibert’s words, the Council emphasized the triplex munera in order “to show

181 the complementarity and equal dignity of the roles of teacher, leader, and sanctifier in the life of the church.”244

Congar’s theology is used again in a section entitled “The Prophetic Charism in

Context.” Philibert draws from an essay of Congar’s entitled “The Laity and the Church’s

Prophetical Office,” likely written in 1958, and delivered to “a gathering of clergy and

Catholic Action lay leaders in the diocese of Rottenburg, who were studying the

problems of evangelization today.”245 Philibert situates his usage of Congar’s essay

within his argument that in order for the Church to experience renewal her members must

proclaim the Christian gospel in a manner that is understandable in our modern American

context. In this case, the quotation from Congar is used to illustrate the historical

predicament of clergy in post-Christendom western society. According to this view, in a

post-Christian context, the gospel has to be retranslated in a secular context that no longer

bears the direct political influence of the Church. Congar refers to

the emergence of a profane,” ‘not sacred,’ world, a world of technology; and inevitably, from the very nature of their sacred calling, the clergy are out of contact with such a world.”246

For Congar, and the clerics of his generation, it was the general assessment that the

radical transformations in western society had altered the social landscape so far as to

require a reassessment of the best mode of mediating the Church’s mission to “modern

244 Philibert Priesthood of the Faithful, 75. 245 Laity, Church, and World, trans. Donald Attwater (Helicon Press, Baltimore, MD, 1960), v. 246 Philibert Priesthood of the Faithful, 82-83. “What has happened is the emergence of a profane, ‘not sacred,’ world, a world of technology; and inevitably, from the very nature of their sacred calling, the clergy are out of contact with such a world. They were quite at home in the world which, at bottom, the church had shaped, the forms of whose existence were more or less of the same kind as those in the traditional church; but this is no longer so. The clergy cannot, or only with the greatest difficulty, be at home in a world that is wholly secular, technological, and infatuated with [this] earth. On this Ascension Day in the year of grace 1958, people are more interested in Sputnik III than in the Lord whom Christians worship.”

182 man.” This new situation, it seems to be argued, requires a renewed emphasis on the role of lay people in inculturation and evangelization. Philibert, who belongs to a different generation from Congar’s and is an American, concurs with this supposition, and cites

Lumen Gentium in support, “It is in such a situation that the conciliar that ‘only through them [the laity] can the church be salt and light for the world.’” This supports the supposition that the lay faithful carry a considerable amount of weight insofar as their daily lives are meant to bear witness to the gospel in a culture alienated from the Church.

Congar in Chapter Six Congar’s theology of the royal aspect of the baptismal priesthood is not explicitly cited or referenced in the sixth chapter, which concerns the kingship of baptismal priesthood (the chapter is entitled “Hearts Set on the Kingdom of God”). In terms of sources, Philibert’s most frequent source is John Paul I’s 1988 Christifideles laici, which,

I might add, also seems to bear the trace influence of Congar’s theology of the laity.

However, Congar’s influence is still present in this chapter in parts of the argument.

Congar’s influence is detected in at least two specific ways: 1) in Philibert’s connection between kingship and spiritual combat, which is a connection made in Congar’s Jalons; and 2) Philibert’s association of the Christian family (the domestic church) as the place where the life of the Christ’s Body practices Christ’s kingship, which is also argued in

Jalons. To be fair, both of these points are not uncommon in the broader tradition of the

Church, as is the Church’s participation in Christ’s kingship, though it seems significant for my purposes that both Congar and Philibert make the same connections between the kingship of the laity with specific features of the life of the laity qua laity.

183 Congar in Chapter Seven Chapter 7, “Lives Lived in Praise,” concerns the theology of spiritual sacrifices as it pertains to the laity’s practices of everyday life. Once again, Congar is not explicitly mentioned, but his influence is tangible, particularly in the way Philibert connects a broadly Thomistic account of intention with the laity’s daily self-offering of the common

priesthood of the laity. After a brief summary of the chapter’s argument, I will examine

Congar’s influence.

The chapter begins with a sketch of the practice of bloody sacrifice in the world’s

religions, including Israelite religion. Philibert envisions the history of sacrifice as a

gradual progression from primitive, superstitious views of sacrifice as acts of divine

appeasement, with blood-offering as the means to attain appeasement, to Jesus’ self-

sacrifice on the cross, whereby he brings to an end the pagan system of sacrifice. Rather

than continuing bloody sacrifice, Jesus’ new covenant was ratified in the institution of the

sacrament of the Eucharist, which is the representation of his once-for-all sacrifice in the

unbloody Eucharistic sacrifice, offered sacramentally by an ordained priest, and

subsequently received by the faithful in communion.

Philibert’s account is not identical to Congar’s, but there are noticeable

similarities worth detailing. Like Philibert, Congar’s account envisions a gradual

progression from bloody sacrifice to the Hebrew prophets’ critique of superstitious

sacrifice (theological view that sees sacrifice having a necessary effect on the divine

will). However, Congar’s account differs in that he situates his account of sacrifice within

a brief explanation of the theology of natural priesthood. For Congar the human person as

created is gifted with a capacity to relate to the Creator via priestly acts, as discussed in

our second chapter. In fact, Congar suggests the triplex munera is present in the order of

184 creation, and is ultimately elevated and perfected in the of Nazareth— grace perfecting nature. Philibert’s account, by contrast, is explicitly agnostic on the notion of a natural priesthood and its connection to Christ’s triplex munera.

After affirming Christ’s abolishment of bloody sacrifice, Philibert moves on to consider the new mode of relationship to God brought on through the Son’s Incarnation.

The incarnation is the beginning of a new creation, wherein the path to sanctification is no longer through physical sacrifice, but through acts of self-giving love wherein we

“link our own inner self-sacrifice to Christ’s.” Just as Christ offers to the Father nothing but his whole self, so too do we the baptized faithful, offer the Father, through Christ, our whole selves. The mode of self-sacrifice is spiritual and is realized in and through an intentional act whereby we sanctify the content of ordinary, everyday, secular life.

In this section of chapter 7, Philibert offers his own distilled version of Congar’s notion of “Christofinalization,” which is the way Congar accounts for the Christian and royal priestly nature of the laity’s activity in the world without suggesting the laity are bringing about the realization of the eschatological kingdom. Congar and Philibert have the same method for describing the process of action whereby the baptized faithful make spiritual sacrifices in their everyday life. This understanding is based on interpreting

Romans 12:1 in light of specific features of Thomistic psychology and virtue theory.

More specifically, they formulate their respective accounts in two distinct parts, 1) their starting point is a sketch account of intentionality (Thomistic) in order to show the intellectual directedness of lay action in the order of intention toward the worship of God in acts of religion, and 2) the intention of the final end leads, in the order of execution, to the choice of specific means, which ultimately are realized in specific virtuous moral acts

185 commanded by the virtue of religion. What is unique in Congar and Philibert accounts is

the application of these concepts to a constructive account of what is unique to the laity’s

life in the secular world. Augustine and Aquinas’ accounts of religion infer the activities

of the laity, but they do not specifically say so.

Congar in Chapter Eight Chapter 8, entitled “An Intentional Symbolic Life,” is Philibert’s rapprochement

between the Congarian and Vatican II notion of the common priesthood of the baptized

and the contemporary notion of Lay Ecclesial Ministers (LEM), or those lay people with

ecclesial vocations that are not ordained/hierarchical. Congar is referenced once

explicitly in this chapter, in a footnote in the middle of the chapter in the section entitled

“The Faithful as Full-time Apostles.” Interestingly, the footnote is a reference to the

Catholic Action chapter in Jalons. The purpose of the footnote is to support the claim,

Philibert’s claim that Pius XI “began to develop a missionary perspective for the laity,

challenging them to be the bearers of Christian values and social principles to the world

of work and politics.” This claim is significant for Philibert because he sees Pius XI’s

developing notion of a missionary perspective of the laity to be both a departure from

earlier views of the laity, and an early anticipation of the “substantial theological

developments” of Vatican II’s ecclesiology (i.e., communion ecclesiology, church as

sacrament ecclesiology), which was expressed in more detail in Apostolicam

actuositatem. In Philibert’s view Jalons still provides a useful review of this question even for today.

There is a further reference to Congar, though it is more a constructive

engagement with his theology of the Holy Spirit and the liturgy. For Philibert, the most

186 likely theological solution for understanding the essential difference between ordained

priesthood and common priesthood without setting up a dichotomy between them is found in John Paul II’s Pastores gregis where he offers the concept of perichoresis, typically a trinitarian term, as the solution. Highlighting the notion that perichoresis refers to an “interplay” or “dance” between the trinitarian persons, John Paul II offers that this notion can also describe how the ordained priests and the common priesthood interact with each other in a manner that preserves the equal dignity of each group as well as their mutual dependence on each other. The relationship between these two “do not simply stand side-by-side but are deeply interconnected… two modes of participation in the one priesthood of Christ, which involves two dimensions which unite in the supreme act of the sacrifice of the cross.”247

Conclusion for Philibert’s reception of Congar In contrast to Lakeland, O’Meara, and Hahnenberg, Philibert does not take up the

issue of Congar’s definition of the laity, but addresses identity of the laity under the sole

aspect of the triplex munera, specifically in terms of the laity’s mission of evangelization

and inculturation. Of the four U.S. theologians examined, Philibert’s argument and vision

for the laity accords most directly with Congar’s central insight to the theology of the

laity: the adaptation of the laity to Christ’s triplex munera. Philibert focuses particularly

on the priestly function, like Congar, making it the backbone of the laity’s secular

mission. My criticism, however, of Philibert’s use of the triplex munera to define the

laity is twofold. First, his interpretation of the triplex munera focuses exclusively of the

priest, prophet, and king as roles, tasks, and missions. These are certainly aspects of the

247 Quoted in Philibert, Priesthood of the Faithful, 151.

187 triplex munera but he fails to show how they are connected to a social anthropology.

Attending to the notion of munera as gift, office, and function would show more clearly

how the laity’s participation in Christ’s triplex munera is also expressed through

fundamental social relations. The second point is related to the first, Philibert fails to see

how Congar’s adaptation of the triplex munera implicitly addresses the philosophical and

theoretical issues undergirding the social woes of individualism, consumerism, and

voluntarism that weaken the laity’s witness in the U.S. context. Congar’s usage of the

triplex munera was deeply informed by the social teaching of the popes, especially Pius

XI, and therefore could redress the social anthropologies and political philosophies of the

time (fascism, totalitarianism, individualism). Also, Congar’s usage of the triplex munera could be incarnated in everyday life, building thick social bonds through commitment to the common good, when applied to the structures and mission of Catholic Action. It is difficult see how Philibert’s usage of the triplex munera is specifically utilized to

overcome American individualism(s) and voluntarism—failing to account for the laity’s

social relation to each other, the hierarchy, and religious—or corrects the anthropological

presuppositions of late-modern consumerism.248

In terms of strength, Philibert implicitly acknowledges in his treatment of the

intentionality of religious acts of the baptismal priesthood that Congar’s usage of the

triplex munera and his teaching on the secular character of the lay vocation are not at odds. Philibert can affirm with Congar that the theology of the laity must account for the apostolic nature of the lives of lay people who practice the Catholic faith in the context of

248 Though Philibert does not thematize social relations in a way that directly addresses the anthropological presuppositions of late-modern consumerism, he does direct the reader to the work of Vincent J. Miller, among other, specifically his Consuming Religion (New York: Continuum, 2004).

188 their secular vocations and secular society, without necessitating engagement in a form of lay ecclesial ministry.

Finally, the strength of Philibert’s argument is his usage of Congar’s account of the interconnection and cooperation between the two modes of participating in Christ’s priesthood—baptismal and hierarchical-sacramental—which is necessary for the realization of Christ’s mission in the Church and world. Finally, it is noteworthy that

Philibert does not construct his theology of the baptismal priesthood with any sustained reference to Congar’s theology of ministry, which is significant in that it, at least, suggests Philibert does not see the earlier as being replaced by the latter.

Paul Lakeland’s The Liberation of the Laity: In Search of an Accountable Church (2004) Introduction Of the post-conciliar U.S. Catholic theologians considered in this dissertation,

British expatriate Paul Lakeland’s engagement with and reception of Congar’s theology of the laity in The Liberation of the Laity is the most direct and extensive engagement to date. In Lakeland’s acknowledgements he states clearly that the most influential theologians on this work are Yves Congar and Leon-Joseph Cardinal Suenens, the

Belgian prelate and advocate of the laity.249 On a close read of The Liberation of the

Laity Lakeland’s engagement with and reception of Congar’s thought is not merely on historical and descriptive grounds, but is an emulative and constructive work. More specifically, Lakeland primary aim, even more demonstrative than Philibert’s, is to retrieve and re-deploy Congar’s theology of the laity for our present North

249 Lakeland, Liberation of the Laity, 5.

189 American/Western European context for the purpose of producing a theological vision of the laity aimed to empower lay people today to bring about structural reform within the

Church. Lakeland interprets Congar’s early work on the laity, as well as his later work, though inculturated in a pre-conciliar socio-religious context, as a radical project that needs to be redressed in our postmodern context. Thus, Lakeland believes, even though the theology of the laity qua laity has not been a fashionable topic for some time, with relatively little written on it since Congar’s Jalons in 1953, the topic needs to be reexamined today.

Before examining Lakeland’s reception of Congar’s theology of the laity, it is helpful to place it in the context of his constructive theological project. For instance, despite the importance of ecclesial and social context, Lakeland views his theological project, which includes retrieving Congar’s theology, as not exclusively a pastoral one.

For Lakeland, the perceived need to revisit the theology of the laity is not due to a particular ecclesial crisis or officium signa temporum perscrutandi in the Church (as it is for Congar’s other North American interpreters, O’Meara and Philibert) though he does cite the sexual abuse crisis as a tragedy that should “conscientize” Catholic laypeople.250

Instead, Lakeland understands his project as largely theological, theoretical, and constructive. In other words, according to Lakeland we need a renewed theology of the laity due to the Church’s persistent commitment to an “outmoded understanding of ministry” as well as the hierarchy and the faithful’s “failure to harness the apostolic potential of the laity” which has left the Church in a state of malaise despite the existence of a rich array of lay ministries in the U.S. in the post-conciliar period. Lakeland claims

250 Liberation of the Laity was written before the revelation of the sexual abuse crisis.

190 that if he is successful in his task, he will produce what is tantamount to an ecclesiology,

reducing the notion of a “laity” to a moot point, or more precisely obsolete.

The plan of The Liberation of the Laity is fairly straightforward. The first part is

an introduction to the idea of the laity, with a historical chapter that aims to answer “How

We Got to Where We Are” in terms of the theology of the laity. The second part, “Where

We Go From Here,” aims to construct a path for the laity in the future. Congar is featured

heavily in the first part in an clear manner, with the second chapter is exclusively about

Congar. In the second part of The Liberation of the Laity, Lakeland builds on the

Congarian elements of the first part by reappropriating some of Congar’s major themes into his constructive proposal, specifically his renewed understanding of the lay state and vocation through the lens of an ecclesiology defined by its secularity. In contrast to

Philibert’s focus on the triplex munera in his reception, Lakeland’s reception of Congar’s theology of the laity is centered on the notion of the secular character of the laity and retrieving the undergirding radicality of Congar’s early project.

In terms of my procedure, I will follow the pattern I have established with the other authors: summarize each chapter in order to give a general description of the book’s context and argument, with special attention to those instances of reception of Congar by

Lakeland.

Congar in the Introduction The introduction, entitled “The Idea of the Laity,” is essentially and self- consciously a synthesis of the first chapter of Congar’s Jalons, specifically reliant on his diagnosis of the laity-clergy distinction, and Alexandre Faivre’s The Emergence of the

Laity in the Early Church for the historical material. According to Lakeland, throughout

191 Church history the theology of the laity is almost moribund, which he sees to be likely

the result of the clericalization of theology in the era of the Church Fathers. The advances

in 20th century Catholic theology, particularly those advocated by the nouvelle theologie,

provided a way to redress the imbalance.

The majority of the chapter concerns the development of the concept of the laity

in distinction from the clergy (and monastics), essentially following Congar’s strategy

verbatim. According to Lakeland, following the work of Faivre, when the laity-clergy distinction is studied historically it lacks strong biblical or post-apostolic support, which suggests the notion of two distinct groups in the church did not originally exist. When the term laikos is used, it is either used positively for the whole church, or for a distinction made about a group outside the church. Following the work of Congar and Faivre,

Lakeland notes we can only trace the origins of the distinction as far back as the 2nd and

3rd centuries, though even this is complicated by the emergence of monasticism. is cited as laying the path for the emergence of the notion of a “clergy.” Lakeland draws on Congar’s typology of “function” and “state of life” to account for the different ways laity-clergy-monk were differentiated and interrelated in the Western Church up to the

12th century. Nevertheless, he notes that the distinction gradually hardened into an oppositional view that defined the laity in terms negative and passive, which created the need for a more constructive account. According to Lakeland, it “will be a major part of

Congar’s life work was to develop a more positive characterization of the laity.”251

251Paul Lakeland, The Liberation of the Laity: In Search of an Accountable Church (New York: Continuum, 2003), 13.

192 Congar in Part 1, “How We Got to Where We Are” The whole of part one of Lakeland’s The Liberation of the Laity serves as a brief

diagnostic history of the theological notion of the laity in the 19th and 20th century. The

first chapter, “The Road to Vatican II,” begins with an interesting claim: “the ‘fortunes’ of the theology of the laity is intelligible in the context of the “current working ecclesiology.”252 The broader context of this chapter is to the depict the dominant

ecclesiology of the period between Vatican I and Vatican II in order to show the rationale

for the development and practical renewal of a theological view of the laity. According to

Lakeland’s history, the dominant ecclesiology of the late 19th to mid-20th was defined in

part by the Church’s counter-revolutionary strategy aimed to restore papal rights and the

prerogatives of medieval Christendom. This counter-revolutionary strategy was not merely political-social, but equally intellectual as seen in the hierarchy’s opposition to modernism as the intellectual progeny of the political Enlightenment. The laity in the counter-revolutionary vision was recast as subordinates and passive agents in the style of the pre-revolutionary view of the ancien regime. Pius X’s Vehementer Nos253 is used by

Lakeland to provide the political-ecclesiastical frame for this perspective, as is Neo-

Scholasticism for the intellectual dimension. Lakeland distinguishes between a revitalized

Thomism, neo-Thomism—represented by Maritain, Garrigou-Lagrange, Rousselot,

Chenu, and Congar—a positive development over against a “political neoscholasticism,”

which seems to refer to the regnant Roman Neo-Scholasticism. The work of the nouvelle

theologie, of which Congar is associated, is positioned as a theological challenge to the

counter-revolutionary strategy, both in terms theoretical and pastoral. The achievement of

252 Ibid., 17. 253 , Vehementer Nos [On the French Law of Separation] Vatican Website, February 11, 1906, accessed August 1, 2018 http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p- x_enc_11021906_vehementer-nos.html

193 the “new theology” was in its ability to redress the Church’s identity through a return to

sources of the faith, while engaging with the thought-forms of the modern world for the

purpose of evangelizing a post-Christendom society, particularly a proletariat that had

lost confidence in a clericalist vision of the Church defined as an unequal society. This

change of view was also present in the missionary movement in France (Godin), socially-

minded lay movements, some of which were supported by the hierarchy, like Catholic

Action or the JOC, and even involvement in the burgeoning ecumenical movement

(Congar). Lakeland gives a special place to the first substantial theological works on the

laity written by Gerard Philips and Yves Congar. Lakeland defines Philips’ work as a

cautious, conservative study of the apostolate of the laity, primarily aimed to describe the

laity in terms of Christian adulthood. For Lakeland, this vision of the laity aligns with

Pius XII and would eventually influence the conciliar descriptions of the laity. Lakeland

views Philips’ conservative vision in contrast to Congar’s Jalons, which he views as a

revolutionary work that aimed to challenge real power relations in the church, the nature

of priesthood and the episcopacy. This estimation of Congar’s Jalons sets the stage, not

only for the next chapter that explains the achievement of Congar, but for Lakeland’s

constructive reappropriation of Congar’s work in the second part.

Congar in Chapter 2, “The Achievement of Yves Congar” Lakeland’s second chapter, entitled “The Achievement of Yves Congar,” is a

broad overview of Congar’s work on the laity, which includes an exposition of Congar’s

Jalons, its so-called “stress points,” and a summary of Congar’s post-conciliar study of ministry. Lakeland’s characterization of Congar’s theology in this chapter provides a hermeneutical framework for Lakeland’s constructive proposal of a theology of

194 secularity. As we will see, Lakeland’s characterization and appropriation of Congar’s

theology of the laity is distinct from the other three theologians examined in chapters five

and six, particularly in his use of Congar’s theology of the secular to build his own

fundamental ecclesiology and theology of the laity.

The introductory section of the second chapter begins with a startling claim that

evinces the prominent place of Congar in Lakeland’s constructive vision of the laity:

“The story of the great Dominican theologian Yves Congar is in many respects the tale of

the twentieth-century Catholic Church.”254 On one hand, Lakeland is referring to the fact

that Congar found himself involved in just about every major event and controversy the

Church experienced in the last century: the aftermath of the modernist crisis, the

historical retrieval of Aquinas’ theology, the attempt of the nouvelle theologie to

rehabilitate the thought of the modernists, the study of authentic reform and the laity,

censure by the Roman theologians, the event and documents of Vatican II, ecumenism,

etc. Yet, the claim seems to have another meaning for Lakeland, who views Congar’s

censure as a sign that the Dominican’s theology of the laity contained “a vein of

radicalism” that has yet to be fully explored and that even Congar may not even have fully realized.255 For Lakeland, Congar’s emendations to Jalons in 1964 and his articles

on ministry in the early 1970s should be viewed as a sign that the great Dominican

viewed his achievement on the laity as tentative. Lakeland attributes Congar’s

“tentativeness” to the caution of a man working under a cloud of suspicion for a

significant part of his career. He views Congar’s self-criticism and hesitancy to commit to

Jalons as representative of his mature positions as a sign that Congar was frustrated at his

254 Lakeland, 49. 255 Ibid., 50.

195 inability to express his bolder vision due to the threat of censure, which led him to

compromise his true vision of the laity.256 Thus, this is Lakeland’s rationale for

interpreting Jalons as a work hinting at a more radical theology of the laity waiting to be

uncovered even still.

The second and third sections of “Achievement,” which are entitled “Lay People

in the Church” and “Stress Points in Congar’s Thought,” serves as a summary exposition

of what Lakeland sees as the main achievement and aporias in Congar’s theology of the

laity in Jalons. These two sections are the most important for the purposes of this study

since they provide Lakeland’s main interpretation of Congar’s work.

First, Lakeland offers a general description of Jalons as an exploration of the complexity of the laity’s role, which is specifically defined by the notion of “secularity.”

This claim is significant for this study which has argued that the adaptation of the triplex munera to the laity is the central teaching of Jalons. We will assess this claim later. For

Lakeland, following Congar, “secularity” should not be misinterpreted as implying a denial of direct service to God, nor as a sign that the laity is to be viewed in rigid separation from the clergy. Lakeland summarizes the conditions Congar puts on the category of secularity as: first, laypeople are directly the people of God, in the state of secularity in itself, and therefore ordered to eternal life, and second, the layperson is entrusted to do divine work through “the substance of things in themselves” and not as a concession to weakness nor as a matter of use. Lakeland points out that Congar contravenes on this last point and in his 1964 addendum yields to Rahner’s perspective as a superior way to explain the secularity as “the conditions of Christian activity.” Lest it

256 For Congar’s personal account of his experience of censure during this period that corroborates aspects of Lakeland’s characterization, see Yves Congar’s Journal of a Theologian 1946-1956 (Hindmarsh, SA: ATF Press, 2015).

196 seem Congar has a reductionistic view of the laity’s role, Lakeland adds that Congar’s

picture of the laity’s activity involves several roles, both in the world and in the Church,

sacramentally and apostolically, in virtue of baptism and confirmation. In fact, the laity

brings the world into the worship of God through their sacrificial offerings. It is

important for Lakeland’s argument to note Congar’s preference, even as early as Jalons,

for the ecclesiological image of the People of God, in which the ecclesial community is

envisioned as the context that situates the “hierarchical fact” and not vice versa.257 At this

point Lakeland’s summarization is fairly unremarkable as an example of reception,

though it is definitely not a step-by-step account of Congar’s presentation.258 Lakeland

summarizes four aspects of Congar’s thought on lay life:

1. The layperson is called to life in the world, showing “respect for the true inwardness of things,” though referring them to God. 2. The layperson should exercise a role in the eucharistic worship of the church, actively bringing the world and its concerns before God in Christ. 3. The layperson may cooperate, through Catholic Action, in the work of the hierarchical apostolate. 4. The layperson is called through baptism and confirmation to a direct evangelization of the world that is exercised independently of the hierarchical apostolate.259

Lakeland’s summarization focuses on the secularity, or worldliness, of the laity’s mission

with recognition that the laity is not precluded from participation in Eucharistic worship.

Lakeland’s stress on secularity as key to the laity’s mission in the world is decidedly

different from Philibert’s, who focused on the triplex munera and the “communion

between” aspect of ecclesial collaboration.

257 Lakeland, Liberation of the Laity, 52. 258 First of all, for some reason he separates into two disassociated sections his explanation of the definition of the layperson from his explanation of the roles of the laity, which are unified in chapter one of Jalons. Also, he frames the section by starting with secularity, which is a deliberate constructive move that we will see at a later point. 259 Liberation of the Laity, 53.

197 Nevertheless, for Lakeland these four aspects are characteristics of the priestly role of the lay apostle in the world without separating it from the ecclesiological foundations of secularity. Lakeland, taking note of the historical context of Congar’s theology of the laity, recognizes that these four qualities are actually real qualities of a real priesthood, neither a mere metaphorical priesthood to be compared to the hierarchical ministry, nor a mere derivation from the ministerial priesthood per se. For

Lakeland, these qualities asserted are all part of Congar’s challenge to clericalism. He argues, even though Congar defined the laity in relation to clergy, this account of the laity was a theological advance over past definitions/descriptions, which as we have repeatedly noted were largely negative and passive representations of the laity.

Next, Lakeland considers the “mighty advances” by Congar in Jalons, specifically theological advances. He narrows his focus to four advances: first, Congar’s notion that

Christ’s kingship is complete in principle, even though it has yet to be worked out in history. This means specifically that Christ’s authority is most realized in the church, where he reigns, and not yet realized in the secular world, where he does not yet reign.

Lakeland draws from this the implication that the work of the laity in the secular realm is not mediated through the hierarchical ministry within the church. Related to this advance is Congar’s incarnational perspective on the building of the Kingdom in history, which

Lakeland sees as an anticipation of the ecclesial soteriology of liberation theology. The incarnational view of the building of the Kingdom in history maintains the integrity and goodness of Christian apostolic activity in the world, not viewing worldly activity as a mere concession or use, without submerging the Church’s mission into the temporal realm.

198 The second advance considered by Lakeland is Congar’s treatment of the priesthood of God’s people. He highlights as particularly important Congar’s expansion of the notion of priesthood to include the laity’s priesthood as real priesthood, which showed that there are common priestly features shared between the hierarchy and the laity (without obscuring the responsibilities exclusive to the ordained). In fact, the ecclesiology of the priesthood covered in Jalons, Lakeland argues, seems more concerned with reconciliation of all things to God than evangelization. (This point is taken up in Lakeland’s constructive section, specifically in his identification of the

Church’s mission with the political and social mission of humanization.) Lakeland extracts from this insight on the laity’s priesthood the question of whether priesthood is more concerned with the reconciliation of God and world than of the mediation of God to the world.

Connected to the second advance is the royal function of the laity in the Church, which Lakeland considers to have been masterfully treated by Congar. In general terms,

Congar’s description of the laity’s kingship sees it as both a form of life and as a power with a particular focus on the laity’s participation in the governance of the Church. For

Congar, the important thing to know is that there should be a balance between the structure and life aspects of the Church. According to Lakeland, this notion presents a challenge to Catholics living today, especially Congar’s defense of hierarchical power over decision-making. Today’s laity is concerned with other issues, and the greatest issue is that the voice of the entire Church be heard. In his view Congar is right to make the issue of consent an important one, but not if it obscures the larger issue of “vesting [the hierarchical principle]... in a hierarchical priesthood to which are attached nonessential

199 characteristics, such as and gender.” Lakeland concedes that democracy per se

as a political form of government is not the way of the Church, but he does propose

“democracy of access” as an alternative to hierarchical centralization.

The third advance is Congar’s communion ecclesiology in Jalons, which

Lakeland sees as an “ecclesiology from below,” aimed to balance the “high

ecclesiology.” The Church is built from one source, which flows from above and below.

The stream from “above” is mediated through the apostolic ministry and the sacraments,

while the stream from “below” comes through the personal lives of Christians who have

received grace. The laity, then, is central to building the Church from below. Another

aspect of Congar’s communion ecclesiology, also central to Philibert’s work on the laity,

is that it aims to recover the unity of the community is not only a “communion with”— communion with the Pope, Apostles, etc.—but also a “communion between.”260 The

“communion between” aspect is concerned with fellowship and mutuality between

Christians, “whose regulating principle is none other than the Holy Spirit.”261 Neglect of the “communion between,” of course, has direct and negative consequences for the laity’s self-understanding of the secular character of their function. Lakeland summarizes what

Congar considers to be the three practical opportunities needed to “reweave the active involvement of laypeople into the building-up of the church”: 1) “the living reality of basic communities”; 2) the recognition that this work can only be done from the

“bottom”; 3) the need to tackle the sensitive issue of the community’s role in selecting its priest(s).

260 Ibid., 58. 261 Ibid.

200 The last advance highlighted by Lakeland is found in the spirituality chapter of

Jalons. The particular advance of this chapter is recognition that the universal call to

holiness be understood under the specific conditions that mark the lay vocation: primarily

“laicity” as secularity. A clear understanding of the secularity of the laity was obscured in

a pre-modern world where the “world” was not understood to be autonomous from spiritual realities but subservient to them. According to Lakeland’s interpretation of

Congar, the intellectual conditions needed to formulate “secularity” was not

Enlightenment notions of secularity but a combination of and theology that “takes seriously” the incarnation as occurring in the world. Lakeland notes

how Congar locates the combination of humanism and an incarnational theology in

Aquinas’ adaptation of pagan magnanimitas. The spirituality of lay life, a life of

“secularity,” includes several stages, which ultimately concern the laity’s cooperation

with God’s design for his creation. This cooperation involves engagement with and

responsibility for the world. The layperson’s vocation is a process of maturation that

requires the cultivation of the virtue of prudence and operation of the gifts of the Holy

Spirit played out in the secular context, which is the dwelling place of God, Christ, and

the Holy Spirit.

“Stress Points” in Jalons Lakeland follows Jalons’ advances with certain of its “stress points” or what he

considers to be its principle contradictions. This aspect of Lakeland work is significant

for marking reception since it shows us specific aspects of Congar’s theology that he is

consciously intending to exclude from his constructive proposal.

201 The first problem Lakeland notes is the “curious ambivalence” Congar creates in

the distinction he makes between the “communal/fellowship” and

“structural/institutional” aspects of the Church.262 The particular issue this raises for

Lakeland is that he sees Congar offering a static view of the development of the ecclesia

in the thought of Christ, typified by his placing the institution/sacramentum of the

Twelve before the ecclesial community/res. Situating the Twelve before the ecclesial

community risks positioning the laity in an “irremediably subordinationist role.”

According to Lakeland “[t]here is no reason to see the commissioning of the Twelve as

the definitive moment in the church’s coming into being, unless, of course, one wants to

insist on apostolic authority as the principal reality in the church.”263 In fact, for

Lakeland, who thinks Jesus’ view of the church was “certainly not really fully developed

until sometime after his death,”264 it is unlikely there is a single defining moment that

marks the beginning of the church.

The second set of “stresses and strains” for Lakeland come from Congar’s account of the laity’s participation in the prophetic element in the church. Congar is criticized for concentrating his account of the laity’s participation in the prophetic element to their role in the teaching ministry of the church, which Congar sees as “the heart of [the] matter where these questions are concerned.”265 For Lakeland, this move

implicitly falls into the same mistake as the first “stress point”: it positions the laity in a

subordinate role to the hierarchy. Connecting prophecy principally with teaching also

262 For a thorough examination of Congar’s binomial “structure and life, see Timothy MacDonald’s study The Ecclesiology of Yves Congar: Foundational Themes; also see Benoît-Dominique de La Soujeole, OP Introduction to the Mystery of the Church. The Catholic University of America Press, 2014: chapter 9. 263 Lakeland, Liberation of the Laity, 63. 264 Ibid., 63. 265 Ibid., 64.

202 displaces the importance of the connection between prophecy and the ability to “speaking

the truth to power,” which Lakeland sees as a more constitutive element belonging to the

.266 In the same vein, Lakeland takes issue with Congar’s qualified claim

that teaching theology is open to the laity, but more suited to clergy. Lakeland considers

this claim dated, especially if it is meant to infer that growth of lay theologians in the

post-conciliar period is regrettable.

Lakeland’s third “stress point” is Congar’s theology of the apostolate, specifically

the space Congar gave to the historical development of the apostolate of Catholic Action

in order to define the nature and purpose of the Christian laity’s secularity. Lakeland summarizes Congar’s account as “long-winded, oversubtle… and somewhat confusing.”267 According to Lakeland, Congar’s account fails by postulating a sphere of

activity for Catholic Action that is neither exclusively temporal in end (i.e., trade unions)

nor exclusively spiritual (i.e., studies). For Congar, Catholic Action as an

organizational effort in collaboration with the hierarchy for the purpose of influencing

secular institutions transcends the purely historical end and yet is not exclusively

spiritual. Lakeland provides a quote from Congar where he explains how Catholic Action

works in the secular arena:

When properly and intrinsically religious things, things, that is, within the Church’s spiritual competence, are done in order to influence the temporal in a Christian direction, then what is done is Catholic Action. The temporal matter influenced and its conduct do not pertain to the Church’s sphere, or, then, to Catholic Action, but to the sphere of this world; they are properly a matter of the temporal activity of Christians.268

266 Ibid. 267 Ibid., 68. 268 Quoted ibid 69; Lay People in the Church, 387.

203 For Lakeland, this schematic distinction actually produces a separation between the temporal and the religious resulting in Congar’s failure to account for the real-world overlap in the vocation of the laity that occurs between the secular and religious contexts.

After accounting for the three “stress points” in Congar’s early theology of the laity, Lakeland turns to Congar’s later writings on lay ministry as exemplary of his attempt to correct the clericalism inherent in his early work. According to Lakeland,

Congar’s earlier definition of the laity was tinged by a clerical view of the ministerial priesthood, which worked against a positive, complete description of the laity that avoided any essentialized subordinationism. In his later essays on ministry, he argues,

Congar was able to redress his earlier definition of the laity in light of the ecclesiological motif of “People of God.” It was under this rubric that Congar was able to recognize “the primacy… of the ontology of grace over associated structures.”269 In this light the schematic notion of “ministries” provides a notional umbrella under which we can view the diffusion of vocations of laity and sacramental priesthood as equal in dignity as

“modes of services” for the building up of the ecclesial community. Stripping his understanding of the ministerial priesthood of “the spirituality and culture of religious life” that obscures the intrinsic qualities of the particular responsibilities of the priesthood, Congar was able to recover the common ground between the laity and the priesthood, which is simply their calling to minister, even if it is expressed through different modes. For Lakeland’s work, “the enormous riches” of Congar’s understanding of ministries provides the starting point of a radical ecclesiology of secularity, stripped of

“cultic accretions” and a return to a view of ministerial priesthood that is rooted

269 Lakeland, Liberation of the Laity, 71.

204 exclusively in “Jesus’ commissioning of the disciples” to engagement with the world, without respect to gender, lifestyle, or celibacy.

For Lakeland, there is a certain deep continuity between Congar’s ecclesiological vision and that of liberation theology. He summarizes liberation theology’s contribution as a prioritization of the experience of the poor, the close connection between eschatological salvation and “the historical project of liberation,” and methodological approach to ecclesial life that is “bottom-up.” These qualities are comparable to a number of Congar’s theological insights, summarized by Lakeland as “[h]is understanding of the role of history in salvation, his vision of ‘kingship’ as a spiritual freedom marked by a dialectic of refusal and engagement, and especially his call for a ‘communal’ principle to balance the hierarchical principle.”270

Congar in Part 2, “Where We Go From Here” Congar reappears in a substantive way in the second part of the book, entitled

“Where We Go From Here,” which is Lakeland’s constructive theology of the laity built on the themes of secularity, liberation, mission in a postmodern world, and accountability in the structure of the Church. Lakeland, drawing on the theology of William Lynch,

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Harvey Cox, re-envisions Catholic ecclesiology and theology of the laity through the lens of secularity. Lakeland, drawing a distinction from his own theology and Congar’s early work on the laity, strongly opposes any suggestion of a

Church-world duality or dualism: the secular world is not opposed to the divine plan, but is rather the only human context wherein divine revelation and the realization of the human desire for God occurs. One result of this position is that Lakeland makes an

270 Ibid., 76.

205 equation between the ends of Christian spirituality, the Church’s mission, and the

“humanization” of the world. In his renewed vision of ecclesiology the Church’s fundamental quality is its secularity or laicity, which puts the role of the laity at the forefront of Christian action in the world.

It is within this context that Congar’s work is invoked as prophetic in the present

U.S. Catholic context, yet not without criticism. Congar next appears as Lakeland’s interlocutor in a section titled “How Democratic Should the Church Become?” where he calls for the democratization of many of the Church’s processes. It is here that Congar’s thought on the laity’s participation in Christ and the Church’s royal munus is raised as both relevant, but insufficient for Lakeland’s vision. He begins by briefly describing the five ways Congar accounts for lay involvement in ecclesiastical affairs (described in chapter two of this book) before critiquing its inadequacies. The fundamental or theoretical problem with Congar’s earlier view of lay participation in the royal munus is found in his “beloved distinction between structure and life.” According to Lakeland,

Congar’s binomial reduces to the equation of “structure” with the hierarchy and ecclesial

“life” to the community. Congar’s earlier work is critiqued as being “handicapped” by the prioritization of apostolicity over community (something Congar addressed later in “My

Path-Findings”), which leads to a polarization between hierarchy and community.271

Congar’s description of the hierarchy’s role in terms of power in contrast to the laity’s in terms of life and service seem, for Lakeland, to lead to a diminishment of the laity’s capacity to authentically address problems within the ecclesial community via her consent and cooperation. Lakeland considers Congar’s later ideas of the Church as a structured community as redressing the imbalance of his earlier view and providing a

271 Ibid., 212.

206 clearer picture of how the laity and the hierarchy are to cooperate. In terms of reception

of Congar’s theology of the laity, Lakeland seems to see a strong disjunction between the

two periods of thought in terms of theological conceptualization, without necessarily

seeing his later work on ministry as negating the need for an ecclesial category like laity.

Lakeland’s interest in Congar’s account of the laity’s participation in Christ and the

Church’s royal munus is primarily dialogical and even adaptive: Lakeland does not reject

Congar’s description of the application of the royal munus; rather he accepts it and seeks

to adapt it to his own ecclesiological vision of the Church defined by its secular

orientation. Lakeland’s acceptance of viewing the laity via the triplex munera, even

though that is not his preferred hermeneutical lens, distinguishes him from Philibert, and

O’Meara/Hahnenberg, who seems to reject or minimize the application of the triplex

munera to the laity as definitive.

Lakeland’s final explicit reference to Congar’s theology occurs in a section entitled “The End of the Laity?” where Lakeland raises the question, in light of the belief that all are called to minister, of whether or not the notion of a laity is any longer theologically viable. While Lakeland ultimately prefers to return to what he sees as the earliest Christian understanding of the People of God, where all the members are both lay

(secular in orientation) and clerical (sanctified, set apart), he does see continuing need to see distinction within the community. The question is whether or not the notion of a group called laity makes sense in that context. It is within the debated question that

Lakeland invokes Congar’s thought on the laity one more time. Lakeland first references

Congar when addressing the claim that recognizing lay ministries is tantamount to clericalizing the laity. He notes that Congar’s argument in Jalons where he argues for a

207 distinction of priesthoods based on the hierarchy’s derivation from Christ’s call, which is

presumably understood as an affirmation of a firm distinction between the laity’s

priesthood and the hierarchical priesthood. Lakeland disagrees with Congar on a

fundamental distinction of priesthoods, specifically any distinction that undermines the

involvement of the laity (i.e., the lay priesthood) in the selection of their priests and

bishops.

Lakeland finds Congar’s later theology of ministry which accounts for ministry as

modes of service as more helpful. For Lakeland this picture of sacramental ministry and

non-ordained ministries is preferable because it relativizes the static nature of the

category of laity, even though he acknowledges that Congar himself would not likely

agree with such a notion of the future Church devoid of the traditional distinction. With

that said, it is time to summarize Lakeland’s reception of Congar in The Liberation of the

Laity.

Conclusion for Lakeland’s Reception of Congar First, Lakeland’s engagement and reception of Congar is the most direct, comprehensive, and critical of all U.S. Catholic theologians. Lakeland’s reception of

Congar’s work on the laity are specifically located in his critical assessment and usage of

Congar’s notions of 1) the definition of the laity, 2) the secular character of the laity’s mission, 3) the triplex munera, and 4) the spirituality of the laity. Of the four, Lakeland’s argument privileges Congar’s theological notion of the laity’s secularity as the central theme and achievement of Jalons. It is noteworthy that the argumentative structure and content of Lakeland’s account of laicity or secularity is not built on Congar’s specific understanding of secularity, which is constructed on biblical and Thomistic grounds.

208 Rather, Lakeland’s main act of reception is his appropriation of Congar’s adaptation of secularity to his description of the laity.

Lakeland’s overall assessment of Jalons is that it is a prophetic work, pregnant with radical implications, though deeply flawed and marked by a narrow theological vision of the meaning of laicity and the place of the laity. Like O’Meara and Hahnenberg,

Lakeland clearly prefers the ecclesiological vision of Congar’s theology of ministry, though it is clear by his willingness to engage Jalons on its own terms that he considers its arguments to have a contemporary relevance, and significance for the future of the theology of the laity.

Lakeland’s reception of Congar’s theology of the laity, both the early and later era, is also marked by a conscious awareness of the historical, social and ecclesial distance between himself and Congar. Congar’s work is not appropriated without acknowledgement of his own horizon of expectation.

In criticism, Lakeland’s subordination of the laity’s participation in Christ’s triplex munera to the laity’s secularity introduces problems in understanding the intelligibility of Jalons. If Congar envisioned the secularity of the laity to have priority over the triplex munera, it would be difficult to see how he could maintain the compatibility of the laity’s secularity with his later writings on lay ecclesial ministry, as I argued in chapter three. In other words, if Congar envisioned the state and function of the laity as principally secular, then his later work on ministries would suggest he rejected his earlier position. Yet, Lakeland does not entertain this tension, he even approves of

Congar’s later ecclesiological corrections of Jalons, which Congar developed in order to clarify his specification of munera as ministry.

209 Further, in terms of the intelligibility of Lakeland’s subordination of the triplex munera, it is difficult to see how the notion of the laity’s priesthood could be subordinated to the laity’s secularity. In Jalons, the laity’s priesthood as expressed in the world is part of the ecclesial mission of “Christofinalization,” rendering all things in service to Christ’s royal priesthood by consecrating one’s intentionality to the virtue of religion. In Congar’s sense, then, even though the laity’s priesthood occurs in the secular world, it does so in order to connect the good things of creation to the sacred work of

Christ in the order of intention. Yet, in Lakeland’s constructive interpretation of Congar, the laity’s priesthood seems to become secularized because the world itself is sacred. This interpretation is consistent with Lakeland’s understanding of Congar’s later work on ministry, which he also argues is an extension of the laity’s secularity, in that itself should be stripped of its cultic aspects. In both of these areas, I would argue Lakeland either misunderstands Congar or takes his work in a direction Congar would not willingly go. For Congar, the heart of the theology of the laity is the cultic quality of lay life, whereby the lay faithful brings their daily sacrifices and deeds to the

Mass and offer it to Christ in an act of worship. In other words, Congar’s theology takes the cultic as central to Christian existence, whether lay or ordained, mediated ex spiritu or mediated ex officio.

210 CHAPTER SIX

O’MEARA AND HAHNENBERG: DIVERSE AND RELATIONAL MINISTRIES

OVER AGAINST ‘LAITY’ AND ‘APOSTOLATE’

Introduction The second aspect of the U.S. reception of Congar’s theology of the laity is

represented in the work of Thomas O’Meara, OP and the lay theologian Edward

Hahnenberg. O’Meara and Hahnenberg’s respective theological projects are genetically

similar, yet operate with distinct concerns and visions.272 As will be shown below, the

decisive difference between O’Meara/Hahnenberg and Philibert/Lakeland reception of

Congar’s theology of the laity is rooted the assumed locus of lay activity and the viability

of the category “laity.” For Philibert/Lakeland, Congar’s theology of the laity and

ministries can be viewed as focused on the laity’s ad extra activity as in the world/secular

without rejecting the notion of ecclesial lay ministry. As suggested in the previous

chapter, a focus on secularity of the laity means there is understood to be at least a certain

kind of continuity between Congar’s early and later work on the laity. O’Meara and

Hahnenberg, in contrast, focus their constructive projects on the laity’s ad intra ecclesial

272 It is relevant to note that the theological similarities are likely rooted in the fact that O’Meara advised Hahnenberg’s dissertation on the theology of ministry at Notre Dame.

211 action, mediated through Congar’s later theology of ministry. Both theologians demonstrate a certain resistance to claims for theological validity of the category of laity, the notion of a laity having a secular character, and prefer to transcend it with a notion of ministries. Needless to say, this position is directly contrasted with that of Congar’s earlier work on the laity and affects their reception of Congar’s theology of the laity and ministries.

This leads us to consider some of the undergirding presuppositions of O’Meara and Hahnenberg’s reception of Congar’s theology of the laity. The first shared presupposition, implicit in my previous comments, is Congar’s theology of the laity is divisible into two discontinuous theologies: Congar’s earlier theology of the laity and

Congar’s later, perhaps more mature, theology of ministries. This initial judgment, then, leads to at least the suggestion of a qualitative judgment that Congar’s later thought on the laity is representative of a decisive turning point away from the theology of the laity.

These presuppositions further lead each theologian to presuppose that Congar’s later theology of the laity was constructed in order to eclipse or replace his earlier theology of the laity (at the very least on the experiential level) with more applicable category of “lay ministry” or “theologies of ministries.” Both of these presuppositions are derivative of a more basic presupposition that the concept of the laity itself is fundamentally problematic. A final shared presupposition of O’Meara and Hahnenberg is a tendency to see Congar’s categories and judgments about the laity/ministries through the interpretative lens of Karl Rahner’s theology of grace and history and Schillebeeckx’s theology of ecclesial offices and, more broadly, his use of critical theory.

212 Connection to Shift in Context Even though O’Meara and Hahnenberg’s respective theological projects are oriented to ad intra issues of ecclesial ministry, their work indirectly addresses the particular U.S. context described in chapter four, and is, therefore, a significant shift in context from Congar’s. For example, both O’Meara and Hahnenberg frame their work in response to a post-subculture U.S. Catholicism that is fully engaged with the challenges of U.S. pluralism, such as ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, and the role of social justice in ecclesial mission and evangelization. As noted in chapter one, Congar’s work was formulated in the context of an ecclesial plan of rechristianization of Europe.

Another example of the shift is that the U.S. context in which lay ecclesial ministry originally developed and flourished was suburban Catholic parishes where the typical Catholic was assimilated into American life. In the process of assimilation, suburban Catholic parishes began to encounter at the ground level American individualism and consumerism. Thus, when examining O’Meara and Hahnenberg’s reception of Congar it is necessary to understand that at its inception lay ecclesial ministry set out to address the burgeoning issues. As already noted, Congar’s Jalons was formulated to assist the magisterium’s Catholic Action program, and constructed his theology of the laity in part with a critique of individualism in mind.

To understand how O’Meara and Hahnenberg respond to their context it is necessary to see they are also addresses the same issues as Philibert and Lakeland’s work—discipleship, active participation in liturgy, the problems of individualism and consumerism, and a need to critically engage modernity. O’Meara’s work in particular is marked by a concern to awaken in the individual Christian his or her own personal calling/ministry that is necessarily rooted in the Church. O’Meara’s argues that all

213 Christians are called in baptism to ministry, not just a select few who received ordination.

His project is less about an individualism of ministry and more concerned to redeem the individuality of ministry over against a view of ministry merely as office.

Hahnenberg’s work also addresses the problem of individualism in that he argues that all Christian ministries are relational by nature and ministers are to be in relation to each other as members of the Church. Both theologians are concerned with adapting or incarnating Christian ministry into a modern American form that remains connected to the Church’s Scripture and Tradition. I understand this to be driven in part by the desire to critically engage modernity.

Further, both theologians see the function of ministry as rooted in Christian conversion in baptism and therefore a rooted in Christ’s call to be and make disciples.

Hahnenberg’s work is especially keen to address the needs what I called the “ecclesial canopies” in chapter four. For Hahnenberg, the Church is an ordered communion that is composed of interrelating parts. Ministry, then, is a both a work of God and manifestation of the Church’s social nature as a communion. Both theologians engage Congar’s work with these issues in the background, which are drastically different from those Congar’s engaged in his earlier context. As I will demonstrate, this shift in context influence how

O’Meara and Hahnenberg’s receive Congar’s work, resulting in a critical reception of his early work, a bifurcated view of the relationship between his theology of the laity and his theology of ministries, and a privileging of the later work on ministry over Congar’s theology of the laity. We will examine O’Meara work first, followed by Hahnenberg’s.

214 Thomas O’Meara’s Theology of Ministry (1983) and Theology of Ministry: Completely Revised Edition (1999) Thomas O’Meara’s Theology of Ministry comes in two editions, the first in

1983273 and the second in 1999, with the second being a vastly reconstructed version of the first. It is surprising to note the drastic differences in terms of Congar citations between the two editions. Congar’s role in the argument is also noticeable stronger in the second edition. The predominant theological sources in the first edition are Rahner,

Schillebeeckx, and Tillich. Congar’s presence is typically secondary, when is referenced it is for historical support,274 though he does cite “My Path-Findings” only twice275 and

“Ministries and Structure” once.276 In the “Completely Revised Edition,” Congar’s presence has noticeably increased. He is cited about forty times, most of which are substantial to O’Meara’s specific or overall argument. Tillich’s presence has been considerably diminished—at least in terms of overt citation or major themes—but Rahner and Schillebeeckx still provide the backbone to O’Meara’s theology and argument. Yet,

Congar’s profile has increased dramatically, even to the point that when Hahnenberg refers to O’Meara’s theology of ministry he considers it to be a continuation of Congar’s theology of ministries.

Nevertheless, O’Meara is not explicit about what specifically prompted a complete revision. Interestingly, O’Meara does not seem to consider the first edition out of date, but says it has “retained a relevance” over the fifteen years since its publication, according to its readers, both lay and clerical. O’Meara’s complete revision can be examined alongside changing ecclesial and socio-political conditions in the United States

273 Theology of Ministry (New York: Paulist, 1983). 274 There are about 15 references to Congar in the first edition. 275 Theology of Ministry, 165, 190. 276 Ibid., 206.

215 that occurred over the sixteen years after the publication of the first edition of Theology

of Ministry. Arguably, the 1988 synodal exhortation Christifideles laici and the 1997

Instruction on Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained

Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priests can be viewed as part of the background

material that O’Meara’s new edition redresses.277 If the magisterial documents are

implicitly being addressed, which often criticize what it considers to be novelties in lay

ministry, increased reference to Congar’s work is no surprise in an attempt to re-situate

lay ministry in general and the Theology of Ministry in particular as consistent with the

conciliar theology of Vatican II and recent retrievals of patristic thought in ecclesiology.

Congar’s work is addressed and used (received) at least 35 times in the second

edition, which would be unwieldy to exposit. For the sake of space I will examine those

that are 1) most pertinent to O’Meara’s overall argument, and 2) specifically concern

Congar’s theology of laity and/or ministries. This plan of examination requires me to first

overview O’Meara’s argument.

Overview of O’Meara’s Theology of Ministry (Completely Revised Edition) Theology of Ministry is a comprehensive study and theory of Christian ministry

written from the perspective of a Rahnerian theology of grace in history. O’Meara’s

positive theory of Christian ministry contests a reduction of ministry to an ecclesiastical

office – bishop, /priest, and – and counters by theorizing an

277 For O’Meara’s perspective on the direction of the Church in the 1990s see: “The Raid on the Dominicans” America 170 (1994): 8-16; “Leaving the : The Fallacy of Restoration in the Postconciliar Era,” America 174 (1996): 10-12, 14, 25-28; “ and Catholicism: Some Cultural and Theological Reflections,” Chicago Studies 35 (1996): 68-81.

216 understanding of ministry that is, at root, ecclesial-pneumatic actions.278 For O’Meara, all

true ministries derive from Christ and the Spirit who are the primal source of ministries,

even if a particular ministry was not specified in the apostolic generation. Theology of

Ministry contains a negative thesis as well, which argues that the long-standing notion of

a “clergy-laity” division, with its dualism of active clergy and passive laity, has

deleterious effects on a notion of ministry defined as a charismatic, personal activity

performed within the structured ecclesia.

O’Meara’s argumentation and presentation is overwhelmingly nuanced and the

book’s genre defies simple characterization, though he himself categorizes it “a

fundamental theology of ministry” or a “cultural ecclesiology of grace.”279 A thorough

examination and review of each chapter is beyond the scope of this study, so not all of its

important claims can be stated or examined. The Theology of Ministry is fundamental in

the sense that it asks architectonic questions about ministry, but the work’s mode of

presentation is principally historical. O’Meara considers the development of Christian

ministry as something that develops, via the inner promptings of , from

within a given socio-cultural context, often resulting in different ministries being

emphasized based on the Church and the world’s needs. However, for O’Meara the actors

of history are free to quench the Spirit’s leading, and he does see our period in the history

of ministries as one emerging from an era of ministerial “monoformity” into an era of

ministry expansion. In a sense, O’Meara seems to view this text less as an academic or

278 Theology of Ministry, 45, 142: “The New Testament describes charism and ministry mainly in specific services whose names are taken from actions…” and “Some English words (inevitably with their sources in Roman legal and political life)—office, role, state, order—when used to express ministry, have drawbacks in their meanings and implications, because the element of action is suppressed, and too, activity as service can be obscured by the structures of laity, religious life, and clericalism…”

279 Ibid., 1: In the first edition O’Meara described the book as “a cultural metaphysics of ministry.”

217 theoretical exercise and more of a “scanning the signs of the times,” or an attentive observation of grace at work in history.280

In terms of relevance to our study of O’Meara reception of Congar’s theology,

O’Meara’s theory and argument is placed in conversation with pertinent issues including:

1) the problem of definition of the laity; 2) the so-called clergy-laity distinction; 3) the relationship between baptism, ordination, and lay ecclesial ministries; 4) the relationship between ministry and the individual’s personal vocation; 5) and the spirituality as the source of ministry. One final issue of serious relevance is O’Meara’s addressing fundamental ontological claims about the relationship between ministerial action and

Christian existence per se, or in his words the relationship between “doing and being.”281

The importance of this issue was signaled in the first edition where O’Meara describes his work as “a cultural metaphysics of ministry.” Even though O’Meara excludes this specific description from the second edition, he still addresses the fundamental in the final chapter of the second edition.

Congar’s presence in Theology of Ministry extends to, at least, five of the six chapters. As mentioned above, addressing each reference would prove unwieldy. I will stick to the objectives described above. The order of procedure will be according to

O’Meara’s order of presentation, beginning with his first chapter.

280 For an examination of a number of 20th c. French Dominicans’ engagement with “scanning the signs of the times,” including Yves Congar, see Thomas O’Meara, OP and Paul Philibert, OP, Scanning the Signs of the Times (Havertown : ATF Press, 2013). 281 See Theology of Ministry, 252-258.

218 Congar in Chapter 1: “Ministry: Between Culture and Grace” O’Meara’s first usage of Congar occurs in the first chapter immediately after he maps out the rapid expansion of ministries happening in the U.S. since 1968.282 For

O’Meara, the ascendancy of lay ministries is not merely a pragmatic adaptation to the problems of a priest shortage, but is a natural implication of ecclesiology: “that aspect of

Christianity that has absorbed almost all theological attention over the past four centuries.” O’Meara views the post-conciliar period as a time when a “new praxis” and a

“new theology” have challenged the Church to “appear and to act differently” in a more authentic way. It is here that O’Meara first cites Congar’s Jalons as “[t]he first theological study on the laity.”283 Jalons is cited for contextualizing the theology of the laity within ecclesiology, or a “total ecclesiology,” rather than isolated treatise of

“laicology.” The reference to Jalons is immediately followed by a long quote from “My

Path-Findings” to show that Congar had re-examined his earlier work. O’Meara suggests a causal connection between Congar’s acknowledgement of his inability to write the ecclesiological text he set out to write earlier in his career with the inadequacy of Jalons’ clerical ecclesiology and the corrected ecclesiological vision undergirding his theology of ministries.284 This first instance of reception is paradigmatic for O’Meara’s usage of

282 In the opening chapter of Theology of Ministry, O’Meara describes the rapid expansion of ministries as a creative, grass-roots response of Catholic laity to the social phenomena of demographic shift of U.S. Catholics to suburban contexts after the Second World War and the social upheaval of the 1960s. Increased education of U.S. Catholics is also listed as causal for development of lay ministry. O’Meara lists a variety of ministry types, including hospital, liturgical, social justice, and educational. 283 Theology of Ministry, 10. “The first theological study on the laity, by Yves Congar, appeared in 1953. “It is not just a matter,” he wrote, “of adding a paragraph or a chapter to an ecclesiological exposition which from beginning to end ignores the principles on which a ‘laicology’ really depends. Without these [new] principles we should have, confronting a laicised world, only a clerical Church which would not be the people of God in the fullness of its truth. At bottom there can only be one sound and sufficient theology of laity, and that is a ‘total ecclesiology.’” Lay People in the Church, xvi. 284 Ibid., 10. “Twenty years later, after the Council, reexamining his previous work, Congar concluded: “I have not written that ecclesiology,” and that essay of 1972 intended to correct a vision “which at first was principally and unthinkingly clerical…. The church of God is not build up solely by the actions of the official presbyteral ministry but by a multitude of diverse modes of service, stable or occasional,

219 Congar in his overall argument: Congar’s earlier theology of the laity was eclipsed by his later theology of ministries because of certain foundational insufficiencies latent in his earlier work. O’Meara continues to juxtapose the ecclesiologies of Jalons and “My Path-

Findings” with Congar’s famous reference to “the decisive coupling is not

“priesthood/laity” as I used in Jalons… but rather “ministries/modes of community service.”285 What is a notable in this interpretive act is that O’Meara uses this quote plus his own explanatory phase of “ministries/modes of community service” as the replacement of the “bipolar division of clergy and laity” in support of his claim of a dramatic shift in ecclesiological framework from pre-conciliar to post-conciliar eras. The notion of a clergy-laity distinction as “bipolar” becomes thematic in Theology of Ministry and Congar’s changed perspective – in Congar’s terms a change of entry points on the question, not necessarily a clergy-laity distinction per se – becomes, in a sense, paradigmatic of authentic reception of Vatican II.286

Before moving on, I should note that while this hermeneutical and receptive approach to Congar’s work does not match up with my own, it is a hermeneutical plausible reading based on “My Path-Findings” alone. O’Meara’s treatment of Jalons is

spontaneous or recognized, and, when the occasion arises consecrated, while falling short of sacramental ordination. These modes of service do exist…. Mothers at home, the person who coordinates liturgical celebrations or reads the sacred text, the woman visiting the sick or prisoners, adult catechists…. They exist now, but up to now were not called their true name, ministries, nor were their place and status in ecclesiology recognized.” in “My Path-Findings,” 169, 181. [italics added] 285 Ibid., “A new—that is, an older—model was needed. “It is worth noticing that the decisive coupling is not ‘priesthood/laity’ as I used it in Jalons [Lay People in the Church], but rather ‘ministries/modes of community service,” and Congar sketched a model which would replace the bipolar division of clergy and laity: a circle with Christ and Spirit as ground or power animating ministries in community. He continued: “It is necessary to substitute for the linear scheme a scheme where the community appears as the enveloping reality within which the ministries, eventually the instituted sacramental ministries, are placed as modes of service of what the community is called to be and do.” in “My Path-Findings”: 176, 178. [italics added]

286 After the above quotation from “My Path-Findings,” O’Meara states “These changes in ministry, theological and epoch-making, took place under the impetus of the Council. That theological renewal was put in place, was realized and experienced in a particularly expansive way in the American parish.” 11.

220 almost purely contrastive (except when he relies on it for descriptive purposes) to show his audience the difficult historical unfolding that took place for the expansion of ministries over the first half of the 20th century. He does not deny the existence of the laity, but, unlike Congar, he sees the notion of ministries as a more expansive and positive framework to view the ecclesial contributions of the baptismal priesthood.

However, despite any differences, O’Meara’s objective is clearly not just a retrieval of

Congar’s thought. O’Meara’s objective is a constructive fundamental theology of ministry, which Congar’s work, especially his later work, is a major support piece.

The next Congar citation is perhaps the most interesting for our purposes because it is O’Meara’s only direct reference to Congar’s theology of the triplex munera, though it does not concern any specific text in Jalons. The citation occurs as a footnote to the following claims:

So the church has a dual sacramentality: one for its members, through a vitalization of the ancient rites and theologies of sacraments now enhanced by attention being given to the liturgy being done well; and one to the world, which it affirms in its humane quests and draws to the confessed center of all degrees of grace, Jesus Christ. The parish is the sacramental realization of the kingdom of God preached by Jesus, but it is also the Christian mirror and minister of an invitation to see how the complexities of contemporary society may need and [sic] intimate the workings of grace, and how the Gospel forecasts, interprets, and empowers the church serving the Spirit at work in the world.287

A complex set of claims, which seem to be reducible (if I may) to the notion that the parish incarnates the Gospel in the idiom of its culture both as an act of accommodation and prophetic critique. In other words, for O’Meara, one aspect of the work of the parish is making the Kingdom of God intelligible to the world (and seeing it as the locus of grace as well). In his footnote O’Meara elucidates this claim with the statement that:

287 Ibid., 16-17.

221

The ecclesiology of “priest, prophet, and king” is a transitional theology. It has some rich biblical and patristic sources, and permitted Roman Catholic thinking to move away from an isolation of all activity in the ordained. But it remains a theology that has considerable limitations and is not adequate for today’s local church.288

According to O’Meara, the triplex munera is a “theology of three metaphors” that does

not literally apply to the baptized or the ordained. Since they are metaphors they must be

interpreted, and O’Meara is doubtful that they would connect with parish life.

Furthermore, O’Meara does not envision a local ecclesial adaptation of the triplex

munera to be compatible with a theology of active ministries because the roles of

prophet, priest, and king “have little existential meaning” for people today. He does

seem, however, to consider Congar to have drawn a certain “circumincession” between

the triplex munera and an ecclesiology actualized through a plurality of ministries, as

seen in the remainder of the footnote:

Congar points out that Vatican II “operated with the category of the people of God and of communion in Christ; it emphasized a baptism which was the means of belonging to this people. It is this people, it is this church, which is prophetic, priestly, and royal. Vatican II says many times that the participation of the ordained ministers in the munera Christi is a participation indeed in Christ, but in Christ as the head of the Body, caput.” Congar goes on to observe that the three metaphors have a ‘circumincession’ flowing into each other… The Council works within the inspiration of the history of salvation; it is a question of the people of God, of actualizing its mission and the functions of Christ through a plurality of ministries. Certainly there are sacramentally ordained members, but this is a service ordained for the people of God by activities which correspond to the three offices of teaching, sanctifying, and leading.”289

It is difficult to draw a satisfactory conclusion from this footnote that does not result in

some confusion. On one hand, O’Meara is clear that the “ecclesiology” of the triplex

288 Theology of Ministry, 265-266. 289 This quote is from “Sur la trilogie: Prophète-Roi-Prêtre,” Revues des sciences philosophiques et théologiques (67) 1983: 106, 112.

222 munera is not adaptable to the parish under the political conditions of liberalism. Yet, on the other hand, the triplex munera can be useful if modified by an ecclesiology (People of

God) that transposes the “missions and functions of Christ” through the mediation or actualization of a plurality of ministries. What is somewhat clear in terms of O’Meara’s usage and reception of Congar is that O’Meara views Congar’s and the Council’s adaptation of the triplex munera to the Church as a whole (and the laity specifically) as inconsistent with the notion of lay ecclesial ministries. In Jalons, Congar argues for the compatibility of ecclesiologies of communion and People of God with the double participation in the triplex munera. Yet, it seems here that O’Meara envisions the ecclesiological model of People of God as oppositional to the “ecclesiology” of the triplex munera.

The final instance of reception in chapter one occurs in a section titled “Beyond the Distinction of Clergy and Laity.” I would characterize this reference as an instance of

O’Meara affirming Congar’s strong stance against a negative, passive definition of the laity. Even though O’Meara does not reference here Congar’s early emphasis on communion as a “communion between,” the overall sense of this reference is that

O’Meara envisions similar “communion between” ministries. Finally, this instance of reception is notable because it reflects an awareness of Congar’s ambivalence toward a unique notion of lay spirituality.

According to O’Meara “[f]or a long time, the terms clergy and laity… have divided the church in two.” This division is a departure from the original purpose of the distinction in the second and third century, which had as its intention the enhancement of

“the ministry, to give church service to people who would work with dedication, basic

223 commitment.” The original purpose of the distinction was not to render the laity passive

agents, left to watch clergy minister. Rather, O’Meara says “[t]he setting forth of the

clergy… aimed… at giving reverence to the sacramental presence of the Spirit and at

taking seriously the forms of liturgy and church life” of which the action of the laity were

intrinsically linked in similar ministry. At this point O’Meara cites a later Congar

dictionary article on the laity,

Yves Congar has written: “To look for a ‘spirituality of lay people’ in the Scriptures makes no sense. There is no mention of laity. Certainly the word exists, but it exists outside the Christian vocabulary.”290

This reference to Congar’s later work is used as support for rejecting what O’Meara calls

“[i]n American usage, [the notion of] layperson [which] means someone who is ignorant

of the area under discussion, who is out of the field of action.”291 He further describes a

situation where, unless Christians avoid this distinction as definitive of Christian

existence and activity, there is no escaping the overtones of a laity that is largely passive

and a clergy that is solely active. O’Meara even recognizes

[w]hen the magisterium defends that distinction, it is not defending the words, not a dualism, and not a division in the church… [rather] it is defending the distinction between ministries.292

Ultimately, even though there must be distinction between ministries, the reason

ministries cannot, or should not, result in division is due to the common root in faith and

the baptismal commission.

Congar in Chapter 3: “The Metamorphoses of Ministry” Chapter three contains seven references to Congar’s post-conciliar work and one reference to his 1956 Esquisses du mystère de l’Eglise.293 O’Meara’s third chapter

290 Theology of Ministry, 28. The quotation comes from Congar’s “Laïc et Laïcat,” Dictionnaire de Spiritualité 9 (Paris: Desclée, 1976), 79. 291 Theology of Ministry, 24. 292 Ibid., 29.

224 entitled “The Metamorphoses of Ministry” concerns the “the spontaneity of church forms and the variety of charismatic ministries”294 encountered in the history of the Church.

Fittingly, O’Meara uses several of Congar’s historical writings to make his case, specifically: L’Eglise de saint Augustin à l’èpoque moderne295 (1970); “The Sacralization

293 English translation: The Mystery of the Church (Baltimore: Helicon, 1960). 294 Theology of Ministry, 80. 295 O’Meara references this untranslated work four times in this chapter alone. I have included the context and citation for each Congar reference below. O’Meara, drawing from Congar’s work, connects the social forms of early medieval society with certain theological and communal implications: “During the twelfth century the context of ministry as well as the igneous core of Christian society moved from the monastic to the clerical, from contemplative community to individual priesthood defined by the real presence of the Eucharist. Yves Congar writes of the theological implications, “The theology of monasticism, for instance of a St. Bernard, remains in the stream of the fathers and the liturgy. The theology of the schools, analytic and dialectical, however, re-orientates itself toward the reality of things toward their nature, status, place …. In the theology of grace, for instance, we pass from a point of view which is dynamic and personal (the act of God) to a point of view more stationary and reified (our supernatural ontology).” [L’Eglise de saint Augustin à l’èpoque moderne, (Paris: Cerf, 1970)] Theology of Ministry, 104.

Ibid., 109, Here O’Meara, drawing on a Congar quote describing Aquinas’ organological social vision, sees affinities with between his own theory of ministry and Thomas’ implicit views: “In the thirteenth century an ecclesiastical office contained two things: the work and the dignity following upon the work. Aquinas placed the action within the public institutional personality of the role; for instance, the dignity that accrues to the bishop is not simply an occasional reward but a position in medieval society. Always enamored of the Aristotelian action revealing its nature, Aquinas did not follow the popular view of the baptized as in a state of faith but saw them as active participants in the priesthood of Christ and in the cult of the church. Aquinas strove to show how an individual achieved a stable place to radiate grace. What strikes us is the accomplished shift from charismatic individuality and diversity to single stability, the uncertainty of whether life or role defines an office, and the location of ministerial grace and deed in the bishop.” Congar writes: “Thomas had a vision of a pyramidal structuring of the body of the church from parish to universal church, a dynamic passing through , diocese, and province based upon the ideas of the time. But he did not follow the secular academics who pieced out authority to sections of the church…. Thomas reestablished a hierarchical structure, a structure oriented toward the bishops and the pope. Significantly, in his analogy with the body, the church is almost always compared to a physiological organism owning an inner life with diverse functions, and not to a sociological city or state.” [L’Eglise de Saint Augustin, 239.]

Ibid., 118. “Whatever diversity that had survived the medieval period was mainly ended by Trent. Local meant schismatic; diverse meant Protestant. The papacy was the organizing principle of the church.” [L’Eglise de Saint Augustin, 368.]

Ibid., 130. O’Meara summarizes the plan of rechristianization and the apostolate of Catholic, finishing with a quotation from Congar: “The expansion of fraternities in the sodalities—this was an attempt to expand the reality of the to a wider membership—from 1700 to 1950 was extensive. They in turn led to movements of Catholic action and further into a rather anonymous, secular, individual group of the . Begun by laymen, the popes from Leo XIII to Pius XII encouraged the various forms of Catholic Action. This ensemble of movements aimed at ministry for laypeople: while it addressed the temporal order of politics and labor, it included the hope of evangelization and witness. “The lay apostolate was grounded in a supernatural ontology of the Christian—baptism, confirmation, spiritual gifts and

225 of Western Society in the ”296 (1969); “The Idea of the Church in Thomas

Aquinas”297 (1956); “Laïc et Laïcat”298 (1976). The key inference drawn from O’Meara’s usage of Congar’s historical texts is he uses these texts to 1) substantiate his polemic against a reduction of ministry to specific ecclesiastical offices, and 2) critique certain notions of sociality that, among other things, reduce the expression of personal charism.299 What O’Meara highlights in these social forms and their religious analogues are deleterious visions of human individual expression as well as expression of individual charism. He sees the potentialities for ministry in the pre-modern period as crimped by instances of social and ecclesiastical hierarchies that freeze individuals into predetermined roles.300 The quotations from Congar corroborate a similar distaste for

charisms, the obligation of examining one’s conscience,... an invitation to ‘participate in the hierarchical apostolate.” ” [L’Eglise de Saint Augustin, 467.] 296 Ibid., 105. This reference is situated in O’Meara’s assessment of feudalism’s categories of ordo, corpus, societas. Chenu and Congar are the referents for the statement: “Hellenistic cosmological theories provided a different account of the significance of ranked ministries. They were earthly manifestations of heavenly hierarchies.” [O’Meara cites Chenu, Towards Understanding St. Thomas, 172 and Congar’s “The Sacralization of Western Society in the Middle Ages,” Concilium 47 (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1969) 67.] 297 Ibid. 109. O’Meara citing Congar’s remark on what distinguished Thomas’ social/ecclesial vision from the broader social reality. Congar uses the same ideas in this quote in Jalons. “In the thirteenth century a certain ossification of order entered, fixing ministerial activity in the flintier structure of priestly hierarchy. In the patristic ordo had tones of the organic and corporate, of society arranged and collegial, but in medieval life it meant the public transmission of power in a valid ceremony of an ordination.” [“The Idea of the Church in Thomas Aquinas,” The Mystery of the Church (Baltimore: Helicon, 1960)] 298 Ibid., 126. “The impoverished position of the laity is illustrated by the reduction of the public services of the confraternities to brief devotions, by religious education identified with a catechism, and by a negative theology classifying laypeople as monastic or clerical. Pius IX and Vatican I singled out monarchical power as the aspect of the church worthy of emphasis.” [“Laïc et Laïcat,” Dictionnaire de Spiritualité 9 (Paris: Desclée, 1976), 98] 299 Ibid., 106. O’Meara, cites Congar as support at the end of the first line, highlights the analogies between ecclesiastical structure and medieval feudalism and manorialism: “Hierarchy was the structural model of public and ecclesiastical life in the thirteenth century. A number of social classes constructed the corpus of society, and within the church three orders—deacon, priest, bishop—survivors of time, gave ecclesial aesthetic diversity. There were other offices too: , , archbishop, archdeacon, pope, canon, , and provincial. Ecclesial ministry was a public dignity and a state of life inserted into the wider social hierarchy. Nothing in the hierarchical world was accidental or optional; every arrangement was taxis hier, holy disposition coming from God and thus a norm or command. People and things had their place by divine choice.” [“Aspects ecclésiologiques de la querelle…,” Archives d’histoire doctrinale et litteraire du moyen age 36 (1961): 72.]

300 O’Meara’s view of Catholic Action’s attempt to incorporate the laity’s activity in the canonical/legal activity of the magisterium suggests it was another example of the deleterious effects of static hierarchies:

226 problematic features of pre-modern social forms as well as the dominance of

ecclesiological “clericature” over an empowered laity. Interestingly, some of O’Meara’s

quotations referenced in the above footnote highlight the fact that he and Congar both

consider Thomas Aquinas’ understanding of society and ministry to be exceptional and

favorable to their own understanding of society and ministry. One critical observation of

O’Meara’s use of Congar in Theology of Ministry is that he does not recognize that

Congar’s work in Jalons and in “My Path-Findings…” both privilege the organological social vision of pre-conciliar Catholic Social Thought and the People of God ecclesiology as discussed in chapter one of this study.

Congar in Chapter 4: “A Ministering Church” Chapter 4, “A Ministering Church,” contains the central constructive arguments of the book and contains three strong instances of reception. Before examining the instances of reception, it is helpful to describe this chapter’s argument. The chief aim is to answer the question “what is ministry?” to which O’Meara provides an extensive characterization and definition:

Christian ministry is the public activity of a baptized follower of Jesus Christ flowing from the Spirit’s charism and an individual personality on behalf of a Christian community to proclaim, serve, and realize the kingdom of God. 301

“The legal usage of laity froze all Christians who were not ordained priests in a passive state, as Karl Rahner pointed out in 1955.” The reference to Rahner is from his article “Notes on the Lay Apostolate,” which Congar often deferred to when discussing the definition of the laity/lay apostolate. See Congar’s addendum to chapter one in the second edition of Lay People in the Church. 301 Theology of Ministry, 150. The definition is derived from the primary characteristics of a ministry: 1) doing something; 2) for the advent and presence of the kingdom of God; 3) in public; 4) on behalf of a Christian community; 5) as a gift received in faith, baptism, and ordination; and 6) as an activity with its own limits and identity existing within a diversity of ministerial actions. The characteristics are described in detail on 141-149.

227 O’Meara’s definition aims to do two things: 1) give a holistic and positive explanation of

a specific type of Christian activity, and 2) challenges reductive definitions of the acts of

the baptized as well as specify what is unique to ordained ministry. O’Meara acquiesces

to the depiction of his definition as a kind of “functionalism,”302 which he notes is

advocated by St. Paul and Thomas Aquinas, but, interestingly not Yves Congar.303 In

response, O’Meara recognizes his view of ministry focuses on “pneumatic activity and

charismatic service.” The problem with equating his definition of ministry with a

“functional ministry” is that the notion of “functional ministry” does not explain ministry

in itself, nor does it “correct poor ministry,” but only encompasses its background:

spiritual life and church order. On O’Meara’s view, an account of ministry as

“functional” seems to fail to see that it is necessary to “be freed from a church life that is

only a cult and contagion of sacrality.”304

O’Meara next examines the impact of language on the reality of ministry before

defining the place of ministries in the ecclesial structure(s) in terms of “circles of

ministries.” Congar appears once in the section on the relationship between language and

ministry and his function is vital for O’Meara’s argument. The basic argument is there

needs to be “clear-cut” language for ministry305 that neither reduces ministry to

302 He does not define the term, but it seems likely he is referring to the sociological category or school of thought. 303 Ibid., 151. 304 Ibid., 142. In his effort to distinguish ministry as a unique activity, O’Meara sometimes risks creating a dualism between offices and actions:

Some English words (inevitably with their sources in Roman legal and political life)—office, role, state, order —when used to express ministry, have drawbacks in their meanings and implications, because the element of action is suppressed, and too, activity as service can be obscured by the structures of laity, religious life, and clericalism. 305 O’Meara claims the language of the New Testament was revolutionary in that it empowered ministry in that it transformed the sacral language of the ancient world: “connoting that cultic function was service and honorific office was ministry.” He considers the influence of Greek philosophy and Roman political structures to have curbed the action-centered nature of ministry and ministerial language and replaced its

228 officeholders nor an amorphous category without distinction. Attention to language is

paramount because “[l]anguage can control ministry and can diminish and demean it as

well.” Yet, merely focusing on precise terminology – such as “lay ministry and clerical

ministry” – will not solve the problem. What is needed is “to educate people regarding

the diverse reality of ministry; to explain with somewhat accurate words the roles,

responsibilities, and sources of various ministries.” In order to educate people in the

“ecclesiology of ministries” we must become aware and raise awareness of the

“nominalist306 ecclesiological mind-set,”307 which is related to “legalism.” The

nominalist worldview “reduces ordination to a liturgical exercise of episcopal power.” By

this O’Meara means a tendency to reduce the realities of ministry to certain words, which

then reifies certain forms of ministry into “eternal” realities and therefore unaffected by

historical processes. This approach to reality and ministries is contrasted with the realism

drawn from Aquinas’ theology. Congar is cited to point out “the theological implications

of the legal or nominalist stance”:

There is ultimately no insistence upon an actual intervention of God’s grace, nor on the need for man to pray for this intervention and to prepare for it by discipline. There is no explicit relation of authority to sacred acts such as charity and prayer. In short, legalism is characteristic of an ecclesiology unrelated to spiritual anthropology, and for which the word ecclesia indicates not so much the body of the faithful as the system, the apparatus, the impersonal depository

dynamism “for more static ways of being (of course, it also gained doctrinal and organizational assistance).”

306 O’Meara defines and describes nominalism in the following ways: “the approach by which laws and definitions determine external reality”; “a reversal of realities into ideas and words”; “Nominalism presumes that philosophy or law is more significant than reality.” He gives an epistemological definition: “Within nominalism, authority and will – things are not allowed to emerge as they are – impose meaning.” He gives a theological definition: “Nominalism constitutes reality by words or mental forms; these are rooted not in created realities but in the increasingly arbitrary will of God.” 307 Also problematic for education in the diversity of ministries is “a past sociology of one important office over against a passive lay state”: 154.

229 of the system of rights whose representatives are the clergy, or, as it is extensively called, the hierarchy—ultimately, the pope and the Roman .308

O’Meara has appropriated here Congar’s long-standing critique of “hierarchology” and specified within its worldview another aspect of the tragic effects of the detachment of

“structure” from “life,”—in this case, the breakdown of what is common between ecclesiastical office and the specific activity of Christian ministry incumbent on all the baptized. O’Meara’s position would be enhanced by recognizing Congar viewed ministry as a specification of the Church’s double participation in Christ’s triplex munera. For Congar, the Church’s communal foundation in baptism coupled with the double participation in the triplex munera is what establishes the commonality between the priestly ministry and the laity and lay ministers.

The final instance of reception in this chapter is straightforward and will not be examined in detail. It occurs under the heading “Circles of Ministries.” This section contains only one reference to Congar, a long quotation from “My Path-Findings”309 but it is monumental for O’Meara’s constructive proposal of structured ministries. The quote is Congar’s famous reference to his substitution of the former “linear scheme” for an

308 Ibid., 155. The quotation is from Power and Poverty, 64. 309 Ibid., 163. A Rahnerian theology of degrees of implicit and explicit grace has a variation in church life. Just as Christ is the definitive center of a world of religions with some revelation and grace, Rahner maintains there are degrees of grace, all drawn from the event of Christ but not all explicitly recognized as such, working within vastly different times and peoples. In church life the center is retained but not at the expense of the condemnation or diminishment of those who exist in other degrees. Looking back on his years of work in church structure, Yves Congar also found a linear mode inadequate. He proposed a return to a deeper tradition in which Christ’s Spirit underlay a community with various circles of ministries within it. [long quote] “The church of God is not built up solely by the actions of the official presbyteral ministry but by a multitude of diverse modes of service, more or less stable or occasional, more or less spontaneous or recognized, and when the occasion arises consecrated, while falling short of sacramental ordination… It would then be necessary to substitute for the linear scheme a scheme where the community appears as the enveloping reality within which the ministries, eventually the instituted sacramental ministries, are placed as modes of service of what the community is called to be and do.” The quote is taken from “My Path-Findings,” 178.

230 understanding of ministries that is capable of accounting for the ecclesial community as

“a multitude of diverse modes of service” where “the community appears as the

enveloping reality within which the ministries… are placed as modes of services.” My

simple contention is that Congar’s description of an “enveloping reality” that is capable

of containing diverse kinds of ministerial activity without transgressing the borders of the

community-belonging, is the baseline of O’Meara’s notion of a circle of ministries.

O’Meara use of the quote at least suggests the intention of acknowledging Congar as a

source, even though he does not explicitly say so. It is necessary to recognize that

O’Meara’s theory of a circle of ministries is also overtly dependent on his adaptation of

Rahner’s “theology of degrees of implicit and explicit grace” to church life. It is equally

significant that O’Meara’s former student Hahnenberg recognizes the dependence of

O’Meara on Congar on this point, even suggesting that O’Meara is extending or

expanding on Congar’s insights in “My Path-Findings.”310

Congar in Chapter 5: “Ministers in the Church” The final instance of reception we will examine in O’Meara’s Theology of

Ministry Congar occurs in “Ministers in the Church,” which concerns the identity of the

Christian minister. As before, O’Meara’s usage of Congar’s work must be contextualized in order to understand Congar’s significance for the theological argument made.

O’Meara’s argument develops in six parts: 1) he establishes the theological fact the

Church is a mystical Body composed of many activities, many of which are ministries; 2) there is a diversity of ministries in the Church, not merely the ordained, and this can be substantiated in Scripture and Tradition; 3) the “Clergy-Laity Distinction” and its social

310 Edward Hahnenberg, Ministries: A Relational Approach, 9.

231 framework are no longer viable in light of ministry expansion; 4) he provides a typology

of ministry types within the circles of ministries (with the ordained in the center circle

extending outward to part-time ministries); 5) he sketches the connection between

Christian existence (as beings transformed in baptism) and ministry as a specific kind of

“doing”311; 6) a sketch of how diverse ministries appear in ecclesial structures today.

O’Meara’s only Congar citation occurs near the conclusion of the section on the

clergy-laity distinction and is a re-affirmation of O’Meara’s view that Congar’s early

work on the laity should be viewed in sharp contrast to his theology of ministries.

O’Meara interrogates the clergy-laity distinction on two fronts: an examination of the

meaning of “clergy” and an examination of the meaning and history of the term “laity.”

In terms of the meaning of “clergy,” O’Meara references New Testament and patristic

evidence for the viewing the entire Church as clerical in the sense that the whole Church

is set apart as heirs of eschatological salvation. He notes that the notion of a two social

groups in the Church called “clergy” and “laity” began to gradually solidify in the third

century until it was firmly established after the legalization of Christianity. O’Meara

remarks that in feudalism up to the Baroque period the clergy were endowed with

religious and civil privileges, with the episcopacy becoming a privileged state. The notion

of the “laity” is described by O’Meara as a class distinction that is polar opposite to that

of the clergy: “[w]hile the clergy became an elevated, sacral state, the laity became a

passive group.”312

311 A characteristic example of how O’Meara envisions the relationship between Christian existence and ministry: “I am my vocation, for the God who created my individuality out of finite potentialities is the same God who has introduced me into his wider plan of meaning and life. It is out of this interweave of my personality and my promise that my vocation, God’s various calls, emerge.” 208. 312 Ibid., 176.

232 O’Meara contrasts the New Testament notion of all Christians as the People of

God – “God’s people, a universal people, had access to the Spirit through Jesus.” – with

the third century notion of a laity as a negative category for the non-ordained, even

though it was also common in the third century to use the name “lay” as “a name that was

intended to remind Christians that they were called to the same dignity and… duties as

the and the …”After the third century, however, the notion of the laity

decidedly referred to a particular group of people as the negation313 of the clerical state,

and passive in terms of ministry, sometimes even meaning someone who opposed the

Church and faith. This view of the laity could be found not only in the social structures of

pre-modern societies but even in the canon law of the Catholic Church. Clearly, O’Meara regards the sociological and theological division, and presumably distinction, between clergy and laity to be acutely perilous for ecclesial life and considers the expansion of

ministries in the post-conciliar Church to provide a way out of the dualism:

A solution can only come from a coherent theology of the ministry that replaces the clergy-laity structure with a pattern of concentric circles of ministries and ministering groups, with important distinctions preserved.314

In support of this conclusion, O’Meara states that Congar himself “described how a shift

took place in his own thinking” similar to his own. As evidence he gives the following

citation from “My Path-Findings,” drawn from pages 9, 17, and 19 in the original:

Ultimately there can be only one sound and sufficient theology of laity, and this total ecclesiology. That theology I did not write. [I have come to see] that the pastoral reality described by the New Testament imposes a view much richer…. Proceeding along this line of double recognition is extremely important for an accurate view of things, for a satisfying theology of the laity.

313 According to O’Meara, “To be a layperson is to have a modality of being or, better, of nonbeing: not- being ordained a priest or bishop or deacon… A phenomenologically pejorative or at least passive meaning of laity excludes a baptized person from acting publicly on behalf of the community and reserves activity to the ordained.” Theology of Ministry, 178. 314 Ibid., 179-180.

233 Eventually one sees that the decisive pair is not “priesthood-laity” as I used in my book on the laity but much more that of ministries or service and community.315

Conclusion for O’Meara’s reception of Congar It is evident from O’Meara’s reception of a number of Congar’s texts that he 1) has drawn a parallel between his own theorizing/theologizing circles of ministries with

Congar’s later theology of diverse ministries, and 2) understands his work and Congar’s later work to be discontinuous with Congar’s earlier theology of the laity. He specifically interprets Congar’s later work as rejecting the clergy-laity distinction.

Two further demonstrable deductions drawn from O’Meara’s juxtaposition of the two eras of Congar’s work on the laity and ministries include: 1) it informs the way he interprets Congar’s understanding of the “ecclesiology” of the triplex munera, which also impacts the distinction of munus and ministry, and 2) it informs the way he interprets several of Congar’s historical texts on the history of the Church. As stated, O’Meara views Congar’s adaptation of the triplex munera to the laity as a “transitional ecclesiology” that has limited intelligibility in the U.S. context. Nowhere else does

O’Meara evaluate Congar’s use of the triplex munera, so it is unclear if he views it as the backbone to Congar’s theology of the laity. However, it is clear that O’Meara considers the project of a theology of the laity to defunct in light of what he considers to be its internal failings (inadequate definition; unable to overcome clergy-laity dichotomy) and the superior solution of the theology of ministries.

A result of O’Meara rejection of the theology of the laity is that his reception of

Congar’s theology of ministries does not acknowledge the continuity Congar saw

315 Ibid., 180. Congar quote is from “My Path-Findings,” 9, 17, 19 in original edition.

234 between his earlier work and the theology of ministries. As is already clear from chapter three, this author considers O’Meara’s evaluation of Congar’s theology of ministries incomplete because it fails to see how Congar’s notion of ministry is dependent on the theological and ecclesiological notion of munera as developed in Jalons. In my view,

O’Meara’s creative work on ministry and critique of reductive views of office would benefit by assimilating Pius XI’s and Congar’s usage of munera as a way to established the sociological base of ministry within the ecclesia.

Edward Hahnenberg’s Ministries: A Relational Approach (2003)316 Edward Hahnenberg is a prominent U.S. theological expert in the post-Vatican II theology of ministry. As stated above, he is a former student of Thomas O’Meara, OP and in many ways continues his project in his various works on ministry, including his reading of Congar’s work. Hahnenberg’s Ministries: A Relational Approach (2003) stands as his signature systematic examination of the question of the theology of ministry, which includes interpretation of Congar, O’Meara, and particularly John Zizioulas’ trinitarian theology. Hahnenberg considers the present day discussion of the theology of ministry to be at a “stalemate”317 between what he calls a dichotomy between

“ontological theologies of priesthood” and “functional theologies of ministry.”318

According to Hahnenberg, the ontological approach to priesthood prioritizes the “being” of the minister over all other attributes, while in the functional approach the focus is on the “doing” of ministry.319 Such a framework is not helpful, he argues, and Hahnenberg

316 Ministries: A Relational Approach (New York: Herder & Herder, 2003). 317 Ibid., 3. 318 Ibid. 319 Ibid.

235 envisions a middle road, that aims to establish a “dialogue between… respecting traditional theologies while recognizing changing patterns of ministry.”320 Hahnenberg middle path is “a relational approach to ministry” that “highlights relationship as the key to understanding the diverse modes of service active in the church today.”321 Hahnenberg sketches a christological/pneumatological model of complementary ministry based on

Congar’s christological/pneumatological model as well as a christological character for all ministry based on the conciliar and Congarian teaching on the triplex munera. He also constructs a trinitarian model of relational ministry on John Zizioulas and others’ understanding of the trinitarian being as fundamentally relational/personal. Hahnenberg argues that the trinitarian model is superior to the older model of ministerial relation based on the sacramental character.

Congar in Chapter 1: “The Starting Point for a Theology of Ministry” Congar’s dictum from “My Path-Findings,” “that the door whereby one enters on a question decides the chances of a happy or a less happy solution”322 proves to be the backbone of Hahnenberg’s introductory chapter on the starting point for a theology of ministry. After contextualizing his work in the post-conciliar expansion of ministry,

Hahnenberg takes up the issue of the starting point for a theology of ministry. Echoing

Congar and O’Meara, Hahnenberg envisions two approaches to a theology of ministry: what he calls “the Dividing-Line Model” and the “Concentric-Circle Model.” Each model has a different starting point, which produces a different vision and trajectory for

320 Ibid., 4. 321 Ibid., 5. 322Ibid., 8. The citation is from “My Path-Findings in the Theology of Laity and Ministries,” The Jurist 32 (1972): 176.

236 ministry. The “Dividing-Line Model,” which is described as still influential in the

Church’s official statements on ministry, enters “the discussion on church and ministry

through the door of the hierarchical priesthood and consider the bishop or presbyter as

exclusive recipients of a direct call from Christ and as paradigmatic for all ministry.”

Within this model it is difficult to see the layperson as “anything more than a helper or

participant in work that properly belongs to the ordained,”323 defined by their secularity.

Hahnenberg sees Congar himself admitting that his earlier theology of the laity is defined

by a “dividing-line” approach and “only later did he see the necessity of the second, of

starting with community.”324 As noted in the O’Meara section, one unique feature of

Hahnenberg’s usage of Congar’s theology of ministries is the necessary connection and

continuity he observes between O’Meara’s and Congar’s work on ministries. For

example, Hahnenberg depicts O’Meara as observing the development of Congar’s work

from the perspective of a later generation later and drawing the inference that Congar’s

insight signifies “the shift from a dividing-line model of church to a model of concentric

circles.”325 In the same context, Hahnenberg quotes O’Meara’s claim that Congar’s shift

in ministry models “would replace the bipolar division of clergy and laity,” which is also

a driving concern in Theology of Ministry.326

In a section titled “The Birth of a Theology of Laity,” Hahnenberg continues to

focus on discontinuity in Congar’s work in order to highlight the transition to ministry

323Ministries: A Relational Approach, 9. 324 Ibid., 9. He cites “My Path-Findings” as evidence of Congar’s rejection of the “Dividing-Line” approach: “It would then be necessary to substitute for the linear scheme a scheme where the community appears as the enveloping reality within which the ministries, even the instituted sacramental ministries, are placed as modes of service of what the community is called to be and do.” In “My Path-Findings,” 178. 325 Ministries: A Relational Approach, 9. 326 Ibid.

237 expansion and the ecclesiology of ministries. Here he references changes from Congar’s later work to the theology of Jalons, specifically on its notion of the laity’s secularity.

Hahnenberg begins by describing Jalons as one of the most important theologies of the laity, noting that its aim is to overcome a passive ecclesial definition of the laity by outlining

the distinctively positive features of the layperson in such a way that rejected a dualistic view inherited from certain medieval , namely, that “[s]piritual things appertain to the priest, temporal things to the layman.

Yet, in Hahnenberg’s view, despite the fact that “Congar believed his approach made a crucial distinction, one that recognized the actual situation of laypeople living in the world, but that did not restrict their participation in “God’s work,”327 the argument of

Jalons “did not entirely escape the influence of this dualistic view” due to his appeal “to the secular quality of the layperson as a way of distinguishing their mission from that of the clergy.”

The main problem with the theology of the laity’s secularity and even the notion of laity itself, Congar’s included, occurs when the secular character becomes a rigid and exclusive description of the laity that boxes out an inclusive depiction of the laity’s real ministerial participation in and contribution to the ecclesia.328 Hahnenberg specifies

Christifideles Laici as a recent example of rigid separation of the work of clergy and laity. I find this example significant because of what I perceive to be a common theological judgment shared by John Paul II’s in Christifideles laici and Yves Congar’s

327 Ibid., 14. Hahnenberg notes that in Jalons “It is not that clergy do God’s work and laity do the world’s work; for Congar, “Lay people are Christians in the world, there to do God’s work in so far as it must be done in and through the work of the world.” The quotation is from Lay People in the Church, trans. Donald Attwater (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1965) xv-xvi. 328 Ibid., 15-16.

238 mature position on ministries as specific forms of the laity’s particular participation in

Christ’s triplex munera. Hahnenberg notes in the apostolic exhortation a certain

ambivalence toward new lay ministries in the Church. Even though Christifideles Laici

recognizes a diversity of ministries, the primary claim about the laity’s identity places the

secular character as what “governs” the meaning and trajectory of lay ministry.329

The next instance of reception occurs near the end of chapter one in a section

where the author argues for the Congarian notion of communion ecclesiology as the entry

way into an ecclesiology of ministries. This usage of Congar fits into the chapter’s

broader argument, which is a criticism of the notion of a theology of the laity as

importing a “contrastive” understanding into the Church and ministries. Drawing on a

number of theologians, Hahnenberg criticizes the notion of a theology of the laity for

introducing division between clergy and laity as if they were “two complementary

categories of membership in the church.” The notion of a secular character is also

critiqued as a prescriptive or ontological definition rather than a typological description

of what is typical of the lay situation (living in the world). Several of the conciliar

documents are interpreted in light of a notion of the faithful as properly ministerial and

not definitively secular.

In the chapter’s last section, Hahnenberg describes Congar’s understanding of the

laity and ecclesiology undergoing a “complete shift in models,”330 which also shifted his

ecclesiological starting point from the clerical vision in Jalons to a ministries-focused

329 Ibid., 15-16. For Hahnenberg this suggests tension with the conciliar recognition that “the laity are called through baptism to share in the priestly, prophetic, and kingly mission of Christ.” 330 Ibid., 36. “In a few brief paragraphs, Congar offered not simply a new description of the layperson but a complete shift in models.”

239 approach in “My Path-Findings.”331 Hahnenberg interprets Congar’s shifting perspective in light of O’Meara’s work,332 suggesting O’Meara’s rejection of the clergy-laity division continues from Congar’s “new description of the layperson” in “My Path-Finding”333 where Congar rejects the coupling of “priesthood/laity” as decisive for understanding the ecclesial community as containing a diversity of ministries. Hahnenberg himself suggests that the problem with Congar’s earlier work starting with the notion of the laity’s secular

331 Ibid., 35-36, Hahnenberg states,

The starting point for a theology of ministry is the presence of God in the church community; its proper framework is a concentric-circles model in which various ministries serve within a church that as a whole ministers within the world. We return to that great theologian of the Second Vatican Council, Yves Congar, whose writings anticipate this framework. Congar saw early on that lay ministries—or rather, new and diverse ministries—can only be considered within the context of an adequate theology of church. In his 1953 Lay People in the Church, Congar recognized:

the real difficulty is that such a theology [of the laity] supposes the existence of a whole ecclesiological synthesis wherein the mystery of the Church has been given all its dimensions, including fully the ecclesial reality of the laity. It is not just of adding a paragraph or a chapter to an ecclesiological exposition which from beginning to end ignores the principles on which a ‘laicology’ really depends. Without those principles, we should have, confronting a laicized world, only a clerical Church, which would not be the people of God in the fullness of its truth. At bottom there can be only one sound and sufficient theology of laity, and that is a “total ecclesiology.” [The quotation is from Lay People in the Church, xv-xvi]

Hahnenberg goes on to describe how

“In 1971, [Congar] admitted: “I have not written that ecclesiology.” But, as noted earlier, Congar went on in his later work to suggest the direction for an adequate view of church and ministry: “The linear division between priest and layperson should be replaced by a circular model in which ministries exist to serve the community and its mission in the world....” [“My Path-Findings,” 169, 178] 332 Ibid. 36. “Thomas O’Meara expanded on Congar’s insight in the context of the ministerial explosion within the postconciliar church in the United States. His theology of ministry offers the backdrop for the relational theology developed in the following discussion.” 333 Ibid., 37. “For Congar, the decisive coupling in speaking about ministry is not “priesthood/laity” but “ministries or services/community.” [“Mon Cheminement dans la Théologie du laïcat et des ministères,” in Ministères et Communion Ecclésiale (Paris: Cerf, 1971): 17] “O’Meara believes the linguistic division between lay and ordained has outlived its usefulness. My own reflections suggest that beginning with the “secular character” of the layperson frustrates a comprehensive theology of ministry and perpetuates dichotomies rather than diversity. An approach that plays Christ against the Holy Spirit, the church as institution against the church as communion, and ordination against baptism might be replaced by Congar’s own representation.” The quotation is from “My Path-Findings,” 178.

240 character is that it cannot result in “a comprehensive theology of ministry,” but rather perpetuate “dichotomies rather than diversity.”334

Congar in Chapter 2: “The Triune God” Hahnenberg uses Congar’s pneumatological writings335 to present a theology of diversity of ministries that is both christological and pneumatological-based. He warns against one-sided theologies of ministries that exclusively identify one particular divine person with one particular kind of ministry (e.g., Christ and priestly, or the laity with charisms). Hahnenberg uses the development of Congar’s pneumatological as an exemplar for a way to overcome extreme and reductive positions. Congar’s earliest attempt at avoiding Christomonism and balance the christological and pneumatological foundations of the Church was to use the binomial “structure and life” to balance Christ as the church’s founder with the Holy Spirit as the force that sustains the church’s life.”

The problem with this solution was that it was a rigid application of the binomial

“structure/life” that he developed in True and False Reform. In contrast to his more nuanced use of the binomial in Jalons, which utilized the patristic-medieval notion of participation to avoid dualism, Congar’s earlier work in True and False Reform and “The

Holy Spirit and the Apostolic College, Promoters of the Work of Christ,” failed by making

too radical a distinction between the institution as derived from Christ and free interventions on the part of the Spirit. I stressed on the one hand the apostolate and the means of grace of which Jesus had established the

334 Ibid., 37. 335 “The Holy Spirit and the Apostolic College, Promoters of the Work of Christ,” in The Mystery of the Church (Baltimore: Helicon, 1960): 105-145; “Pneumatologie ou Christomonisme dans la tradition latine?” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienes 45 (1969): 394-416]; “ Today, American Ecclesiastical Review, 167 (1973): 435-449; I Believe in the Holy Spirit, vol. 1 & 2, trans. David Smith (New York: Crossroad, 1997)

241 principles and which were accompanied by the activity of the Spirit and, on the other, a kind of free sector in which the Spirit alone was active. As a result, I was criticized both by Protestant exegetes and Catholic theologians, each from their own point of view.336

Hahnenberg notes that Congar’s post-conciliar pneumatology addressed the weakness by developing the notion of the Son and Spirit as “the ‘co-instituting’ principle,” which means “[t]ogether, Christ and Spirit institute, or create, the church and together they fill it with life.” Instead of a rigid tension between charism and institution

“Congar … spoke of complementarity [recognizing] that charisms form the ground or matrix out of which come various ministries, instituted or otherwise. However, he believed that such a view must be balanced by granting a rightful place to those charisms connected with the sacrament of orders”337

Hahnenberg’s last use of Congar in this chapter concerns his and Congar’s insistence on defining all Christian ministries and “the Christian community as such” in christological terms. Despite his distaste for a definitive notion of the laity secularity,

Hahnenberg finds his affirmation in the Second Vatican Council’s and Congar’s teaching

(acknowledged in a footnote) on the double participation in the triplex munera, which serves as the christological baseline for all Christian activity and ministry:

The Second Vatican Council taught that the laity are appointed to the apostolate “by the Lord himself,” a phrase that signals a direct christological basis for active service. This view was furthered in the council texts by the affirmation that the faithful share in Christ’s threefold work as priest, prophet, and king. Significantly the council extended to all baptized members of the church the application of the tria munera, the three offices of Christ, which up to that time had largely been categories applied to the clergy…. Despite the limitations of the council’s appeal to the laity’s secular characteristic and the artificial constraints of the priest/prophet/king

336 Ibid., 77. The quotation in the text is from “The Holy Spirit and the Apostolic College, Promoters of the Work of Christ,” in The Mystery of the Church (Baltimore: Helicon, 1960): 105-145. 337 Ibid., 77-78. Congar’s quotes are from I Believe in the Holy Spirit, vol. 2, 11 and “Pneumatology Today,” 445.

242 language, the christological basis of active service and church ministry cannot be denied.”338

Congar in Chapter 3: “The Church Community” Congar plays a nuanced role in two of the three parts of Hahnenberg’s third chapter, which discusses the ways different ecclesiological models such as “church as institution” and “church as mystery” conceive lay activity and how a view of the church as an “ordered communion” describes ecclesial relationships and contributes to a notion of ministry as relational.

The first significant usage of Congar occurs in this first section’s discussion of

Catholic Action’s “perfect society” ecclesiology and theology of lay action. We will not examine Hahnenberg’s depiction and critique of Catholic Action’s undergirding ecclesiology and theology of the laity as they are already familiar to us and not vital to our task. What is significant about Hahnenberg’s presentation in terms of it being an act of reception of Congar’s work is how Hahnenberg views Congar’s evaluation of Catholic

Action as suggestive of continuities with his post-conciliar work on ministries.

Hahnenberg states as much when he says, “[i]n his highly influential 1953 book, Lay

People in the Church, Congar offered a nuanced evaluation of Catholic Action, and in doing so pushed toward the fuller and more inclusive vision of ministry that would emerge after the council.”

Building on a sense of continuity in Congar’s work, Hahnenberg also sees in

Congar’s defense of the Catholic Action mandate a desire “to affirm the ecclesial context of mission and the centrality of apostolic succession” without compromising “the

338 Ibid., 80. Hahnenberg cites “Sur la trilogie: Prophète-Roi-Prêtre,” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 67 (1983): 97-115, which is one place in his later career that Congar confirms his adaptation of the triplex munera to the laity, which was taken up by Council.

243 conviction that all believers by virtue of baptism have an apostolic mission that is their own proper mission.” In fact, Hahnenberg follows Congar to say the proper interpretation of the mandate was not an implicit denial that lay people has an apostolic mission.

Rather, the mandate brought 1) recognition of the laity’s apostolicity from the hierarchy and 2) the laity’s “incorporation into the public life of the church” due to their baptism.339

The next instances of reception occur in Hahnenberg’s examination of the ecclesiological model of “church as ordered communion.” The notion of the Church as an

“ordered communion” refers to a vision of ecclesial structure and life that seeks to balance features of the “church as institution” model with the models of communion and mystery. One side of the balance requires recognition that certain ecclesial structures are not revealed and therefore have certain relativity. The other side of the balance requires recognition that the Church’s participation in the triune life of God is not the same thing as a vague spiritualism that eschews structure altogether. In terms of his theory of relational ministries, Hahnenberg views the “ordered” aspect of communion as an example of recognizing the existence of a diversity of ministries that are neither “orders” nor spontaneous charisms. In practical terms, the notion of “ordered communion” calls for public and liturgical recognition of certain ministries, without adding to “orders.”

Even though Congar was unaware of the above ecclesiological theory of the

Church as an “ordered communion,” Hahnenberg appropriates both Congar’s pneumatological doctrine of the Holy Spirit as a “co-instituting principle” of both institution and charisms, and his notion of the church as a “structured community” to build the argument that ecclesiology is empowered by Christ and the Spirit to adapt certain aspects of the ecclesial structure and “ask what order, what structures and

339 Ibid., 106.

244 institutions, are appropriate for a church that is the body of Christ” in a given time and place.340 Hahnenberg also shapes Congar’s understanding of different kinds of ministries,341 existing within the enveloping structure of the community—sketched in

“My Path-Findings,” and specified by O’Meara as circles of ministries—into an ordered structure.342

Congar in Chapter 4: “Liturgy and Sacrament” Chapter 4 analyzes the liturgical and sacramental sources of ministry (ordination, baptism) in order to propose a theology of ordered ministries that situates all Christian ministries as flowing from the liturgical and sacramental ecclesial structure in different modes of participation. The undergirding theoretical proposal is a definition of ministry per se—e.g., ordained, ordered, or occasional—as ontologically relational (a facet of our participation in the trinitarian life of God, who is eternally and ontologically relational) rather than merely functional or power-based. The main practical proposal, the major portion of the text, is a prescriptive account of how the ecclesial communion publicly and liturgically recognizes diverse types of ministerial relationships of service—from

340 Ibid., 122-123. Hahnenberg’s Congar quotation is from “My Path-Findings,” 177. 341 Ibid., 126, “We have seen Yves Congar’s preference for a model of ministry based on various degrees of involvement in the mission of the church. He identified three different levels of ministry… The first is the level of general ministry ... A second level includes ministries that are more stable, organized, and public… At a third level are the ordained ministries of deacon, presbyter, and bishop. Thomas O’Meara, like Congar, imagines different degrees of ministry. His model is that of concentric circles of ministry. At the center are ministries of leadership (e.g., bishop, pastor, vicar); then come full-time ministries… finally are part-time ministries of varied intensity… Following Congar and O’Meara, I too distinguish different levels of ministry, further nuancing their accounts and highlighting the interplay of ministerial reality and church recognition… (1) In the center are those leaders of communities whose task is to recognize, promote, and coordinate all the various ministries in the church under their care. Here I include the ancient orders of bishop and presbyter, but also the ministry of the pastoral coordinator… (2) … full-time leaders of important areas of ministry within the community. Here are most lay ecclesial ministers… (3) A third circle includes… part-time and occasional ministries… , cantors, catechists, or eucharistic ministers… (4) Finally… the entire people of God…” Hahnenberg’s Congar quote is from “Ministères et structuration de l’Eglise,” in Ministères et Communion Ecclésiale (Paris: Cerf, 1971): 43-47. 342 The four concentric circles of “ordered communion” ecclesiology, from the center of the circle to the outer circle, are: 1) Leadership of Communities, 2) Leadership of Areas of Ministry, 3) Occasional Public Ministries, and 4) General Christian Ministry.

245 sacramental ordination to installations, commissionings, and . Several Congar texts, mostly coming from “My Path-Findings,” are used in Hahnenberg’s final section

“Toward a Liturgical and Sacramental Ordering of All Ministries” to support his theoretical notion of ministry as relational rather than functional or exclusively a power possessed. The other Congar texts support the practical proposals.

Congar first appears in the subsection, “Baptism and Ordered Ministry,” in support of the claim that baptism is “[t]he primary sacramental source for every ministry.” Hahnenberg defines baptism as marking “the primary ontological change for the believer” where the person “enters into new life, new existence in Christ.” This new life involves “a new way of living in communion,” drawing the believer “into a new complex of relationships with others and with God.” Drawing on the theology of John

Zizioulas, Hahnenberg describes baptism’s social effects: it “bestows on its recipient a place in the church, it marks one’s entrance into a particular ordo in the community.”

Thus, “there is no such thing as ‘non-ordained’ persons in the Church….,” which suggests baptism and confirmation are “essentially an ordination.”343 It is here that

Congar’s “My Path-Findings,” 344provides the supporting argument from the Tradition,

Congar observed that, in the first millennium, the word for ordination “signified the fact of being designated and consecrated to take up a certain place, or better a certain function [“fonction”], ordo, in the community and at its service.”345

Thus, Congar’s observation that in the first millennium the word for ordination referred to a designation and consecration to “take up” a specific type of communal “fonction,” an ordo, is taken by Hahnenberg to underwrite the sacred sociality of baptism. It is instances

343 Ibid., 177. Hahnenberg is quoting from Zizioulas’ Being as Communion. 344 “My Path-Findings,” 180. 345 Ministries, 177.

246 like this one— where we see a judgment even so similar to Congar’s ecclesiological use

of munera, yet without recognition— that lead this author to the conclusion that the

significant of notion of the triplex munera for Congar’s theology and ecclesiology has

been lost in translation for the majority of his U.S. interpreters.

After establishing the connection between baptism and ordination, Hahnenberg

goes on to argue for a notion of baptism as “an important starting point in developing a

relational theology of ministry.” Yet, a relational theology of ministry rooted in baptism

faces the particular challenge of communal, liturgical recognition. On this point

Hahnenberg finds in Congar’s theology both an ally, in that both of them view baptism as the basis of ministry, and an illustration for the difficulty of his position. As typical,

Congar’s position changed from Jalons and when he wrote on the theology of ministries.

In Jalons Congar saw no need for lay people involved in Catholic Action to require

“further consecration” to perform a specific apostolic task. At that time he argued such

“further consecration” might undermine the centrality of their baptism for apostolic activity and “clericalize the laity.”346 His later position, defined by a change in context as

noted in chapter 3, was to highlight the necessity of public liturgical recognition347 as a

346 Ibid., 178-179. Is the sacramental and liturgical celebration of their ministry to begin and end at baptism, while ordination continues to separate off a small group of men? In his early writing on the laity, Yves Congar objected to the idea that laypeople need a special liturgical consecration in order to take up a specific apostolic task. For Congar, the layperson received the necessary commissioning for the apostolate in baptism. He feared that further consecration would downplay the centrality of baptism and clericalize the laity. Congar later changed his position ... The quotation is from Lay People in the Church, 362-375. 347 Ibid., 192-193. “At a symposium shortly following the close of the Second Vatican Council, Yves Congar suggested just such a direction, moving beyond his earlier hesitations about a special liturgical consecration for lay ministry. While maintaining the centrality and distinctiveness of the ordained ministries of bishop, presbyter, and deacon, Congar saw a freedom for the church to employ the laying on of hands in ordering other significant ministries.

There is ministry of teaching, a ministry to the sick, of liturgical action, of Catholic action, of missions, and so on. These are true ministries. We should restore to our ecclesiology this notion of

247 strategy for protecting and legitimately diverse ministries as well as highlight the diverse modes of service in the ecclesial community.

The final instances of reception occur in Hahnenberg’s argument for a relational definition of ordination. On this point he cites Congar insistence in “Ministries and

Structures” that the sacrament of ordination is inseparable and incomplete apart from its public recognition by the members of the community. For Hahnenberg and Congar, both aspects of the sacrament of ordination—laying on of hands; communal election—are gifts (dons) of grace, and, therefore inseparable.348 Ordination, for Congar and

Hahnenberg, does not sit outside the process of recognition, neither is it explained in its fullness as a liturgical rite, nor as an isolated power possessed.349The recognition process that ordination fits within flows from the organic whole of ecclesial community.350 For

ministry, which in fact has been too monopolized by the priesthood of the ordained. I would have no objection to seeing these ministries consecrated by liturgical ceremonies and eventually by the imposition of hands, which is a polivalent ceremony and could perfectly apply here despite the fact that it is not so traditional, if one considers the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus.” Quotation were taken from “Session IV: Discussion,” in Vatican II: An Interfaith Appraisal, ed. Miller. (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame, 1966): 266-272 and “Ministères et structuration de l’Eglise,” in Ministères et Communion Ecclésiale (Paris: Cerf, 1971): 45. 348 Ibid., 198. “Yet grace, understood as the presence of God, is not limited to the sacramental actions. The preexisting and pervasive presence of God in individuals and in the world does not keep the church from continuously inviting this presence, naming it in a liturgy that identifies God’s presence and thus deepens it in the life of the believer and in the life of the church. Congar reflects: One should not separate the new gift of grace that is sacramental ordination from those first gifts that precede, accompany, and complete it. The church ordains or nominates one of its members in whom the community and the authority recognize such gifts, and the ordained or nominated ministers apply themselves to develop them by prayer and fidelity to their call.” [“Ministères et structuration de l’Eglise,” in Ministères et Communion Ecclésiale (Paris: Cerf, 1971): 46] 349 It is important to note that neither Congar nor Hahnenberg see the sacramental character as dispensable. For Congar, its full realization requires the starting point of the ecclesiology of communion and an understanding of its participation in the triplex munera. Hahnenberg says “The traditional language of sacramental character may not be an obstacle to a renewed understanding of ordination; it may in fact serve to promote a relational theology.” (202) 350 Ibid., 199, “The recognition model implies an understanding of ordination as a process. As important as the laying on of hands is within the tradition, ordination cannot be reduced to a liturgical rite. Rather, ordination is a larger process involving discernment on the part of the community of the Spirit’s gifts in an individual, ecclesial recognition, sacramental actions, and the acceptance of ministerial responsibility. According to Congar, this was the view of the early church: “Since the middle ages with their scholastic analytic (and canon law) we have too much separated things which are moments in an organic whole…..

248 Hahnenberg, this is due to the intrinsic relationality and service undergirding the

Church’s ministries and calls for their liturgical recognition as ordered within the ecclesial body.351

Conclusion to Hahnenberg’s Reception of Congar Hahnenberg’s reception of Congar generally suggests he sees discontinuity

between Congar’s early theology of the laity and his later theology of ministries, except

that he recognizes both a connection between lay ministry and Vatican II’s Congarian

account of the laity’s participation in the triplex munera and Congar’s view of the lay

apostolate and lay ministry. Hahnenberg, like O’Meara, interprets Congar’s later work as

rejecting the clergy-laity distinction and replacing it with a diversity of ministries. This

judgment is likely related to which Congar texts he reads and his view of the theological

notion of secular character for the laity.

Hahnenberg’s project is marked by an appropriation of Congar’s later ideas—his

doctrine of the Holy Spirit and Christ as “co-institutors” of the Church’s structure and

charisms, his ecclesiological notion of the Church as “structured communion”—to his

own theory of an ecclesiology of “ordered communion.” Hahnenberg’s project also

expands on underdeveloped parts of Congar’s thought on lay ministry, with an eye to

imitating Congar’s longstanding concern to balance structure and life in ecclesiology.

Hahnenberg’s further distinction between participated community roles (munera) and

specific ministries might add further realism to the diversity of gifts in the structured

Ordination [in antiquity] encompassed at the same time election as its starting-point and consecration as its term.” [“My Path-Findings,” 179-180] 351 Ibid., 200-201, “Ordination signifies one’s place in the community, a place based on relationships of service. Speaking of early understandings of ordination, Congar notes: “But instead of signifying, as happened from the beginning of the twelfth century, the ceremony in which an individual received a power henceforth possessed in such a way that it could never be lost, the words ordinare, ordinari, ordinatio signified the fact of being designated and consecrated to take up a certain place, or better a certain function, ordo, in the community and at its service.” Quotation from “My Path-Findings,” 180.

249 ecclesial communion. In terms of Hahnenberg’s notion of ministry as ontological relation, rooted in baptism, there are considerable affinities with Congar’s broader theology of the triplex munera, which are graced and christocentric social relations. In fact, this applies as well to Hahnenberg’s notion of public, liturgical recognition of ordered ministries if you understand ministry as Congar does, as a specification of

“fonction.”

250 CONCLUSION

This dissertation presents Yves Congar’s theology of the laity and ministries as a unified theological work built on his adaptation of Christ’s triplex munera to the laity, which synthesizes into a singular description the social, secular, and ecclesial aspects of the laity’s identity as full members of the mystical Body. Yet, I argue Congar’s work on the laity and ministries has not always been understood in full force (in this case, his U.S. interpreters) because his initial, more substantial work on the laity—Jalons—was constructed in a distinct cultural and religious milieu that was almost immediately surpassed by a dramatic change in Western cultural and social forms of life. More concretely, Congar’s work was constructed to address the context of European

Catholicism’s rechristianization program of Catholic Action as well as Pius XI’s Leonine program of social reconstruction, which came to an end during the convening of Vatican

II. In particular, the broad shift from one cultural and theological perspective to another dramatically affected the way Congar’s work on the laity and ministries was received by

Catholics in the U.S., who were experiencing and undergoing a period of their own dramatic cultural and theological transformation.

After describing Congar’s initial context and the principle themes of his work on the laity and lay ministry, this dissertation considered the reception of Congar’s said work by four U.S. Catholic theologians writing and appropriating Congar’s work for their own

U.S. Catholic context, specifically from the 1990s into the 21st century. The reception of

251 Congar’s work by Paul Philibert, OP, is singular among the four theologians in that he affirms the centrality of the triplex munera for Congar’s work on the laity, though his particular assessment and engagement are found lacking in that he fails to expound the significance of the category of munera for accounting for the social and creational aspects of the laity’s roles ecclesial and secular. In my view, Philibert’s appropriation of

Congar’s use of the triplex munera fails to demonstrate the necessary connections between the laity and the priestly ministry as two aspects/participations that necessarily coexist in their unity with Christ and the Spirit. In a word, Philibert’s account of the laity’s sharing in Christ’s triplex munera cannot overcome the voluntarism and individualism that undergird the ecclesiological thinking of many U.S. Catholics. The laity’s sharing in Christ and the Spirit’s mission is almost reduced to an individualistic mission of each lay person or each particular vocation.

Paul Lakeland’s appropriation of Congar’s theology of the laity is defined by subordinating the laity’s sharing in the triplex munera to the laity’s definitive secularity.

This ordering of the munera and secularity inadvertently guarantees certain tendencies in the theology of lay ministry that set up a dichotomy between lay ministry as an essential ecclesial task and the theology of the laity as essentially a secular task. Lakeland’s appropriation and privileging of Congar’s notion of the secularity as definitive of the laity also leads to an ecclesiology of secularity that Lakeland sees as an ecclesiology that is deeply anti-cultic. This form of ecclesiology is unique to Lakeland—constitutive of his constructive theological proposal—but is decidedly in opposition to the core of Congar’s thought on the laity and ministry. Congar’s theology of the laity and ministries is based on the connaturality of the natural and baptismal priesthood of the baptized. In fact, in

252 Congar’s later work on ministries he held that the sacrament of orders is not the only

priesthood, but rather a specification of the one priesthood of all believers in a

sacramental rather than intentional/moral mode of action.

Thomas O’Meara’s appropriation of Congar’s work focuses almost exclusively on his theology of ministries, viewing the earlier work on the laity as no longer relevant or valid theologically. O’Meara’s constructive account of ministries argues for ministry as

an individual activity in contradistinction to the parameters of office or official function,

which tend to introduce distinctions in the ecclesia that become reified and the marker of

superiority. For O’Meara, Congar’s earlier work on the laity could not overcome this

tendency toward reification and inequality in terms of status and right to ministry.

O’Meara’s work, however, seems to tend toward a methodological individualism that

roots the common good and the unity of the social body of the Church purely in the

voluntary actions of individuals and not the result of basic social munera that have been

elevated by grace in the mystical Body. With that said, O’Meara’s engagement with

Congar’s theology of ministries does develop the Congarian ecclesiological claim that all

the members of the Church, even that of the individual Christian, engage in ministerial

activities that overlap and envelop with each other. Each ministry overlaps and envelops

the work of other ministries in the sense that each particular member contributes

something necessary and vital to the Church’s common good. O’Meara’s contribution is

his notion of ministries as concentric circles that are both distinct as modes of service, yet

united in that are within Christ’s one Church. Yet, O’Meara’s positive engagement with

Congar’s later work is wanting insofar as it fails to demonstrate any intrinsic connection

between ministries and the secular character of the work of non-ministerial Christians.

253 O’Meara notes the distinction between non-ministerial activity and ministerial activity, but fails to show how the two aspects of the laity’s role in the Church are united. This failure, I argue, is due to his rejection of Congar’s adaptation of the triplex munera to the laity as a general ecclesiological and Christological description of the laity that contains within it the specification of service called “ministry.” In O’Meara’s theology, the triplex munera is a defunct ecclesiology that cannot be adapted to the U.S. context insofar as it betrays a pre-modern sociology that is no longer operative in modern liberal polities.

O’Meara may be correct about the intelligibility of the triplex munera for U.S Catholics, but his judgment fails to consider the deeper intelligibility of Congar’s theological basis for the triplex munera, which is Christ and the Holy Spirit’s missions in the economy of salvation. Christ is the true and real prophet, priest, and king, and the Holy Spirit truly and really anoints Christ and his mystical Body to fulfill the divine plan of salvation through the modalities of kingship, prophecy, and priesthood. These offices are real, and in Congar’s theology the laity truly participates in them through the elevation of their natural, social munera, vocations, and ecclesial ministries. But, again, it seems the significance of the triplex munera for Congar’s work is lost in the reception precisely because these categories do not translate in the U.S. context.

Finally, Edward Hahnenberg’s work on ministries was examined for its appropriation of Congar’s theology of the laity and ministries. In some significant ways

Hahnenberg’s work aims to redress in the context of lay ministry what Congar aimed to achieve in his earlier work on the laity. Hahnenberg’s work is unique for its specific goal of demonstrating the intrinsic connection and complementarity between the distinct ecclesial work of the laity in ministry with the distinct sacramental work of priestly

254 ministry. I see Hahnenberg’s goal as analogous to Congar’s achievement of broadly

situating the laity and the hierarchical priesthood as specific participations in Christ’s

triplex munera. In both cases what is at issue is the relationality of different groups within

the ecclesia, while in O’Meara’s constructive proposal the issue is ministry as activity,

not relationship, and in Lakeland’s proposal is also a punctuated focus on action,

specifically the mystical-political actions (a la Schillebeeckx) associated with the

humanization of society. With that said, Hahnenberg’s reception of Congar is mediated

through his particular development of O’Meara’s theological arguments for ministries as

concentric circles, which is a development of Congar’s work on ministries. This means

Hahnenberg’s reception of Congar presupposes that the theology of the laity per se, even

Congar’s specific version of it, is tantamount to saying that the laity’s vocation is

necessarily secular in character. Since Hahnenberg presupposes this to be the case, he

considers the adaptation of the triplex munera to the laity to intrinsically locate lay

activity and relationships outside ecclesial service and therefore non-ministerial, which is

why he locates relationality through an analogy between trinitarian theology and human

relationality, particularly as found in the work of Eastern Orthodox theologian John

Zizioulas. Since this is not Congar’s true position, Hahnenberg’s reception is hindered and incapable of receiving Congar’s more concrete, broad, social, and creational foundation of relationality as found in the account of munera that we find in Pius XI’s social magisterium.

255 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agamben, Giorgio. Opus Dei: An Archaeology of Duty. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2013.

Aubert, Roger. The Church in a Secularised Society. Vol. V. New York: Paulist, 1978.

Baum, Gregory. Essays in Critical Theology. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1994.

Bauman, Zygmunt. Community: Seeking Safety in and Insecure World. Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2001.

Beal, Rose M. Mystery of the Church, People of God: Yves Congar’s Total Ecclesiology as a Path to Vatican II. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2014.

Bellah, Robert N. The Broken Covenant: American Civil Religion in Time of Trial. New York: The Seabury Press, 1975.

Bernardi, Peter. , Social Catholicism, and Action Francaise: The Clash over the Church's Role in Society during the Modernist Era. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2008.

Boersma, Hans. Nouvelle Théologie and Sacramental Ontology: A Return to Mystery. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Chenu, M.-D. “Catholic Action and the Mystical Body” in Restoring All Things: A Guide to Catholic Action. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1938.

______. Toward Understanding St. Thomas. Chicago: H. Regnery Co., 1964.

Christiano, Kevin J. Religious Diversity and Social Change: American Cities, 1890-1906. New York: Cambridge, 1987.

Civardi, Luigi. A Manual of Catholic Action. Trans. C.C. Martindale, S.J. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1943.

Coleman, John A. “The Future of Ministry.” America (March 28 1981): 243-249.

256 Congar, Yves. At the Heart of Christian Worship: Liturgical Essays of Yves Congar. Edited by Paul Philibert. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2010.

______.. “Aspects ecclésiologiques de la querelle entre mendiants et séculiers dans la seconde moitié du XIIIe siècle et le début du XIVe,” Archives d’histoire doctrinale et litteraire du Moyen Age 36 (1961): 35-151.

______. Blessed is the Peace of My Church. Denville, NJ: Dimension Books, 1973.

______. Called to Life. New York: Crossroad, 1987.

______. “Christ in the Economy of Salvation and in Our Dogmatic Tracts.” trans. Aimée Bourneuf. Concilium 1 (1966): 5-25.

______. Christians Active in the World. New York: Herder & Herder, 1968.

______. Le Concile de Vatican II: Son Église Peuple de Dieu et Corps du Christi. Paris: Beauchesne, 1984.

______. Fifty Years of Catholic Theology: Conversations with Yves Congar. Edited by Bernard Lauret. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988.

______. Eglise Catholique et France Moderne. Paris: Hachette, 1978.

______. A Gospel Priesthood. Translated by P.J. Hepburne-Scott. New York: Herder and Herder, 1967.

______. A History of Theology. Translated and edited by Hunter Guthrie. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1968.

______. I Believe in the Holy Spirit. Translated by David Smith. New York: Crossroad Publishing, 2005.

______. “The Idea of the Church in Thomas Aquinas,” The Mystery of the Church (Baltimore: Helicon, 1960).

______. Jalons pour une théologie du laïcat. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1953, 1954, 1964.

______. Jesus Christ. New York: Herder & Herder, 1966.

______. “Laïc et Laïcat,” Dictionnaire de Spiritualité 9 .Paris: Desclée, 1976: 79- 103.

257 ______. “The Laity” in Vatican II: An Interfaith Appraisal, International Theological Conference, University of Notre Dame, March 20-26 1966, Edited by John H. Miller. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 239-249.

______. Laity, Church, and World, Trans. Donald Attwater. Helicon Press, Baltimore, MD, 1960.

______. Lay People in the Church: A Study for a Theology of the Laity. Trans. by Donald . Attwater. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Co., 1957.

______. Lay People in the Church: A Study for a Theology of the Laity, Revised Edition with Additions by the Author. Trans. by Donald Attwater. London: Geoffrey Chapman, reprint, 1985.

______. The Meaning of Tradition. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2004.

______. Ministères et Communion Ecclésiale: Theologie sans Frontieres. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1971.

______. “Ministères et laïcat dans les recherches actuelles de la théologie catholique romaine,” Verbo Caro 18, (1964), 127-148.

______.“Ministères et structuration de l'Église," La Maison-Dieu 102, (1970), 7-20.

______. “Moving Towards a Pilgrim Church,” in Vatican II: By Those Who Were There. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1986.

______. My Journal of the Council. Translated by Mary John Ronayne and Mary Cecily Boulding, English Translation edited by Denis Minns. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2012.

______. “My Path-Findings in the Theology of Laity and Ministries,” The Jurist, XXXII (1971), 169-188.

______. The Mystery of the Church. Translated by A.V. Littledale. Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1960.

______. The Mystery of the Temple. Westminster, MD: Newman, 1962.

______. Un Peuple Messianique: L’Eglise, sacrement du salut Salut et libération. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1975.

______. Power and Poverty in the Church. Trans. by Jennifer Nicholson. Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1964.

258 ______. “Quelques problèmes touchant les ministères,” Nouvelle Revue Théologique, no. 8, (October 1971), 785-800.

______. The Revelation of God. New York: Herder & Herder, 1968.

______. “The Sacralization of Western Society in the Middle Ages,” Concilium 47 (1969): 55-67.

______. Sainte Eglise: Ėtudes et Approches Ecclésiologiques. Paris: Les Editions de Cerf, 1963.

______. “Session VI Discussion,” in Vatican II: An Interfaith Appraisal (University of Notre Dame Press: Notre Dame & London, 1966): 267-272.

______. “Shall We De-Clergify the Priesthood?” in Blessed is the Peace of My Church, 17-34. Denville, NJ: Dimension Books.

______. “Sur la trilogie: Prophète-Roi-Prêtre,” Revues des sciences philosophiques et théologiques (67) 1983: 97-115.

______. This Church that I Love. Translated by Lucien Delafuente. Denville, NJ: Dimension Books, 1969.

______. Tradition and Traditions. New York: Macmillan, 1967.

______. True and False Reform in the Church. Translated by Paul Philibert. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2011.

______. The Word and the Spirit. Translated by David Smith. San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers, 1986.

______. The Wide World My Parish. Baltimore: Helicon, 1961.

______. L’Eglise de saint Augustin à l’èpoque moderne. Paris: Cerf, 1970.

Dawson, Christopher. Religion and Culture. Gifford Lectures. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1948.

Dolan, Jay P., and R. Scott Appleby, Patricia Byrne, and Debra Campbell. Transforming Parish Ministry: The Changing Roles of Catholic Clergy, Laity, and Women Religious. New York: Crossroad, 1990.

Doohan, Leonard. The Laity: A Bibliography. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1987.

______. The Lay-Centered Church: Theology & Spirituality. Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1984.

259

Drilling, Peter. and Ministry. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.

Erdo, P. “Ministerium, Munus et Officium in Codice Iuris Canonici.” Periodica 78 (1989): 411-436.

Eschenauer, Donna M. and Harold Daly Horell, eds. Reflections on Renewal: Lay Ecclesial Ministry and the Church. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2011.

Fernandez, Aurelio. Munera Christi et Munera Ecclesiae: Historia de una teoria. Pamplona, Spain: Ediciones Universidad de Navarra, 1982.

Ferraro, Thomas J., ed. Catholic Lives, Contemporary America. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1997.

Flynn, Gabriel, and Paul Murray, eds. Ressourcement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Flynn, Gabriel, ed. Yves Congar: Theologian of the Church. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2005.

Fournier, Roland. La Théologie de l’Action Catholique. Montréal: Grand Séminaire, Granger Frères, 1940.

Fox, Zeni, editor. Lay Ecclesial Ministry: Pathways Toward the Future. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010.

______. New Ecclesial Ministry: Lay Professionals Serving the Church. Kansas City, MO: Sheed & Ward, 1997.

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. New York: Crossroad, 1992.

Gaillardetz, Richard and Edward Hahnenberg, eds. A Church with Open Doors: Catholic Ecclesiology for the Third Millennium. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2015.

______. Ecclesiology for a Global Church: A People Called and Sent. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2008.

Galot, Jean. “The Sacramental Character.” Theology Digest, XI.3: 175-181.

Geaney, Dennis. Emerging Lay Ministries. Kansas City: Andrews and McMeel, 1979.

Gibson, Ralph. A Social History of French Catholicism: 1789-1914. London: Routledge, 1989.

260

Guitton, Jean. The Church and the Laity: From Newman to Vatican II. Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1965.

Hagstrom, Aurelie A. The Concepts of the Vocation and the Mission of the Laity. San Francisco: Catholic Scholars Press, 1994.

______. The Emerging Laity: Vocation, Mission, and Spirituality. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2010.

Hahnenberg, Edward P. “A Patient Firmness: The Beginnings of Lay Ecclesial Ministry in the United States, 1967–1987.” U.S. Catholic Historian 35.4 (Fall 2017): 1-29.

______. Ministries: A Relational Approach. New York: Herder & Herder, 2003.

Halleux, Andre de. “Munera Christi et munera Ecclesiae, Historia de una teoria (coll. Coleccion canonica), 1982.” Revue theologique de Louvain 18, no. 2 (1987): 251- 253.

Halsey, William M. The Survival of American Innocence: Catholicism in an Era of Disillusionment, 1920-1940. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980.

Hater, Robert J. The Ministry Explosion: A New Awareness of Every Christian’s Call to Minister. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers, 1979.

Héris, C.V. The Mystery of Christ: Our Head, Priest, and King. Westminster: Newman, 1950.

Hesburgh, Theodore. C.S.C. The Theology of Catholic Action. Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 1946.

Hittinger, Russell. “Social Pluralism and Subsidiarity in Catholic Social Doctrine.” Annales Theologici 16 (2002): 385–408.

Hoebel, Thomas. Laity and Participation: A Theology of Being the Church. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang, 2006.

Holmes, Urban T. The Priest in Community: Exploring the Roots of Ministry. New York: The Seabury Press, 1978.

Jauss, Hans Robert. Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982.

Jelly, Frederick M. “Congar’s Theological Anthropology and Doctrine of Salvation.” Theological Anthropology (6:3) 1999: 80-87.

261

Jossua, Jean-Pierre. Yves Congar: Theology in the Service of God’s People. Chicago: The Priory Press, 1968.

Keating, Francis. “Theology of the Laity” CTSA Presentation, St. Peter’s College, NJ: 1956.

Kilmartin, Edward J. “Lay Participation in the Apostolate of the Hierarchy” in Official Ministry in a New Age, edited by James H. Provost. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1981.

Komonchak, Joseph A. “Clergy, Laity, and the Church’s Mission in the World” in Official Ministry in a New Age, edited by James H. Provost. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1981.

Koskela, Douglas. Ecclesiality and Ecumenism: Yves Congar and the Road to Unity. : Marquette University Press, 2008.

Lakeland, Paul. The Liberation of the Laity: In Search of an Accountable Church. New York: Continuum, 2003.

Lay Ecclesial Ministry: The State of the Questions. Washington DC: United States Catholic Conference, 1999.

MacDonald, Charles. Church and World in the Plan of God: Aspects of History and Eschatology in the Thought of Pere Yves Congar o.p. Frankfurt: Lang, 1982. by Yves Congar. MacDonald, Timothy. The Ecclesiology of Yves Congar: Foundational Themes. Lanham: University Press of America, 1984. Preface by Yves Congar.

Magnani, Giovanni. “Does the So-Called Theology of the Laity Possess a Theological Status?” in Vatican II: Assessment and Perspectives, Twenty-Five Years After (1962-1987), Vol. I. Edited by Rene LaTourelle. New York: Paulist Press, 1988.

Mansini, Guy. “Episcopal Munera and the Character of Episcopal Orders,” in The Word Has Dwelt Among Us. Ave Maria, FL: Sapientia Press, 2008.

Marciniak, Ed, and Michael Novak, John A. Coleman, and Sargent Shriver. Challenge to the Laity. Edited by Russell Barta. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1980.

Markey, John J. Creating Communion: The Theology of the Constitutions of the Church. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2003.

Mayer, Arno J. The Persistence of the Old Regime: Europe to the Great War. New York: Pantheon Books, 1981.

262 Meszaros, Andrew. The Prophetic Church: History and Doctrinal Development in and Yves Congar. Oxford, UK: Oxford UP, 2016.

Milbank, John. Theology and Social Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006.

Misner, Paul. Catholic Labor Movements in Europe: Social Thought and Action, 1914- 1965. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2015.

______. Social Catholicism in Europe: From the Onset of Industrialization to the First World War. New York: Crossroad, 1991.

Newman, Jeremiah. Change and the Catholic Church: An Essay in Sociological Ecclesiology. Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1965.

______. The Christian in Society: A Theological Investigation. Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1962.

Nichols, Aidan. From Newman to Congar: The Idea of Doctrinal Development from the Victorians to the Second Vatican Council. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990.

______. Yves Congar. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1989.

O’Donovan, Leo J, ed. A World of Grace: An Introduction to the Themes and Foundations of Karl Rahner’s Theology. Washington, DC: Georgetown UP, 1995.

O’Meara, Thomas and Paul Philibert. Scanning the Signs of the Times: French Dominicans in the Twentieth Century. Hindmarsh, SA: ATF Theology, 2013.

______. “Beyond Hierarchology: Johann Adam Mohler and Yves Congar,” in The Legacy of the Tubingen School: The Relevance of the Nineteenth-Century Theology for the Twenty-First Century, ed. Donald Dietrich and Michael J. Himes, 171-191. New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1997.

______. “Community as Primal Reality.” Theological Studies 78.2: 435-446.

______. “The Expansion of Ministry: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow,” in The Renewal that Awaits Us, edited by Eleanor Bernstein and Martin Connell, 91-103. Chicago: Liturgy Training Publications, 1997.

______. “Fundamentalism and Catholicism: Some Cultural and Theological Reflections,” Chicago Studies 35 (1996): 68-81.

______. “Jean-Pierre Torrell’s Research on Thomas Aquinas.” Theological Studies 62 (2001): 787-801.

263 ______. “Leaving the Baroque: The Fallacy of Restoration in the Postconciliar Era,” America 174 (1996): 10-12, 14, 25-28.

______. “Reflections on Yves Congar and Theology in the United States.” U.S. Catholic Historian 17.2 (1999): 91-105.

______. “The Raid on the Dominicans,” America 170 (1994): 8-16.

______. A Theologian’s Journey. New York: Paulist, 2002.

______. “A Theology of Church and Ministry,” in The Theology of Cardinal : Speaking Truth in Love, edited by Kristin M. Colberg and Robert A. Krieg. Liturgical Press, 2014.

______. Theology of Ministry. New York: Paulist, 1983.

______. Theology of Ministry. Completely Revised Edition. New York: Paulist, 1999.

______. “Thomas Aquinas and Today’s Theology.” Theology Today 55.1 (1998): 46-58.

Oelrich, Anthony. A Church Fully Engaged: Yves Congar’s Vision of Ecclesial Authority. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2011.

Oliver, Robert W. The Vocation of the Laity to Evangelization: An Ecclesiological Inquiry into the on the Laity (1987), Christifideles laici (1989), and Documents of the NCCB (1987-1996). Rome: Editrice Pontificia Universita Gregoriana, 1997.

Osiek, Carolyn. “Relation of Charism to Rights and Duties in the New Testament Church” in Official Ministry in a New Age, edited by James H. Provost. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1981.

Parent, Remi. A Church of the Baptized: Overcoming the Tension Between the Clergy and the Laity. Translated by Stephen W. Arndt. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1989.

Pellitero, Ramiro. La Teologia del Laicado en la Obra de Yves Congar. Pamplona : Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra, 1996.

Perreau-Saussine, Emile. Catholicism and Democracy: An Essay is the History of Political Thought. Translated by Richard Rex. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2012.

Philibert, Paul. The Priesthood of the Faithful: Key to a Living Church. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2005.

264 ______. At the Heart of Christian Worship: Liturgical Essays of Yves Congar. Translated and edited by Paul Philibert. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press: 2010.

Pietrzyk, Pius. The Power of Orders and the Power of Jurisdiction: A Theological and Juridical Examination. Rome: Pontificia Studiorum Universitas A S.Thoma Aq. in Urbe, 2014.

Pope Pius XI. Casti Connubii [On Christian Marriage], Vatican Website, December 31, 1930, accessed August 1, 2018, https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius- xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html.

______. Divini Illius Magistri [Encyclical on Christian Education], Vatican Website, December 31, 1929, accessed August 1, 2018, http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius- xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121929_divini-illius-magistri.html.

______. Non Abbiamo Bisogno, Vatican Website, June 29 1931, accessed August 1, 2018, http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p- xi_enc_29061931_non-abbiamo-bisogno.html.

______. Miserentissimus Redemptor [Encyclical on Reparation to the Sacred Heart], Vatican Website, May 8, 1928, accessed August 1, 2018, https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p- xi_enc_19280508_miserentissimus-redemptor.html.

______. Divini Redemptoris [Encyclical on Atheistic Communism], Vatican Website, March 19, 1937, accessed August 1, 2018 https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius- xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19370319_divini-redemptoris.html.

______. Quadragesimo Anno [Encyclical on Reconstruction of the Social Order], Vatican Website, May 15, 1931, accessed August 1, 2018 http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p- xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno.html.

______. Quas Primas [Encyclical on the Feast of Christ the King], Vatican Website, December 11, 1925, accessed August 1, 2018, http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius- xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_11121925_quas-primas.html.

______. Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio [encyclical on the Peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ], Vatican Website, December 23, 1922, accessed August 1, 2018, http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p- xi_enc_19221223_ubi-arcano-dei-consilio.html.

Portier, William. “Church Unity and National Traditions: The Challenge to the Modern Papacy: 1682-1870” in The Papacy and the Church in the United States. Edited by Bernard Cooke. New York: Paulist Press, 1989.

265 ______. Divided Friends: Portraits of the Roman Catholic Modernist Crisis in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2013.

______. “Here Come the Evangelical Catholics,” Communio 31(Spring, 2004): 36- 66.

Potterie, Ignace de la. “The Origin and Basic Meaning of the Word ‘Lay’,” in The Christian Lives by the Spirit, Alba House, 1976.

Power, David. “The Basis for Official Ministry in the Church” in Official Ministry in a New Age, edited by James H. Provost. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1981.

______. Gifts That Differ: Lay Ministries Established and Unestablished. New York: Pueblo Publishing Co., 1980.

Quill, James. “The Theology of the Lay Apostolate” for CTSA’s Committee on Current Problems, 1959.

Rahner, Karl. “Notes on the Lay Apostolate,” in Theological Investigations, Vol. II, Man in the Church. Translated by Karl H. Kruger. Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1964.

Rikhof, Hervi. “The Competence of Priests, Prophets and Kings: Ecclesiological Reflections about the Power and Authority of Christian Believers.” Concilium 197 (1998): 53-59.

Schick, Ludwig. Das Dreifache Amt Christi und der Kirche. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1982.

Schillebeeckx, E. “The Catholic Understanding of Office in the Church.” Theological Studies 30.4 (1969): 567-587.

Schuck, Michael. That They Be One: The Social Teaching of the Papal Encyclicals, 1740-1989. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1991.

Scribner, Todd. A Partisan Church: American Catholicism and the Rise of Neoconservative Catholics. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2015.

Shaw, Russell. To Hunt, To Shoot, To Entertain: Clericalism and the Catholic Laity. San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 1993.

______. Understanding Your Rights: Your Rights and Responsibilities in the Catholic Church. Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 1994.

Steinfels, Peter. A People Adrift: The Crisis of the Roman Catholic Church in America. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005.

266

Taylor, Charles. Modern Social Imaginaries. Durham, NC: Duke UP, 2005.

Thornhill, John. The Person and the Group: A Study, In the Tradition of Aristotelian Realism, of the Meaning of Human Society. Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Co., 1967.

Tippett-Spirtou, Sandy. French Catholicism: Church, State and Society in a Changing Era

Ward, Leo R. Catholic Life, U.S.A.: Contemporary Lay Movements. St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1959.

Weber, Eugen. The Hollow Years: France in the 1930s. New York: Norton & Co., 1994.

Wood, Susan, editor. Ordering the Baptismal Priesthood: Theologies of Lay and Ordained Ministry. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2003.

Zizioulas, John D. Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985.

267