ecclesiology 13 (2017) 32-54 ECCLESIOLOGY

brill.com/ecso

Yves Congar at Vatican ii

The Reception of the Council and the on-going Challenge of Reform

Gabriel Flynn
School of Theology, Philosophy, and Music, Dublin City University,
Republic of Ireland
gabriel.flynn@dcu.ie

Abstract

Among the private diaries of Vatican ii, those of Yves M.J. Congar (1904–95) and Henri
de Lubac (1896–1991) are undoubtedly the most important. The aim of this article is to
assess the significance of Congar’s My Journal of the Council in order to draw ­attention
to its significant influence in the on-going reception of the Vatican ii, and to the peren-
nial challenge of reform in the Church. Congar was one of the most prominent of the
ressourcement theologians, associated principally with the Jesuits of Lyon-Fourvière
and the Dominicans of Le Saulchoir, Paris. Their influence pervaded French society
and theology in the period 1930–1960, and beyond, and inspired a renaissance in
­Catholic thought. The article assesses Congar’s role in that renaissance, as well as his
immense participation in the elaborate work of the Council, not least his involvement
with the Belgian theologians with whom he formed a strategic liaison.

Keywords

Roman Catholic Church – Vatican ii – Yves Congar – Henri de Lubac – Pope

John xxiii – Pope Paul vi – reform and renewal – reception – ressourcement

i ‘Congar’s Council’

In a world dominated by poverty, inequality, and wars of spurious religious

inspiration, an ever-urgent task for Catholic intellectuals and Church leaders

* This is a revised and expanded version of an article published in Louvain Studies, 28 (2003),
pp. 48-70; the common material is used with permission.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi 10.1163/17455316-01301004

Downloaded from Brill.com11/03/2022 01:34:35PM
via Pazmany Peter Katolikus Egyetem
Yves Congar at Vatican ii 33

remains the on-going reception of the teaching of the Second Vatican C ­ ouncil
(1962–65). The recent publication in English of Congar’s My Journal of the
Council provides renewed impetus for this important work.1 The painstaking
work of the translators of this work deserves recognition. Pope Francis (pope
2013-), in his Bull of Indiction of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy Misericor-
diae Vultus, with its proclamation of a Holy Year to coincide with the fiftieth
anniversary of Vatican ii, attempts to bring that Council into focus for the pres-
ent age. As he writes: ‘The Church feels a great need to keep this event alive.
With the Council, the Church entered a new phase of her history.’ The Pope’s
dual concern is with the proclamation of the gospel and a new openness to
the modern world: ‘The Council Fathers strongly perceived, as a true breath
of the Holy Spirit, a need to talk about God to men and women of their time
in a more accessible way. The walls which for too long had made the Church
a kind of fortress were torn down and the time had come to proclaim the gos-
pel in a new way.’ This is a point of fundamental importance since the call to
a new evangelisation and the razing of the fortress mentality of the Catholic
Church are recurring tasks in every generation, and are inextricably connected
to the ongoing reception of the Council at the present time. Among the private
diaries of Vatican ii, those of Yves M.J. Congar (1904–95) and Henri de Lubac
(1896–1991) are undoubtedly the most important.2 The aim of this article is to
assess the contribution of Congar’s My Journal of the Council.
Congar’s theological corpus has been lauded for its breadth, brilliance, and
lucidity. His theology of ministry, theory of tradition, and mature ecumenism
continue to inspire pastors of all Christian denominations. The key elements
of his theology include the restoration of the genuine value of ecclesiology,
ecumenism, a fresh consideration of the person and mission of the Holy Spirit,
reform, the laity, a return to the sources, and the application of the rich re-
sources of tradition to the current problems of the Church. Although Congar
viewed himself as a man of ideas, he did not consider himself a philosopher
and declared that he lacked ‘philosophical training and a philosophical spirit.’3
It is his idea of reform that dominates his entire œuvre and constitutes his most
important and original contribution to theology. He proposed a wide-ranging
programme of reform that set the Roman Catholic Church on a new course and

1 Yves Congar, My Journal of the Council, trans. Mary John Ronayne, OP and Mary Cecily
­Boulding, OP; English trans. ed. Denis Minns, O.P. (Collegeville, mn: Liturgical Press, 2012).
2 See Alberto Melloni, ‘Les Journaux Privés dans l’Histoire de Vatican ii’, in Marie-Dominique
Chenu, O.P., Notes quotidiennes au Concile: Journal de Vatican ii 1962–1963, ed. with an
­Introduction by Melloni (Paris: Cerf, 1995), pp. 7–54.
3 Yves Congar, ‘Loving Openness Toward Every Truth: A Letter from Thomas Aquinas to Karl
Rahner’, Philosophy and Theology, 12 (2000), pp. 213–219, at p. 215.

ecclesiology 13 (2017) 32-54 Downloaded from Brill.com11/03/2022 01:34:35PM

via Pazmany Peter Katolikus Egyetem
34 Flynn

changed its relationship with the world for ever. Vatican ii, referred to by the
American theologian Avery Dulles (1918–2008) as ‘Congar’s Council’ became a
battleground for reform. By virtue of his achievement at the Council, and his
extensive contribution to the advancement of the twin objectives of theologi-
cal renewal and Church reform, Congar merits a pre-eminent place among the
great Christian thinkers and religious leaders of the twentieth century.
It is incontrovertible that when Pope John xxiii (pope: 1958–1963) called
an ecumenical council in January 1959, it was recognised that a new climate
was stirring at the centre of the Church.4 The announcement was greeted
with excitement in the world at large. But most of the Roman curia thought
a council unnecessary. Even the Italian bishops distrusted what the Pope
had ­decided to do.5 The Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century had
caused the Church to assume a defensive position. The intellectual, industrial,
and ­scientific revolutions of the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centu-
ries respectively, had frozen the defensive posture into a fixture that injured
the Church and obfuscated its mission in the world. John xxiii, guided by an
­innately astute assessment of the yearnings within both the Church and the
wider society, sought to restore the Church’s mission of service to the world
as the inexorable march towards secular humanism in the West continued
­unabated. The Pope knew that without a general council of the Church, his
ambitious plan for renewal and reform would almost certainly founder.
The commencement of the Council led to a clash between the conserva-
tive and the progressive wings of the Church. At stake was a true reform of
the Church, its relationship with the modern world, as well as interfaith and
­interreligious dialogue. Without the contribution of Congar, one of the most
influential theologians at Vatican ii, the process of renewal initiated there
would have been seriously impeded, and the battle for a ‘real council’, a coun-
cil capable of substantial reform, might not have been fully realised.6 The pub-
lication of the English edition of his conciliar diary reveals the full extent of
that battle to the English-speaking world. It is clear that a correct understand-
ing of the nature and significance of Congar’s diary is not possible without
some knowledge of the man, his character and vocation, and his substantial
role at Vatican ii, his interpretation of the Council, and his consternation at
the ­manner of the reception and enactment of the changes initiated at the

4 Henri Daniel-Rops, The Second Vatican Council: The Story Behind the Ecumenical Council of
Pope John xxiii, trans. Alastair Guinan (London: Harrap; New York: Hawthorn, 1962), p. 12.
5 Owen Chadwick, The Christian Church in the Cold War, The Penguin History of the Church,
ed. Owen Chadwick, vol. 7 (London: Penguin, 1992), p. 116.
6 My Journal of the Council, p. 4.

ecclesiology 13 (2017) 32-54

Downloaded from Brill.com11/03/2022 01:34:35PM
via Pazmany Peter Katolikus Egyetem
Yves Congar at Vatican ii 35

Council. ­Following the ravages of the Second World War, during which Congar
was a prisoner of war (1940–45),7 and his exile from Paris (1954–55), a result
of the restrictive measures taken against leading Jesuit and Dominican theo-
logians in the wake of Pope Pius xii’s encyclical Humani Generis (12 August
1950), Congar was eventually allowed to return, not to Paris, but to Strasbourg,
in December 1955. His transfer was due to the sympathetic intervention of Jean
Weber, Bishop of Strasbourg. Congar immediately recommenced his work that
he describes as ‘that of an inner renewal, ecclesiological, anthropological and
pastoral’.8 He was named a Consultor to the Theological Commission in prepa-
ration for the Council on 20 July 1960, and then a peritus at the Council itself,
thus ending a most difficult exile.9
The renowned generation of French ressourcement theologians, whose in-
fluence pervaded French theology and society in the period 1930 to 1960, and
beyond, inspired a renaissance in twentieth-century Catholic theology and
initiated a movement for renewal that made a decisive contribution to the re-
forms of Vatican ii. Congar is one of the most prominent of the ressourcement
theologians, associated principally with the Jesuits of Lyon-Fourvière and the
Dominicans of Le Saulchoir, Paris. Section ii of this essay considers his role in
that renaissance.

ii Ressourcement: The Twentieth-century Renaissance in Catholic

Theology, Prelude to a Church Council

A host of new initiatives emerged in the French Church during and after the
Second World War. This included the movement for the reform of the ­liturgy,
Centre de Pastorale Liturgique, the return to biblical and patristic sources,
­exemplified especially in the foundation of the Sources chrétiennes series,
the renewal of ecclesiology, demonstrated by the establishment of the Unam
S­ anctam series, and the realization of the church’s missionary task. As Con-
gar remarks: ‘Anyone who did not live through the years 1946 and 1947 in the

7 See Congar, ‘Letter from Father Yves Congar, O.P.’, trans. Ronald John Zawilla, Theology Digest,
32 (1985), pp. 213–216 at p. 214.
8 Congar, Dialogue between Christians: Catholic Contributions to Ecumenism, trans. Philip
­Loretz (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966), p. 44; et of Chrétiens en dialogue: contributions
catholiques à l’oecuménisme (Unam Sanctam, vol. 50, Paris: Cerf, 1964), p. lvi. Following the
initial citation, the page numbers of works in the original language will be given in round
brackets.
9 My Journal of the Council, p. 3.

ecclesiology 13 (2017) 32-54 Downloaded from Brill.com11/03/2022 01:34:35PM

via Pazmany Peter Katolikus Egyetem
36 Flynn

­ istory of French Catholicism has missed one of the finest moments in the
h
life of the Church. In the course of a slow emergence from privation and with
the wide liberty of a fidelity as profound as life, men sought to regain evan-
gelical contact with a world in which we had become involved to an extent
unequalled in centuries.’10
Congar adopted ressourcement as the standard for church reform under-
stood as an urgent call to return to ‘the sources of a deeper tradition.’11 Much
later, he would restate this original emphasis in the context of a glowing tribute
to his beloved master and confrère Chenu: ‘One day the balance will be drawn
up, but already the positive quality can be sensed. What would a little later be
called “ressourcement” was then at the heart of our efforts. It was not a matter
either of mechanically replacing some theses by other theses or of creating
a “revolution” but of appealing, as Péguy did, from one tradition less profound
to another more profound.’12
At Vatican ii, the path of church reform and renewal by way of a return
to the biblical and patristic sources was pursued not only by Congar, but
also by Henri de Lubac (1896–1991), Jean Daniélou (1905–74), Karl Rahner
(1904–84), and Joseph Ratzinger (1927-), among others.13 Congar’s most signifi-
cant c­ ontribution to ressourcement is undoubtedly the Unam Sanctam series
launched by La Vie intellectuelle in November 1935, which became a highly
­influential ecclesiological and ecumenical library of Éditions du Cerf, running
to some 77 volumes. Congar acknowledged that Unam Sanctam prepared the
way for Vatican ii while Chenu saw in this new collection ‘one of the most

10 See Congar, Dialogue between Christians, p. 32 (p. xliii). De Lubac also refers to the spirit
of hope, creativity, and originality that pervaded this period in the history of the French
church, with Chantiers de Jeunesse and the Cahiers du Témoignage chrétien producing a
rich harvest. See de Lubac, At the Service of the Church: Henri de Lubac Reflects on the
­Circumstances that occasioned His Writings, trans. Anne Elizabeth Englund (San Francisco:
Ignatius Press, 1993), pp. 45, 48; et of Mémoire sur l’occasion de mes écrits, ed. Georges
Chantraine, S.J., Œuvres complètes, vol. xxxiii (Paris: Cerf, 2006), pp. 44–45, 47. ‘[B]oth in
1940–1942 and under the total occupation in 1942–1944, Lyons was quite different. Just as
earlier, in the sixteenth century, it had been the “intellectual capital” of France, it became
in 1940, the “capital of the Resistance”.’
11 Congar, True and False Reform in the Church, trans. with an introduction by Paul Philibert,
O.P. (Collegeville, mn: Liturgical Press, 2011), p. 369; et of Vraie et fausse réforme dans
l’Église (Unam Sanctam, vol. 20, Paris: Cerf, 1950), pp. 601–602.
12 Congar, ‘The Brother I have known’, trans. Boniface Ramsey, O.P., The Thomist, 49 (1985),
pp. 495–503.
13 See Flynn, ‘The Twentieth-Century Renaissance in Catholic Theology’, in Flynn and Paul
D. Murray (eds), Ressourcement: A Movement for Renewal in Twentieth-Century Catholic
Theology, 2nd edn in paperback (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 1–19.

ecclesiology 13 (2017) 32-54

Downloaded from Brill.com11/03/2022 01:34:35PM
via Pazmany Peter Katolikus Egyetem
Yves Congar at Vatican ii 37

beautiful fruits of our theology at Le Saulchoir’.14 The achievement of the res-

sourcement theologians lay not so much in their rejection of a long since arid
neo-scholasticism as in their dual concern to engage with the contemporary
world and to ensure the essential unity of theology. Indeed, the greatest legacy
of the entire ressourcement enterprise rests in its enduring significance for the
Christian Churches in the contemporary world.15 While the ressourcement
theologians were the harbingers of the new era of openness, ecumenism, and
dialogue inaugurated at the Second Vatican Council, it should not be forgotten
that the ecclesial reforms and academic freedom for which they laboured were
won in the midst of bitter acrimony, public recrimination, and intense per-
sonal suffering. My Journal of the Council provides unequivocal evidence of the
official and quasi-official suspicion in which Congar was held for so long, and
from which he ­apparently could not escape. In an entry on 13 March 1964, he
wrote: ‘­Personally I have never, I have still not, escaped from the apprehensions
of one who is under suspicion, punished, judged, discriminated against.’16
In an atmosphere of suspicion and controversy, Humani Generis was pub-
lished on 12 August 1950.17 As the clouds began to gather over the church in
France in the wake of the controversial encyclical, it is hardly surprising that
both Congar and de Lubac, astute political analysts, rejected the term nou-
velle théologie. In 1950 Congar compared nouvelle théologie to the ‘tarasque’, a
­legendary monster of Provence.18 Whatever the motivation for Congar’s analy-
sis of his relationship with nouvelle théologie, it is clear that he found himself
at the epicentre of a most acrimonious and fractious controversy in the period
immediately prior to Vatican ii.
The Second Vatican Council marked the beginning of a new and impor-
tant phase in Congar’s theological career. He was named an expert official to

14 See Congar, ‘Reflections on being a Theologian’, p. 405; Fouilloux, ‘Frère Yves, Cardinal
Congar, Dominicain: itinéraire d’un théologien’, Revue des Sciences philosophiques et
théologiques, 79 (1995), pp. 379–404 at p. 386.
15 See A.N. Williams, ‘The Future of the Past: The Contemporary Significance of the Nouvelle
Théologie’, International Journal of Systematic Theology, 7 (2005), pp. 347–361.
16 My Journal of the Council, p. 510.
17 Pius xii, Humani Generis: Encyclical Letter concerning some False Opinions Threaten-
ing to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine, Acta Apostolici Sedis 42 (1950),
pp. 561–78; et of False Trends In Modern Teaching: Encyclical Letter (Humani Generis),
trans. Ronald A. Knox, rev. edn (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1959). See Robert G ­ uelluy,
‘Les Antécédents de l’encyclique “Humani Generis” dans les sanctions Romaines de 1942:
Chenu, Charlier, Draguet’, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 81 (1986), pp. 421–497.
18 Jean Puyo (ed.), Jean Puyo interroge le Père Congar: ‘une vie pour la vérité’ (Paris: Centurion,
1975), p. 99.

ecclesiology 13 (2017) 32-54 Downloaded from Brill.com11/03/2022 01:34:35PM

via Pazmany Peter Katolikus Egyetem
38 Flynn

the theological Commission in preparation for the Council in the autumn of

1962 and then a peritus at the Council itself, thus ending a painful period of
intellectual and spiritual exile.19 The success of Congar’s ecclesiological pro-
gramme is nowhere more apparent than in its impact on the teaching of the
Roman Catholic Church at this Council. Congar said that Pope Paul vi al-
luded to the work that he and other theologians had done in his first encycli-
cal, Ecclesiam Suam.20 A consideration of how Vatican ii became a catalyst
for the theologians, especially the French and Germans, who had worked for
the renewal of ecclesiology in the difficult period before the Council, would
reveal that ­Congar’s contribution to ecclesiology is at the heart of the renewal
in ­Roman Catholic theology. Congar is honoured as a pioneer of church unity
and a champion of the laity. At the same time, his role as reformer is ambigu-
ous and his theology remains obfuscated to the present day.21 Careful study of
his contribution to church reform shows him to be an architect of the contem-
porary church. Congar, in fact, viewed his theology as an integral part of the
Second Vatican Council, a point he expressed succinctly as follows: ‘If there is
a theology of Congar, that is where it is to be found.’22 While Congar’s partici-
pation in the proceedings of that Council, notably his close association with
the Belgian theologians, indicates his obvious political adroitness, we must
ever bear in mind that it is primarily as a servant of truth, and of the bishops,
that he p­ erceived his role there. As he explains: ‘All the things to which I gave
­special attention issued in the Council: ecclesiology, ecumenism, reform of the
Church, the lay state, mission, ministries, collegiality, return to the sources and
Tradition. … I’ve consecrated my life to the service of truth. I’ve loved it and

19 Congar, ‘Letter from Father Yves Congar, O.P.’, p. 215. Congar writes: ‘Then came the
a­ nnouncement of the Council by John xxiii. Very soon I received word that I was to be
first a consultor on the theological commission preparing for the Council, and then a
peritus at the Council itself.’ See Stefano M. Paci, ‘“Le Pape obéit aussi”: Entretien avec
le théologien Yves Congar’, 30 jours dans l’Église et dans le monde, 3 (1993), pp. 24–29 at
pp. 24–25. Congar recounts how, along with de Lubac, he was chosen personally by Pope
John xxiii as an ‘expert’ at Vatican ii.
20 Congar, ‘Theology in the Council’, American Ecclesiastical Review, 155 (1966), pp. 217–230
at p. 220. See Paul vi, Ecclesiam Suam: The Paths of the Church (New York: America Press,
1964), par. 33.
21 See Gabriel Flynn, ‘Yves Congar and Catholic Church Reform: A Renewal of the Spirit’, in
Flynn (ed.), Yves Congar: Theologian of the Church (Louvain/Grand Rapids mi: Peeters/
Eerdmans, 2005), pp. 99–133; also Paul J. Philibert, O.P., ‘Retrieving a Masterpiece: Yves
Congar’s Vision of True Reform’, Doctrine and Life, 61 (2011), pp. 10–20.
22 Congar, ‘Letter from Father Yves Congar, O.P.’, p. 215.

ecclesiology 13 (2017) 32-54

Downloaded from Brill.com11/03/2022 01:34:35PM
via Pazmany Peter Katolikus Egyetem
Yves Congar at Vatican ii 39

still love it in the way one loves a person. I’ve been like that from my very child-
hood, as if by some instinct and interior need.’23

iii Congar’s Participation at the Council

The Second Vatican Council, one of the most important events in the history
of the Roman Catholic Church since the Protestant Reformation, is certainly
at the zenith of twentieth-century ecclesiology. The Council marked the begin-
ning of a new and important phase in Congar’s theological career. The success
of his ecclesiological programme is nowhere more apparent than in its im-
pact on the teaching of the Church at Vatican ii. The far-reaching programme
of ecclesial reform executed at the Council is the de facto consummation of
Congar’s whole previous theological oeuvre. Congar placed himself entirely at
the disposition of the Council in which he saw the possibility of the achieve-
ment of a reform of the Church without injury to its unity that would facilitate
a presentation of the true face of the Church to the people of the twentieth
century.24 In an entry in his diary on 15 August 1960, Congar writes: ‘I wish to
offer myself faithfully to serve, to the best of my ability, in the context of the
Council which has been opened up by John xxiii under the impulse of the
Holy Spirit.’25
The theological objectives of Congar and of other reforming theologians
were realised at Vatican ii.26 In characteristic fashion, Congar considered
that it was better to work wholeheartedly within the Council than to criticise
it from without. Gradually, he became deeply engaged in the preparation of
some of the most important council documents. In the diary, Congar pro-
vides a precise description of his part in what was undoubtedly the most im-
portant aspect of the Council’s entire enterprise. He says that he worked on
­Lumen ­gentium, especially the first draft of many numbers of Chapter i, and
on numbers 9, 13, 16, and 17 of Chapter ii, as well as on some specific passages.
In De Revelatione, he worked on Chapter ii, and on number 21 which came
from a first draft by him. In De oecumenismo, the preamble and the conclusion

23 Congar, ‘Reflections on being a Theologian’, pp. 405–406.

24 See Fouilloux, ‘Frère Yves, Cardinal Congar, Dominicain: itinéraire d’un théologien’, p. 397.
25 My Journal of the Council, p. 17.
26 Klaus Wittstadt, ‘On the eve of the Second Vatican Council (July 1-October 10, 1962)’, in
History of Vatican ii: Announcing and Preparing Vatican Council ii, ed. Giuseppe Alberigo.
English version ed. Joseph A. Komonchak, 5 vols (Maryknoll: Orbis; Louvain: Peeters,
1995), vol. i, pp. 405–500 at p. 457.

ecclesiology 13 (2017) 32-54 Downloaded from Brill.com11/03/2022 01:34:35PM

via Pazmany Peter Katolikus Egyetem
40 Flynn

are, he says, more or less by him. Likewise, in the Declaration on Non-Christian

Religions, the ­introduction and the conclusion are, he says, more or less his. In
Schema xiii ~ Gaudium et spes, he worked on Chapters i and iv. He wrote all
of Chapter i of De Missionibus, while Joseph Ratzinger contributed to num-
ber 8. In De libertate religiosa, Congar says that he co-operated with the entire
project, and most particularly with the numbers of the theological part, and
on the preamble which was entirely his own. Congar notes that the drafting of
De P­ resbyteris was undertaken by three scholars: Joseph Lécuyer, a professor
at the Lateran University and subsequently head of the Holy Ghost Congrega-
tion; Willy Onclin, a priest of the diocese of Liège and professor of canon law
at the University of Louvain; and, of course, Congar himself. Congar indicates
that he reworked the preamble of De Presbyteris, as well as numbers 2–3, while
also writing the first draft of numbers 4–6, and revising numbers 7–9, 12–14
and the conclusion, of which he compiled the second paragraph.27
My Journal of the Council presents a series of valuable recapitulative chrono-
logical tables indicating, in full, Congar’s substantial role in the elaboration of
conciliar schemata during the preparatory phase, and at the sessions of the
Council.28 The Appendix includes precise details of his participation in o­ fficial
meetings of various commissions and sub-commissions during the prepara-
tory period and at the Council itself, as well as the involvement of Congar and
of other experts in workshops organised by the French bishops during the
­conciliar sessions. Congar’s presence at a certain number of informal meetings
of bishops and of experts, or of experts alone is also outlined. It was Congar’s
love for the Church along with his commitment to its reform, that inspired
his unflagging service at Vatican ii. When treating of this matter in a letter
written in 1985, on the occasion of his eightieth birthday, Congar alludes to
the enormity of the work: I worked on many conciliar commissions. I do not
think that I had more than two days rest in the four conciliar sessions of three
months each. The work was enormous: I was on the theological commission
presided over by Cardinal Ottaviani, where we laboured unceasingly, always in
Latin; the Commission for the Missions, a great grace in my life; the Commis-
sion for the Clergy, for the decree on priests, Presbyterorum ordinis, in which
I was ­responsible for not a few texts. With the Secretariat for Christian Unity
I worked hard on the decree on ecumenism, on the declaration on ­religious
freedom, which demanded a great deal from us, and on the text on non-­
Christian religions. I also had a part in other things, more or less, but in none

27 My Journal of the Council, p. 871.

28 See My Journal of the Council, ‘Chronological Tables Recapitulating Congar’s Participation
in the Composition of the Various Conciliar Schemas’, pp. 919–928.

ecclesiology 13 (2017) 32-54

Downloaded from Brill.com11/03/2022 01:34:35PM
via Pazmany Peter Katolikus Egyetem
Yves Congar at Vatican ii 41

more than in the famous Gaudium et spes (The Church in the Modern World)
which issued simultaneously from the commissions on theology and the laity.
It was an enormous structure, since each commission had thirty members and
at least as many periti.29
December 7 1965 was an historic day in relations between East and West. In
a moving ceremony at St Peter’s Basilica, more than nine hundred years after
the tragic events of the Great Schism, traditionally dated to 1054, the text of
the abolition of the mutual excommunications between Rome and Constan-
tinople was promulgated by Pope Paul vi. The old anathemas were simultane-
ously nullified by the Oecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras (1886–1972). On that
memorable day, when the texts of the Second Vatican Council were promulgat-
ed by the Pope, Congar, fully cognisant of the historic nature of the moment,
makes a poignant entry in his diary, one which denotes his own stupendous
contribution to that Council:

A great many bishops congratulated me, thanked me. To a good extent, it

was my work, they said. It is in large measure my work, they said. Look-
ing at things objectively, I did a great deal to prepare for the Council,
elaborating and diffusing the ideas that the Council consecrated. At the
Council itself, I did a great deal of work. I could almost say: ‘Plus omnibus
laboravi’ [‘I worked harder than any of them’ (cf. I Corinthians 15:10)], but
that would, no doubt, not be true: think of Philips, for example.30

Congar recounts how, at a private audience on 8 June 1964, Pope Paul vi com-
mended him for his service to the Council: ‘The Pope congratulated me and
thanked me for my fidelity and my service, especially in this time of the Council
when things had to be explained in a new way.’31 In his conciliar diary, Congar
records that Paul vi in his first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam alluded to the work
that he and other theologians had done.32 In view of Congar’s capacious work

29 Congar, ‘Letter from Father Yves Congar, O.P.’, p. 215. Also Fifty Years of Catholic Theology:
Conversations with Yves Congar, ed. and introduced Bernard Lauret, trans. John Bowden
(London: scm, 1988), p. 14; et of Entretiens d’automne (2nd edn, Paris: Cerf, 1987), p. 22.
Congar indicates that he also worked on Lumen gentium no. 17 and on the Decree on the
Missionary Activity of the Church no. 7 concerning the interpretation of the Catholic dog-
ma Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. See Avery Dulles, ‘The Essence of Catholicism: Protestant
and Catholic Perspectives’, Thomist, 48 (1984), pp. 607–633 (p. 633).
30 My Journal of the Council, pp. 870–871.
31 My Journal of the Council, p. 556.
32 Congar, ‘Theology in the Council’, American Ecclesiastical Review, 155 (1966), pp. 217–230 at
p. 220. ‘La Theologie [sic] au Concile: Le “théologiser” du concile’, Vérité et Vie, 71 (1965/66),
pp. 1–12 at p. 4. See Paul vi, Ecclesiam Suam: The Paths of the Church, par. 33.

ecclesiology 13 (2017) 32-54 Downloaded from Brill.com11/03/2022 01:34:35PM

via Pazmany Peter Katolikus Egyetem
42 Flynn

at all levels of the Council’s proceedings, the intense interest in and respect for
his contribution, and his unflagging pursuit of an organic co-operation and
unity between the bishops and the theologians, without which the Council
would not have been possible, we can safely say that his pre-eminent service
and fidelity there remained unsurpassed.33 The impartial reader of My Journal
of the Council will not deny the veracity of the claim that Congar’s conception
of his competence and influence as a theologian of the Council was modest
and moderate. A somewhat lugubrious entry in his diary of 12 October 1963
expresses this sentiment precisely: ‘I myself have been too timid, especially
during the preparatory period, but even after that. I content myself with ex-
pressing my opinion, but I do not defend it.’34 When treating of this matter in
a subsequent entry on 7 December 1965, Congar alludes to the role of spiritual-
ity: ‘At the beginning I was too timid. I was coming out of a long period of sus-
picion and difficulties. Even my spirituality had acted on me in the direction
of a certain timidity. In fact, I have lived all my life in the line and the spirit of
John the Baptist, amicus Sponsi [‘friend of the spouse’ see (John 3:29)].’35
At the Council the previously dominant group of conservative Roman
Curia theologians were ultimately obliged to give way to the more progres-
sive r­eforming theologians who were predominantly from the German- and
French-speaking countries.36 Some of these reformers, whose writings had
been subjected to various restrictive measures, were among the periti at the
Council and exercised a great deal of influence on the drafting of conciliar
documents. After the Council, some of these were elevated to the College of
Cardinals. Thus it is possible to observe a certain evolution by which those who
at one point were isolated or even rejected come to exercise great influence on
the course of events.37 In the succeeding sections of this article, I will discuss
how My Journal of the Council contributes to our knowledge of the history of
the Council, its theology, and the process of formulating conciliar documents,

33 See My Journal of the Council, pp. 107–110, 136–141, 219–223, 256–258, 368–370, 547–554,
616–617, 869–873.
34 My Journal of the Council, p. 369.
35 My Journal of the Council, p. 871.
36 See Joseph Comblin, ‘La théologie catholique depuis la fin du pontificat de Pie xii’, in
Bilan de la théologie du xxe Siècle, ed. Robert Vander Gucht and Herbert Vorgrimler (Paris:
Casterman, 1970), vol. i, pp. 479–496 at p. 479.
37 Giacomo Martina, ‘The Historical Context in Which the Idea of a New Ecumenical Coun-
cil Was Born’, in Vatican ii: Assessment and Perspectives Twenty-Five Years After (1962–1987),
ed. René Latourelle, 3 vols (New York: Paulist Press, 1988), vol. i, pp. 3–73 at p. 22.

ecclesiology 13 (2017) 32-54

Downloaded from Brill.com11/03/2022 01:34:35PM
via Pazmany Peter Katolikus Egyetem
Yves Congar at Vatican ii 43

as well as providing fresh insights into the personalities of its most influential
participants.

iv My Journal of the Council and the History of Vatican ii

The diary provides an original, perhaps unique contribution to the knowledge

of the history and proceedings of Vatican ii. It gives particular insights into the
thought and hopes of the popes and bishops, the theologians and observers of
the Council. The diary describes the politics and the spirituality of individuals,
as well as of powerful groupings of bishops and of theologians at the Council.
It goes without saying that the diary supplies a profoundly personal account of
the most important period of Congar’s life, a kind of soliloquy with God, but
also a dialogue with the Church and the modern world. The Council, in effect,
was a catalyst that facilitated a reunion of the Church and the world.
It is important to bear in mind the following points. First, there is nothing
new in the diary regarding Congar’s thought that has not already been seen
in his previously published works. It may be argued, of course, that the diary
sheds light on certain nuanced questions in Congar’s thought, as well as on
­pivotal issues debated at the Council. It would, however, be untrue to say that
the diary is in any way a theological treatise. Second, Congar says he kept a
­diary only on special occasions, notably when he was involved in important
historical events: the first world war, the crisis of 1954, and Vatican ii. Mon jour-
nal du Concile is the last and the most important of Congar’s three principal
­diaries. In the first, Journal de la guerre 1914–1918, one discovers a gifted and
intelligent child, already cognisant of world events. The second diary, Jour-
nal d’un théologien (1946–1956), provides an account of the highly restrictive
­measures taken against Congar and his most influential colleagues by Church
authorities during the difficult period 1946–1956.
There is one further point that can be alluded to briefly. Although Congar
occasionally refers to personal and family affairs in his conciliar diary, such
intimate or spiritual matters are entirely secondary. This point is clearly illus-
trated in an entry on the eve of his mother’s death: ‘I am keeping this little
journal as a witness. I do not mix in the expression of my personal feelings.’38
Or again, on 30 November 1963, he writes: ‘I leave out of this journal everything
touching my family and my mother. I merely note here what concerns the
Council.’39 In writing the diary, therefore, Congar always writes as a theologian

38 My Journal of the Council, p. 455.

39 My Journal of the Council, p. 455.

ecclesiology 13 (2017) 32-54 Downloaded from Brill.com11/03/2022 01:34:35PM

via Pazmany Peter Katolikus Egyetem
44 Flynn

of the ­Council. It will be seen that the diary is not an attempt either to provide
a complete historical record of the events to which he was a witness, still less
to offer a full personal biography. It is worth noting how Congar elucidates this
point. In an entry in March 1964, he writes: ‘I would like, at the end of this note-
book, to express my opinion on one point. I write, in fact, if not for the sake of
history!!! at least so that my testimony will be set down.’40
From the inception of his diary in 1960, when he was nominated a Consul-
tor on the Council’s Preparatory Commission, Congar knew that he was draft-
ing the diary as an historical source pro futuro. A careful writer, therefore, he
meticulously re-read the whole text of the diary before a typed copy was made
for the archives of the Dominican Province of France. Congar wisely i­ ntended
the diary for publication only after the year 2000, a clear indication of his
­respectful concern for all the protagonists of the Second Vatican Council. The
diary was, however, subsequently placed at the disposal of official ­historians
of the C
­ ouncil before that date. Not surprisingly, it is of enormous interest to
ecclesiastical historians since, among the various diaries of Vatican ii, Con-
gar’s provides the most comprehensive day-by-day record of the Council’s
proceedings.41

Congar’s ‘Acid’ Temperament in the Service of the Church at the

Council
Congar’s nephew Dominique Congar, in his Foreword to My Journal of the
Council, candidly describes the petulant personality of his eminent uncle:
‘I have expressed the wish that there should be no excisions or suppressions,
even if some of the things he says are a bit “sharp”. This, after all, is something
which we had grown accustomed to in our uncle over many years!’42 Indeed,
Congar used his rather antipathetic nature to full advantage in the execution
of his objectives at the Council. The diary refers to the malaise which seriously
hampered the Church throughout much of its history, articulated at the Coun-
cil by Émile De Smedt, bishop of Bruges, under three headings: a spirit of tri-
umphalism, clericalism, and juridicism.43 Whatever contributed to the abuse
of power in the Church, whether falsifying the interpretation of history in or-
der to protect the ‘prestige of the Church’,44 or obstructing the work of genuine

40 See My Journal of the Council, p. 508.

41 See Alberto Melloni, ‘Les Journaux Privés dans l’Histoire de Vatican ii’, pp. 7–54.
42 Dominique Congar, ‘Foreword’, in My Journal of the Council, pp. i–iv at p. iv.
43 See My Journal of the Council, p. 226.
44 My Journal of the Council, p. 45.

ecclesiology 13 (2017) 32-54

Downloaded from Brill.com11/03/2022 01:34:35PM
via Pazmany Peter Katolikus Egyetem
Yves Congar at Vatican ii 45

Catholic scholarship,45 Congar insists that all such unethical practices must be
subjected to rigorous scrutiny and ultimate reform.
That Congar considered himself a servant of the Church is clear from the
guiding principle he adopted to govern his work at the Council: ‘I have taken
the following as a rule of practice: not to undertake anything unless asked to
do so by the bishops. IT IS THEY who are the Council. However, if an initiative
bore the mark of a call from God, I would open myself to it’.46 This important
principle demonstrates that the office of teaching is the domain of bishops
rather than of theologians. Congar’s adoption of such a modus operandi does
not mean that he failed to pursue creative initiatives at the Council, or that
he lacked political astuteness. On the contrary, I shall argue that his political
expediency is immediately evident to perceptive readers of the diary. Congar’s
political adroitness may be illustrated by alluding to the following points. First,
and perhaps most important, his close association with the Belgian d­ eputation
and, above all, with Monsignor Gérard Philips who became assistant secretary
to the Doctrinal Commission in December 1963, indicates a shrewd political
acumen. His liaison with the Belgians was, in fact, of paramount importance
for the ultimate success of Congar’s work at Vatican ii. Since his contribution
to the Council lay primarily in the theological domain, co-operation with the
Belgian deputation was essential, because of their theological pre-eminence,
their political dexterity and their militancy in Council debates, factors which
gave them a position of unparalleled dominance at Vatican ii.47 Second,
­Congar’s decision to reside at the Belgian College during the meetings of the
Theological Commission, when that college was the centre of work for that
commission, is further evidence of his political dexterity. It is worth noting that
Congar was unable to reside at the Belgian College during the three conciliar
sessions of the Council because, as he points out, the only available rooms
there were occupied by Belgian bishops. He, nonetheless, maintained a close
liaison with the Belgians throughout the entire period of the Council, and in
particular during the second session, when the Belgian College was once again
the centre of theological work. The Belgians were both efficient and effective
which is why, as Congar observes, the theologians came to them ‘to try to get
this or that matter passed’.48 Finally, Congar’s assiduous commitment to a spir-
it of rapprochement between bishops and theologians at the Council indicates

45 See Congar, Journal d’un théologien (1946–1956), ed. and annotated by Étienne Fouilloux
and others (2nd edn., Paris: Cerf, 2001), pp. 181–190, 194–198, 402–404.
46 My Journal of the Council, p. 141.
47 My Journal of the Council, p. 510.
48 My Journal of the Council, p. 509.

ecclesiology 13 (2017) 32-54 Downloaded from Brill.com11/03/2022 01:34:35PM

via Pazmany Peter Katolikus Egyetem
46 Flynn

a level of political adeptness above many of his contemporaries. Conservative

though he was in doctrine and theology, he focused the Council’s aspirations
for reform. By a combination of courage and wisdom, and with the aid of his
‘Belgian friends’,49 Congar prepared the way, step by step, for the return at the
Council, after centuries of defensive isolationism, of the dynamic of openness
in the Church’s relations with the world. If, along with his obvious political
­astuteness, we bear in mind Congar’s willingness to take risks, his commitment
to truth, and his abiding concern to construct an essentially pastoral ecclesiol-
ogy, we can understand how he came to be regarded in his day as an innovator.
The diary, in fact, reveals the thought and work of a modern, advanced thinker,
who patiently pursued realisable goals at Vatican ii. It is worth noting how, in
the portrayal of his work as a Consultor at the Council, truth is resplendent:
‘After all, I have nothing to lose, and I must do my duty. It is always necessary
to say what one knows or believes to be true. So I shall be frank and try to be
evangelical.’50 Similarly, Congar’s real gift of patience, his innate optimism, and
a remarkable capacity for work, meant that he was ideally suited to the role he
assumed at the Council. As regards his understanding of the part played by the
Belgians, I shall defer, until the end of this piece, my analysis of that subject.
For the present, I want to consider the battle for the Second Vatican Council.

The Battle for the Council

I shall be concerned, first, to indicate how Congar records the events of that
battle in My Journal of the Council, and, second, to consider his part in it. I wish
to show that the battle for the Council was, first and foremost, a battle for a
renewed Church engaged in dialogue with the modern world and, therefore,
free of the old isolationist mentality. The genesis of that battle lies, in fact, at
the heart of the aggiornamento itself. According to Congar, the origin of the
conflict is to be found precisely with Pope John xxiii. In my opinion, this is a
point of considerable importance. But I do not think that it would disturb Pope
John. It can hardly be denied that, following the announcement of the Council,
the Pope wished to avoid any actions that might contribute to alienating the
Roman Curia. Congar states his contention unambiguously as follows:

The Council is also bearing the weight of the original sin commit-
ted by John xxiii in conceiving the Commissions of the Council as
­corresponding to the Roman Congregations. Not only did he appoint
the Presidents of these congregations as Presidents of the Commissions

49 My Journal of the Council, p. 492.

50 My Journal of the Council, p. 17.

ecclesiology 13 (2017) 32-54

Downloaded from Brill.com11/03/2022 01:34:35PM
via Pazmany Peter Katolikus Egyetem
Yves Congar at Vatican ii 47

(first the P
­ reparatory ones, then the Conciliar ones), but he conceived
the Commissions of the Council after the pattern of the Congregations,
like permanent offices dealing with one section of things. […] This origi-
nal sin continues to weigh things down. The Pope has not been able to
remedy it. He has not solved the real question posed by the presidency
of a [Paolo] Marella (who has gone ahead without calling a meeting of
his Commission), of a [Giuseppe] Pizzardo (imbecile), of an [Alfredo]
Ottaviani (partisan and too cunning without at the same time being at
all skilled).51

As Congar indicates, these were problems to which no easy or quick solutions

could be found. It is true to say, I think, that Congar’s ecclesiology and that
of Popes John xxiii and Paul vi, though founded on the same ‘spirit of com-
munion’, nonetheless manifested significant differences of emphasis. In other
words, I suggest that Congar was, par excellence, the man of ideas, the h­ arbinger
of reform, while the Popes of the Vatican Council were more practical, pasto-
ral, and administrative. Supporters of the aggiornamento, John xxiii and Paul
vi were concerned, above all, to shepherd the Church without detriment to
its peace and unity. In the diary, Congar repeats the assertion that John xxiii
read Vraie et fausse réforme dans l’Église in 1952.52 If it is true that Pope John
discovered there the intuition for a council of the Church, along with a vision
for ecumenism, it must equally be asserted that it was the Pope’s own ­intuitive
propensity for praxis which ensured their realisation in reality. I agree, there-
fore, with the assessment of Henri Daniel-Rops that ‘Vatican ii will truly be
the council of John xxiii. […] A man of realistic leaning, more disposed to the
making of practical decisions than given to abstract speculation’.53
The Council’s structure and personnel did eventually undergo significant
changes. The critical factor, as history commonly demonstrates, is not that
change occurs but how it occurs. This point can be made clearer by consider-
ing Congar’s assessment of the contribution of one of the Council’s youngest
theologians. I refer to the Swiss Hans Küng. That Congar respected Küng is not
in question. He met with him. He held discussions with him. He acknowledges
his obvious intelligence, his commitment to truth, and his work ethic.54 And
he even attempted, though unsuccessfully, to exert a moderating i­ nfluence on

51 My Journal of the Council, pp. 464–465.

52 My Journal of the Council, pp. 816–817.
53 Daniel-Rops, The Second Vatican Council, p. 155.
54 My Journal of the Council, p. 733.

ecclesiology 13 (2017) 32-54 Downloaded from Brill.com11/03/2022 01:34:35PM

via Pazmany Peter Katolikus Egyetem
48 Flynn

some of Küng’s more radical proposals at the Council.55 It should be point-

ed out, of course, that Congar refers to what he clearly regards as certain less
felicitous features of Küng’s personality. He expressly says that Küng was
‘­extremely critical’,56 ‘impatient’,57 ‘always very radical’,58 and, even goes so far
as to d­ escribe him as ‘like a revolutionary’.59 In the diary Congar records two
important events which I want to discuss briefly because of what they contrib-
ute to our knowledge of Küng, of Paul vi, of Congar, and of the latter’s part in
the battle for a renewed Church at the Council.
The first happening of note concerns Congar’s response to Küng’s plan to
hold a meeting of theologians in Rome to discuss the four dogmatic schemata,
which Küng and his colleagues at the University of Tübingen viewed as en-
tirely unsatisfactory. Küng, together with many German theologians, wanted
the Council to begin with more practical schemas. Congar, characteristically
enough, held tenaciously to the view that the theologians should address
themselves only to the bishops. He formally advised Küng against his proposed
course of action, and declined to participate on the grounds that if the inte-
gralist theologians (intégristes) were not also invited,60 the impression would
be given, firstly, that the theologians wished to dictate to the true Council of
the bishops and, secondly, that a majority plot was being weaved, with the
­inevitable difficulty of a reaction.61 In a revealing response to Congar given in
September 1962, Küng, having consulted with Karl Rahner, indicates that in the
latter he had found a more willing collaborator.62 Then, in an entry in Febru-
ary 1965, the diary provides an enlightening insight into some of the Council’s
most powerful protagonists, and how they regarded each other. In a second
scene, relevant to our discussion, we are given a view of the angst of Pope Paul
vi. In response to an unfavourable review of the Council by Küng, and a call by
him for a reform of the Curia, Congar presents the comments of Paul vi based
on a résumé of Cardinal Jan Willebrands of Utrecht:

55 My Journal of the Council, pp. 81–82.

56 My Journal of the Council, p. 369.
57 My Journal of the Council, p. 369.
58 My Journal of the Council, p. 861.
59 My Journal of the Council, p. 369.
60 See Congar, ‘Mentalite [sic] “de droite” et Integrisme [sic]’, La Vie Intellectuelle, 6 (1950),
pp. 644–666. Congar, ‘Comment l’Église Sainte doit se renouveler sans cesse’, Irénikon,
34 (1961), pp. 322–345 (p. 345). Congar was concerned to protect the irreformable ele-
ments in the Church from hasty or violent reformers as well as from the false purity of the
integralists.
61 My Journal of the Council, pp. 81–82.
62 My Journal of the Council, p. 82, note 2.

ecclesiology 13 (2017) 32-54

Downloaded from Brill.com11/03/2022 01:34:35PM
via Pazmany Peter Katolikus Egyetem
Yves Congar at Vatican ii 49

The Pope is somewhat hurt and disappointed. He said: Küng is young.

I was hoping he could be a theological leader for the future. But he is
without love. He will not be able to be that. I find this remark profound.
Küng is critical. He loves the truth, but has he any mercy for human
­beings? Has he the warmth and the measure of love?63

This expression of concern for Küng is also a trenchant critique of him. But it
points to a more serious problem for Congar and for the Council. In attempting
to steer a via media, between, on the one hand, the Curia and certain extreme
right-wing elements at the Council and, on the other, the more radical theolo-
gians, including Küng and Rahner, Congar was forced to engage in a relentless
battle.
Inevitably, he was on the front lines of that battle. Unlike his Belgian coun-
terparts at the Council, who surprisingly had escaped the tendentious tongs
of the Roman censors, Congar says that it was impossible for him to avoid the
finger of suspicion. This is his point:

The Belgians DARE. They have not been scolded. They do not feel they
are under surveillance, as we do. I am convinced that this plays a great
part. Personally, I have never, I have still not, escaped from the appre-
hensions of one who is under suspicion, punished, judged, discriminated
against.64

Now, in a comment about the atmosphere in the dining hall at the Belgian Col-
lege, Congar provides a perceptive insight into the lines of battle at the Council:

At the Belgian College, the meal would be spent discussing the small de-
tails of the day in a manner resolutely distrustful and hostile toward the
anti-collegial party and toward the personnel of the Curia in general.65

Congar and his ‘Belgian friends’ were, in fact, a formidable force in the battle
for the Second Vatican Council. I shall return to this subject later. For the pres-
ent I want to show how Congar regarded some of his principal opponents at
the Council.
Among his most formidable adversaries were: Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani,
President of the Preparatory Theological Commission and, during the C ­ ouncil,

63 My Journal of the Council, p. 733.

64 My Journal of the Council, p. 510.
65 My Journal of the Council, p. 617.

ecclesiology 13 (2017) 32-54 Downloaded from Brill.com11/03/2022 01:34:35PM

via Pazmany Peter Katolikus Egyetem
50 Flynn

of the Doctrinal Commission; Sebastian Tromp, Secretary to the Doctrinal

Commission; and Monsignor Pietro Parente who was named a member of
the Doctrinal Commission at the end of the first session of the Council. Con-
gar criticises Tromp for his ‘fascist temperament’,66 but not without recog-
nising his considerable intellectual abilities, both of which, Congar says, he
used to dominate the Commission. In July 1960, Parente, who was associated
with the condemnation of Chenu, is referred to by Congar as ‘the fascist, the
Monophysite’.67 But it is for Cardinal Giuseppe Pizzardo, Prefect of the Congre-
gation for Seminaries and Universities, that he reserves his most vitriolic criti-
cism. He was condemned for the abuse of the power of office, and described
in disparaging terms as ‘an idiot’ and one ‘known to be such by all.’68 In this
context, Congar enunciates a clear caveat as follows: ‘The French bishops, who
have divine right on their side, ought to take no notice of steps of this sort.
Truth and theology do not belong to Pizzardo or to a Roman Congregation of
Seminaries and Universities.’69 At a candid meeting with Cardinal Ottaviani
on 30 November 1962, Congar says that the Cardinal seemed surprised that
the Preparatory Commission had not invited him to assist, in any way, in the
preparation of texts. Given Congar’s brilliance and exceptional capabilities,
this was hardly an auspicious moment in the history Vatican ii.
I think that the reader will find that Congar’s assessment of his adversar-
ies, and indeed of others at the Council, was harsh, even excessive. In this re-
gard, two points should be noted. First, Congar never lost the combative side
of his nature that he acquired during his youth in his native Ardennes, a ­border
region in Northern France, whose Spartan-like inhabitants had long since
­become accustomed to the harshness of war, and where the lines of demarca-
tion between frankness and brutality remain ever obscure. Second, there was
a clear evolution in his views of many of his ‘opponents’. For example, in the
course of the Council, Congar came to appreciate better the theological skills
of Parente, and they could converse together as ‘two more or less equal par-
ties’.70 He even wrote an essay in his honour in 1967. Ottaviani is also seen in
a more favourable light. In the old Cardinal’s willingness to adjust to the new
situation after the Council, Congar sees ‘a certain nobility of the old faithful
servant’. As a conclusion to this discussion, I want to point out that Congar’s
constant but hidden opponent at Vatican ii was fatigue. His diary is full of

66 My Journal of the Council, p. 56.

67 My Journal of the Council, p. 6.
68 My Journal of the Council, p. 42.
69 My Journal of the Council, p. 42.
70 My Journal of the Council, p. 275.

ecclesiology 13 (2017) 32-54

Downloaded from Brill.com11/03/2022 01:34:35PM
via Pazmany Peter Katolikus Egyetem
Yves Congar at Vatican ii 51

references to serious health problems which, though they impeded him, they
never halted his ­progress towards the achievement of his ultimate goal.
What is perhaps most striking, given the multifarious tensions between the
Popes and the theologians, among the theologians themselves, and between
its various organs, is that the Council succeeded, and succeeded magnificently.
Perhaps the victory was won because, as Paul vi notes, charity was ‘as the soul
of the Council’.71 I wish to conclude this section on a positive note by allud-
ing to Congar’s assessment of the Council given on 12 October 1963, an assess-
ment which indicates his obvious political mastery and a broad liberality in his
­vision of the Church:

We have to see WHERE we have come from, the road already travelled. In
a year, Philips has taken Tromp’s place, [Bernard] Häring and [Johann]
Hirschmann that of [Ermenegildo] Lio, [Basil C.] Butler for [Charles]
Balić, etc. etc. Everywhere, the Ecclesia is in the process of putting the
Curia back in its place. So one should see what had been possible and
what is possible. The Catholic Church includes also Ottaviani and Par-
ente, Tromp and the Archbishop of Benevento [Reggio Calabria]. Küng
does not take into consideration anything other than the exigency of the
facts, of the texts, of what they impose as questions and as conclusions.
He said: ‘Ottaviani is in no way a theologian, he knows nothing of the
problems presented by the texts and present-day studies, he ought to be
replaced.’72

Mention has already been made of the contribution of the Belgian deputation
at Vatican ii. And it will, I hope, become clear in the course of the next section
of this article how and why they played an indispensable role, which permits
one to speak of the Vatican Council as ‘the first Council of Louvain’.

The Role of the Belgian Theologians at Vatican ii: ‘Primum

Concilium Lovaniense, Romae habitum’
The Belgian deputation was small, five or six members in all. Included were
Philips, Albert Prignon, Rector of the Belgian College, André Charue, Bishop
of Namur, Onclin, Charles Moeller and Gustave Thils, professors at Louvain,
and, of course, the indomitable Léon-Joseph Suenens, Archbishop of Malines-­
Brussels. The Belgians’ strategy was as simple as it was effective. They would
meet in advance, decide on a course of action, and then work together to win

71 My Journal of the Council, p. 775.

72 My Journal of the Council, p. 369.

ecclesiology 13 (2017) 32-54 Downloaded from Brill.com11/03/2022 01:34:35PM

via Pazmany Peter Katolikus Egyetem
52 Flynn

support for it, by effectively neutralising objectors. Their influence pervaded

the whole Council. As Congar rightly observes: ‘The Belgians are not ­numerous:
five or six of them, but they are EVERYWHERE.’73 They came to occupy impor-
tant positions on the Theological Commission, and exercised a commanding
role in the Biblical Sub-Commission, where they effectively dominated every-
thing. Since this Sub-Commission controlled biblical citations, it also exercised
a last control on the texts, with the power to modify, and even to re-introduce
something. As Congar comments, ‘In any case, there is a monitoring of all the
work. Sometimes this monitoring is not even done in Rome, but in Louvain. It
is a final means by which the Belgians, closely linked in solidarity, influence the
content of the texts.’74
The Belgian delegation at the Council was marked by important distinguish-
ing features which must be alluded to here. First, it consisted, for the most
part, of secular priests rather than religious, a factor that contributed to the
excellent working relationship between the Belgian periti and their bishops.
Second, the Belgian bishops, in contrast with their French counterparts, by
working with their experts ex aequo, ensured an effective contribution to the
Council’s proceedings. Third, the Belgian periti, who were largely graduates of
the University of Louvain, gave that university a major influence on the course
of the Council – a fact that is clearly expressed by Congar, though not without
a little acidity:

They all come from Louvain or take their bearings from there. They
know one another, often having been students together, and they are on
­familiar terms with one another. They cohere and have the same points
of reference. THEY TRUST THE COMPETENCE OF THEIR OWN; what
comes from Louvain is sacred. That goes even so far as Magister dixit [The
Master said]. […] As soon as one of their own, and especially someone
from Louvain, has said something, everyone takes it seriously and makes
it a point of reference. What [Lucien] Cerfaux has said is a bit above the
word of the Gospel …75

73 My Journal of the Council, p. 508. See Albert Prignon, ‘Évêques et Théologiens de Belgique
au Concile Vatican ii’, in Vatican ii et la Belgique, ed. Claude Soetens (Ottignies, Belgium:
Quorum, 1996), pp. 141–184.
74 My Journal of the Council, p. 510.
75 My Journal of the Council, p. 508. Lucien Cerfaux, a priest of the diocese of Tournai and
Professor of New Testament at the University of Louvain, was nominated as an expert at
the Council in 1962.

ecclesiology 13 (2017) 32-54

Downloaded from Brill.com11/03/2022 01:34:35PM
via Pazmany Peter Katolikus Egyetem
Yves Congar at Vatican ii 53

Congar notes that Louvain was the only university outside of Rome to exercise
an effective influence on the movement of the Council, a fact which stands
in sharp contrast with the French Catholic Institutes which, he says, con-
tributed ‘practically nothing’. Fourth, the Belgian contingent, without being
­homogeneous, worked harmoniously and loyally together. The last point that
I wish to make concerns the pre-eminent position of Philips. His contribution
to the Council is best described by Congar who writes, ‘Without any doubt,
Mgr ­Philips is the architect No.1 of the theological work of the Council.’76 In
Congar’s view, Philips succeeded because of his intellectual gifts, his serene
character, his linguistic skills, as well as his unsurpassed diplomatic skills and
an exceptional work ethic. But it was his lack of guile that won him the admira-
tion and respect of all, including Ottaviani and Tromp.77 Our historical assess-
ment of Congar’s conciliar diary can perhaps be fittingly brought to a close by
reference to the on-going reception of the Council.

v The On-going Reception of Vatican ii

I have attempted, within the rather limited confines of this essay, to present
what may be considered the most important aspects of the history and the-
ology of the Council, as they unfold in My Journal of the Council. The diary
shows that that Vatican ii is not merely a subject of historical analysis is also
grounded in the lived experience of the Church and of the modern world. Fur-
ther, what is called for today is a new reception of the Council at all levels of
the Church so as to be able to respond to the challenge of a contemporary
reform of the Church. There is one further point that can be alluded to briefly.
In the post-conciliar period, some of the leading ressourcement thinkers ex-
pressed concerns about the aggiornamento in unambiguous terms. It is well
known that de Lubac was critical of the post-conciliar Church. He believed
that the crisis at the heart of the Church after the Council was a reflection of
the crisis at the heart of western society originating from a refusal to acknowl-
edge the transcendent, a kind of modern Gnosticism that he referred to as
‘a global repugnance to admitting the idea of a divine revelation’. This refusal
to believe resulted inevitably in a spiritual decline and a corresponding growth
in secularization. De Lubac was nonetheless critical of the fundamental

76 My Journal of the Council, p. 510.

77 My Journal of the Council, p. 509.

ecclesiology 13 (2017) 32-54 Downloaded from Brill.com11/03/2022 01:34:35PM

via Pazmany Peter Katolikus Egyetem
54 Flynn

misinterpretation of the Council.78 In 1967, Congar described his own response

as follows: ‘Where are we to go from here? Where shall we be in twenty years?
I, too, feel almost every day a temptation of uneasiness (inquiétude) in the
face of all that has changed or is being called into question.’79 Furthermore,
de L­ ubac made no secret of his concerns.80 In 2005, at the commencement of
his papal ministry, Pope Benedict xvi, following Pope John Paul ii, confirmed
his ‘determination to continue to put the Second Vatican Council into practice’
as the ‘“compass” by which to take our bearings in the vast ocean of the third
millennium’.81 In 2010, Benedict alluded to the unresolved tensions concerning
the Council’s reception, a kind of antinomy, which led him to call into question
both the interpretation and the implementation of that Council’s programme
of renewal.82 The pontificate of Pope Francis, often heralded as one of radical
reform, continues to unfold and is not uncontroversial.83 Congar’s Vatican ii
diary provides a way forward for the present Pope and a sure path in the face of
intrigue and opposition. The diary should be read by all who are committed to
the evangelical mission of the Church, its reform and prospering, and not only
by theologians and historians.

78 See Christopher J. Walsh, ‘De Lubac’s critique of the postconciliar Church’, Communio, 19,
(1992), pp. 404–432.
79 Congar, ‘Theology’s Tasks after Vatican ii’, in Laurence K. Shook, (ed.), Renewal of ­Religious
Thought, 2 vols (New York: Herder and Herder, 1968), vol. i, pp. 47–65 at p. 50; et of ‘Les
tâches de la théologie après Vatican ii’, in L.K. Shook and Guy-M. Bertrand (eds), La Théol-
ogie du renouveau, 2 vols, Cogitatio Fidei, 27 (Montreal: Fides; Paris: Cerf, 1968), vol. ii,
pp. 17–31 at p. 19.
80 De Lubac, At the Service of the Church, pp. 158–159; et of Mémoire, pp. 162–163.
81 Benedict xvi, ‘First Message of His Holiness Benedict xvi at the end of the Eucharis-
tic Concelebration with the Members of the College of Cardinals in the Sistine Chapel’,
20 April 2005, available at <http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/
pont-messages/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20050420_missa-pro-ecclesia_en
.html>.
82 See, Benedict xvi, ‘Pastoral Letter of the Holy Father Pope Benedict xvi to the C ­ atholics
of Ireland’, 19 March 2010, par. 4, available at <http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/
benedict_xvi/letters/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20100319_church-ireland_en.html>.
83 See Paul Vallely, Pope Francis: Untying the Knots (London: Bloomsbury, 2013).

ecclesiology 13 (2017) 32-54

Downloaded from Brill.com11/03/2022 01:34:35PM
via Pazmany Peter Katolikus Egyetem