No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
“Do not Stifle the Spirit”: The Vision of Yves Congar for Charismatic Ecclesiology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2024
Abstract
The commemoration of the half-centenary of the Second Vatican Council has garnered enormous interest in the protagonists, circumstances and, interpretations that evolved in the period leading up to and following the council. Beyond the dialectics of hermeneutics of (dis)continuity of the council which has gained currency in recent post-conciliar discourse, however, attention has equally been drawn to the grand leitmotif that birthed the Council, namely, the clichéd aggiornamento and the pentecostal renewal envisioned by Blessed Pope John XXIII. Despite its determining importance, Cardinal Walter Kasper opines that the Church is still certainly a long way from being able to speak of a new Pentecost. One of the architects of such ecclesial reforms and pneumatological renewal in the Council was the erudite French ecclesiologist and ecumenist Yves Marie Congar (1904–1995). This article seeks to demonstrate that Congar was not only a celebrated pneumatologist but also a visionary of charismatic ecclesiology, deemed as a resourceful tool for re-evangelization.
- Type
- Original Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2013 The Author. New Blackfriars
References
1 Some scholars assert that the category of (dis)continuity is a misleading one as it is hindered by a descriptive nature of the categories. To overcome such descriptions an ‘ontology of meaning’ approach is suggested to deal with a proper explanation of the hermeneutics of the council, see Dadosky, John D., “Towards a Fundamental Theological Re-Interpretation of Vatican II,” Heythrop Journal 49, no. 5 (2008): 742–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ormerod, Neil, “Vatican II–Continuity or Discontinuity? Toward an Ontology of Meaning,” Theological Studies 71, no. 3 (2010): 609–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 See, for instance, Hughson, Thomas, “Interpreting Vatican II: “A New Pentecost.”,” Theological Studies 69, no. 1 (2008): 3–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 Komonchak, Joseph, “A Hero of Vatican II: Yves Congar,” Commonweal 122, no. 21 (1995): 15–17Google Scholar.
4 Congar is really regarded as a man of tradition, cf. Robinson, Jonathan, “Congar on Tradition,” in Yves Congar: Theologian of the Church, ed. Flynn, Gabriel, Theological, Louvain and Monographs, Pastoral (Louvain: Peeters Press, 2005), 329–355Google Scholar.
5 Flynn, Gabriel, “Yves Congar and Catholic Reform: A Renewal of the Spirit,” in Yves Congar: Theologian of the Church, ed. Flynn, Gabriel, Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monographs 32 (Louvain: Peeters Press, 2005), 99–133Google Scholar; Mullins, Patrick, “The Spirit Speaks to the Churches: Continuity and Development in Congar's Theology,” Louvain Studies 29, no. 3–4 (2004): 288CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 Famérée, Joseph, “L'ecclésiologie du Père Yves Congar: Essai de synthèse critique,” Revue des sciences philosophiques et theologiques 76, no. (1992): 417Google Scholar.
7 Congar, Yves, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, trans., Smith, David, 3 vols. (New York: Crossroad, 1983.Google Scholar French original: Je crois en l'Esprit Saint, 3 vols. Paris: Cerf, 1979–1980). The titles are set out as follows: Vol 1. The Holy Spirit in the ‘Economy’: Revelation and Experience of the Spirit. Vol 2. He is Lord and Giver of Life. Vol 3. The River of the Water of Life (Rev 22:1) Flows in the East and in the West. Throughout this article, I shall cite only the main title with the respective volume.
8 Cunningham, Lawrence, “Book Review of Yves Congar's I Believe in the Holy Spirit,” Commonweal 125, no. 11 (1998): 27Google Scholar. Actually, Congar writes at the very beginning of the General Introduction that “[t]he present ‘Renewal’ movement, all too frequently known as ‘charismatic renewal’, will have a place in it, but it is not the source of my wish to embark on the work, which in fact preceded it. It simply gives to our undertaking a contemporary interest and even an urgency with which I am favourably disposed to comply.” See Congar, vii.
9 Elizabeth Dreyer captures this pneumatological renewal in three main areas, namely, in “individual Christians who hunger for a deeper connection with God that is inclusive of all of life as well as the needs of the world; the church that seeks to renew itself through life-giving disciplines and a return to sources; and the formal inquiry of academic philosophy and theology.” See,Dreyer, Elizabeth, “An Advent of the Spirit: Medieval Mystics and Saints,” in Advents of the Spirit: An Introduction to the Current Study of Pneumatology ed. Hinze, Bradford and Dabney, D.Lyle (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University 2001), 123Google Scholar.
10 Jenkins, Philip, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity, Revised and Expanded ed. (Oxford: University Press, 2007)Google Scholar.
11 Fischer, Moritz, “‘The Spirit Helps Us in Our Weakness’: Charismatization of Worldwide Christianity and the Quest for an Appropriate Pneumatology with Focus on the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 20, no. 1 (2011): 95–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 For biblical, philosophical and theological arguments in this endeavor, see the now almost classical interpretation offered by the Belgian fundamental theologian, Boeve, Lieven, Interrupting Tradition: An Essay on Christian Faith in a Postmodern Context (Louvain: Peeters Press, 2004), 21–35Google Scholar.
13 Hodgson, Peter C., Ecclesial Freedom in the New Paradigm (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1988), 11–12Google Scholar.
14 Charismatic renewal here should not be confused with the Catholic charismatic Movement. The former carries a bigger perspective than the latter, even though the latter equally strives to champion the cause of the former.
15 The term was coined by the German social psychologist Kurt Lewin and refers to a type of conflict which shows a person's paradoxical disposition of favor for something (approach) while at the same time harboring unhealthy suspicion for what is at stake (hence avoidance). See K., Lewin A Dynamic Theory of Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1935Google Scholar.
16 Congar bemoans this unfortunate perception in one of his experiences during the Council. He recalled that during the proceedings of Council, one acclaimed theologian said to one of the periti “You speak of the Holy Spirit, but that is for the Protestants. We have the teaching authority.” See Congar, Yves, “Pneumatology Today,” American Ecclesiastical Review 167, no. (1979): 436Google Scholar.
17 This informs my choice of the title of this article, which is inspired not only by the Pauline dictum (1 Thess 5 : 19, 21), but also by Congar's usage of it as caption for the third part of his tome I Believe which specifically deals with charismatic renewal in the church
18 Rahner, Karl, “Do Not Stifle the Spirit,” in Theological Investigations(London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1974), 80Google Scholar.
19 Pope Benedict has issued the Post-Synodal Exhortation “Africae Munus”
20 Haughey, John, “Charisms: An Ecclesiological Exploration,” in Retrieving Charisms for the Twenty-First Century, ed. Donnelley, Doris (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1999), 6Google Scholar.
21 See Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti, An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical and Global Perspectives (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 72Google Scholar. Here, Kärkkäinen borrows the argument of Paul Lee, a Catholic and an informed analyst of the Third Quinquennium Report (1985–1989) of the Roman Catholic and Pentecostal Dialogue who argues that Pentecostalism is so much a ‘movement’ and preoccupied with the ‘imminency’ of the kingdom and hence ecclesiological deliberations are secondary in their theology. In contemporary times, there are growing attempts to justify the place of Pentecostal ecclesiology in the broad spectrum of the Church, See Yong, Amos, The Spirit Poured out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 10–21Google Scholar.
22 Congar, I Believe, 2:152.
23 See Bittlinger, Arnold, ed. The Church Is Charismatic (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1981)Google Scholar.
24 See Vondey, Wolfgang, Beyond Pentecostalism: The Crisis of Global Christianity and the Renewal of the Theological Agenda (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2010), 2Google Scholar.
25 The term was defined by Jean-Francois Lyotard as “incredulity to meta-narratives.” See Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Post Modern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Manchester: Manchester University Press: 1984), xxiv-xxv. Lieven Boeve states, commenting on Lyotard's work, “with the collapse of these master narratives, however, it becomes clear that there had been attempts to direct and guide the processes of modernization…. In this sense, ‘postmodernity’ might also be characterized as ‘radicalized modernity’: the era in which functional differentiation, or viewed more broadly, the pluralisation of the world, can no longer be kept together under one single perspective.”Boeve, 51.
26 Against the aftermath of postmodern sensibilities, Gerard Mannion observes that, “Christianity longer forms a dominant part of a modern master narrative – but more positively, it is no longer in any sense obliged to feel the need to follow the modern form of logic.” Mannion, Gerald, Ecclesiology and Postmodernity: Questions for the Church in Our Time (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007), 5 no.5Google Scholar. Here also see Ward, Graham, The Blackwell Companion to Postmodern Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), xiv.Google Scholar
27 The Congarian specialist Joseph Famerée observes that these periods cannot be overlooked if one wants to understand the ecclesiology of Congar. He writes: «Pour bien situer le Congar d'après Vatican II, il faut cependant au préalable étudier avec précision son œuvre pré-conciliaire » see Joseph Famerée, L'ecclésiologie D'yves Congar Avant Vatican II: Histoire et Église. Analyse Et Reprise Critique (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 25.
28 Congar, I Believe, 1:vii.
29 Ibid., 1: 156. Elsewhere, Congar wrote: « On doit entendre par là [pneumatologie] un renouveau de conscience du rôle de l'Esprit, non seulement dans l'existence de chrétiens, mais dans l'ecclésiologie, dans la conception que nous nous faisons de l'Eglise et de sa vie. En effet, les exposés de théologie trinitaire ne manquent pas, ni non plus ceux qui touchent le rôle de l'Esprit dans l'âme des fidèles, mais nous somme plus indigents s'il s'agit de l'Esprit à l'égard des sacrements et de son impact sur la façon dont l'Église se construit et se réalise. » see Congar, Yves, Un Peuple Messanique. L'église, Sacrement Du Salut. Salut Et Libération (Paris: Cerf, 1975), 86Google Scholar.
30 Congar, I Believe, 1:172. Emphasis mine.
31 Cf Dulles, Avery, “Preface,” in Yves Congar: Theologian of the Church, ed. Flynn, Gabriel(Leuven: Peeters Press, 2005), 29Google Scholar.
32 In view of this close relationship Mcbrien thinks that Congar's could as well be entitled I believe in the Church. See McBrien, Richard, “I Believe in the Holy Spirit: The Role of Pneumatology in Yves Congar's Theology,” in Yves Congar: Theologian of the Church, ed. Flynn, Gabriel, Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monographs (Louvain: Peeters Press, 2005), 327Google Scholar.
33 Cited in Congar, I Believe, 1:68. He also notes that Augustine always linked the Church and the Holy Spirit, likewise did Albert the Great. The latter writes: “I believe in the Holy Spirit …I believe in him also as far as his work is concerned, which is to make the Church holy. He communicates that holiness in the sacraments, the virtues and the gifts that he distributes in order to bring holiness about, and finally in the miracles and the graces of a charismatic type (et donis gratis datis), see ibid, 5–6.
34 Ibid., 2: 209.
35 See ibid. Here Congar quotes Dom Clément Lialine in rejecting “ecclesiolatry” or ecclesiocentrism whereby the Church is given absolute and supreme value to the detriment of God, the Word, God's initiative and the gospel.
36 Famerée, L'eccléssiolgie D'yves Congar, 437. See also Mullins: 288, 303.
37 Elizabeth Teresa Groppe, Yves Congar's Theology of the Holy Spirit (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 101. See also Elizabeth Teresa Groppe, “The Contribution of Yves Congar's Theology of the Holy Spirit,” Theological Studies 62, no. 1 (2001): 451–478. This observation notwithstanding, other Congarian scholars point to different ecclesiological nerve centers in the ecclesiological writings of Congar. For instance, Timothy MacDonald interprets the leitmotif for Congar's ecclesiology as structure and life, see Timothy MacDonald, The Ecclesiology of Yves Congar: Foundational Themes (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984). On his part, Douglas Koskela argues that the attempt to find the tensions between the divine and human dimensions of the Church was central to the ecclesiology of Congar, see Koskela, Douglas, “The Divine-Human Tension in the Ecclesiology of Yves Congar,” Ecclesiology 4, no. 1 (2007): 88–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cornelis van Vliet on the other hand argues that even though the term Communio sacramentalis is not used by Congar, it provides a synthesis for the different conceptions of the Church discussed by him (Congar). See Vliet, Cornelis Van, Communio Sacramentalis: Das Kirchenverständis Von Yves Congar-Genetisch Und Systematisch Betrachtet (Mainz: Mathias-Grünewald, 1995)Google Scholar.
38 See Congar, I Believe, 2:5–14.
39 On the general retractions of Yves Congar, see Chéno, Rémi, “Les Retractiones D'Yves Congar Sur Le Rôle De L'Esprit Saint Dans Les Institutions Ecclésiales,” Revues des sciences philosophique et théologique 91, no. 2 (2007): 265–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
40 See Congar, Yves, The Word and the Spirit, trans., Smith, David (London: Chapman, 1986Google Scholar. French original: La parole et la souffle. Paris: Desclée, 1984), 61Google Scholar. Here Congar admits that “it is a mistake to think as I did in 1953 that a kind of ‘free sector’ reserved for the Holy Spirit exist alongside the operation of the instituted structures and means of grace.”
41 Ibid., 83. On the role of the Spirit as co-institutor of the Church, see especially James Patrick Quinn, “The Two Hands of the Father: The Role of the Holy Spirit Along with Christ as the Co-Institutor of the Church in the Writings of Yves Congar” (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1997).
42 Congar, Yves, “Pneumatologie Dogmatique,” in Initiation À La Pratique De La Théologie, ed. Lauret, Bernard and Refoulé, Francois(Paris: Cerf, 1982), 496Google Scholar.
43 Congar, I Believe, 9.
44 Congar, Yves, “Pneumatology Today,” American Ecclesiastical Review 167, no. (1973): 442Google Scholar.
45 Congar, Word and Spirit, 61.
46 Groppe, Congar's Theology, 102.
47 Congar, Yves, “Renewed Actuality of the Holy Spirit,” Lumen Vitae 28, no. (1973): 441–442Google Scholar.emphasis original.
48 Congar, Word and Spirit, 80.
49 Congar, I Believe, 3:271.
50 Ibid.
51 Ibid., 3:271.
52 Ibid.
53 Ibid.
54 Ibid., 3: 270.
55 Ibid.
56 Marc Steen, , “De Kerk Als Sacrament Van De Geest. Enkele Reflectie,” in Volk Van God En Gemeenshap Van De Gelovigen. Pleidooien Voor Een Zorgzame Kerkopbouw, ed. Merrigan, T. and Mey, P. De Haers, J.(Averbode: Altiora, 1999)Google Scholar.
57 Congar, I Believe, 2:57.
58 Ibid.
59 This observation is made by Afanasiev. See Afanasiev, Nicholas, The Church of the Holy Spirit, trans., Permiakov, Vitaly (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 2007), 133CrossRefGoogle Scholar. That such is the case is evidenced by Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini when he addressed the Second Vatican Council in 1963 to the effect that the gift of tongues have ceased and were only helpful at the beginning of the Church, see Congar, I Believe, 173.
60 Afanasiev, 134.
61 Haughey, 235.
62 Sullivan, Francis, Charisms and Charismatic Renewal: A Biblical and Theological Study (Oregon: Wipf & Stock 2004), 13Google Scholar.
63 Congar, I Believe, 2: 26; Congar, Word and Spirit, 80–81.
64 Congar, “Pneumatology Today,” 443.
65 Ibid.
66 Groppe, Congar's Theology, 105.
67 Congar, I Believe, 2: 128.
68 Congar actually borrows the term Ordnungsprinzip from Gotthold Hasenhüttl, a disciple of Hans Küng, as he calls him. He however notes that such a theology must be placed in the proper context of the Sacrament of Orders and given Christological balance. See Congar, Word and Spirit, 78–84. See also Hasenhüttl, Gotthold, Charisma: Ordnungsprinzip Der Kirche (Freiburg: Herder, 1969)Google Scholar.
69 Congar, Word and Spirit, 80.
70 Rahner, 88–89.
71 Congar, I Believe, 181. Hard on the heels of this Congar sees that these conditions are not always observed
72 Ibid.
73 For critical explanation of these different modes see Ibid. 182–183.
74 Congar, I Believe, 182.
75 Ibid.
76 Ibid., 183.
77 LG 14, emphasis mine.
78 Congar, Yves, Le Concile De Vatican Ii. Son Église, Peuple De Dieu Et Corps Du Christ (Paris: Beauchesne, 1984), 169Google Scholar. Attempts at overcoming some of these have been outlined recently by Chéno, Rémi, L'esprit-Saint Et L'église: Institutionalité Et Pneumatologie, Vers Une Dépassement Des Antagonismes Ecclesiologiques, Cogitatio Fidei (Paris: Cerf, 2010)Google Scholar.
79 Congar, I Believe, 3:271.
80 In fact, Congar himself does not treat all the sacraments in his pneumatological ecclesiology. He deals specifically with Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist and Order in a special manner and which could be applied to the rest of the sacraments. See Ibid, 217–243.
81 Congar, I Believe, 219.
82 Ibid., 1:20.
83 Ibid., 3:224.
84 Ibid., 3:218.
85 Ibid., 3:219.
86 Ibid., 3:224.
87 See ibid., 3:258–266.
88 See ibid.
89 For a deeper study on the progressive thoughts of Congar on the laity see Lakeland, Paul, The Liberation of the Laity: In Search of an Accountable Church (New York: Continuum, 2004), 49–75Google Scholar; Pellitero, Ramiro, “Congar's Developing Understanding of the Laity and Their Mission,” Thomist 65, no. (2001): 327–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Williams, A.N., “Congar's Theology of the Laity,” in Yves Congar: Theologian of the Church, ed. Flynn, Gabriel, Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monographs 32 (Louvain: Peeters Press, 2005), 135–159Google Scholar. In fact, these authors and most Congarian theologians observe that it was Congar's True and False Reforms and Lay People in the Church that brought him into conflict with the Church authorities, which culminated in his being silenced by the Church until the dawn of Vatican II, when such a ban was lifted by Pope John XXIII.
90 Congar, Yves, Lay People in the Church: A Study for a Theology of the Laity, trans., Attwater, Donald (Westminster, MD: Newman 1965Google Scholar. French original: L'Église catholique devant la question raciale. Paris: Unesco, 1953.), xvi. See also Congar, Yves, “My Path-Findings in the Theology of Laity and Ministries,” The Jurist 32, no. (1972): 169.Google Scholar, where he says he has “not written that ecclesiology”.
91 See Yves Congar, Mon Journal Du Concile, ed. Eric Mahieu, 2 vols. (Paris: Cerf, 2002), 2:510–511; William Henn, “Yves Congar and Lumen Gentium,” Gregorianum 86, no. (2005): 563–592; Lakeland, 49.
92 Congar, Yves, “The Laity,” in Vatican II: An Interfaith Appraisal, ed. Miller, John H.(Notre Dame, IN: University Press, 1966), 241Google Scholar. The same view is held by Edward Schillebeeckx that Vatican II did not say anything specific about the lay state, Edward Schillebeeckx, The Mission of the Church (New York: Seabury Press, 1973), 122. It is however surprising also to note that elsewhere, Congar also refers to Vatican II as the “council of the laity.” See Congar, Yves, Laity, Church, World, trans., Attwater, Donald (Baltimore, MD: Helicon, 1960Google Scholar. French original: Si vous êtes mes témoins. Trois conférences sur laïcat, Église et monde. Paris: Cerf, 1959), 238Google Scholar.
93 Lakeland, 50. In fact, Lakeland opines that Congar's Lay People in the Church “is the most influential single work ever written on the topic [laity].” Ibid. 77. See also Lakeland, Paul, “The Laity,” in From Trent to Vatican Ii, ed. Bulman, Raymond and Parrella, Frederick(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
94 See Congar, Yves, Fifty Years of Catholic Theology: Conversations with Yves Congar, ed. Lauret, Bernard, trans., Bowden, John (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988Google Scholar. French original: Entretiens d'automne. Présentes par B. Lauret. Paris: Cerf 1987), 68. Here Congar actually thinks that the need for the laity to be subjects is particularly true for women and young people in the Church. It is reasons such as these that he estimates make some of the laity leave the Church.
95 Congar, Lay People in the Church: A Study for a Theology of the Laity, 115.
96 See especially Congar, “My Path-Findings,” 169–188.
97 Gaillardetz, Richard R., Ecclesiology for a Global Church (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2008), 136–141Google Scholar.
98 Congar, “My Path-Findings,” 175.
99 Ibid., 175–176. See also Congar, Yves, “Intervention Du Père Yves Congar,” in Tous Responsables Dans L'église?, ed. Huot-Pleuroux, Paul et al(Paris: Cerf, 1973), 56–72Google Scholar. Actually, Congar's model of ministries is based on different degree of involvement in the life of the Church. The first is the level of general ministry. These include visiting the sick, parents catechizing their children etc. The second level includes more stable and public ones such as lectors, Eucharistic ministers, catechists etc. In the third level are found ministries of deacons, priests and bishops. See Yves Congar, Diversity and Communion, trans., John Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1984. French original: Diversités et communion. Dossier historique et conclusion thélogique. Paris: Cerf, 1982), 43–47. See also O'Meara, Thomas, Theology of Ministry, Revised ed. (New York: Paulist Press, 1999), 183Google Scholar.
100 Congar, “My Path-Findings,” 176. He makes similar retractions in Fifty Years of Catholic Theology, p.65
101 Flynn, Gabriel, Yves Congar's Vision of the Church in a World of Unbelief (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), 128Google Scholar.
102 Ibid., 134.
103 Volf, Miroslav, After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 230.Google Scholar
104 Hahnenberg, Edward P., Ministries: A Relational Approach (New York: Crossroad, 2003), 122–127Google Scholar.
105 Pope Benedict XVI, 26 May, 2009. “Address of His Holiness Benedict Xvi on Church Membership and Pastoral Co-Responsibility,” http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2009/may/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20090526_convegno-diocesi-rm_en.html (accessed 10 May, 2010).
106 For instance Gabriel Flynn thinks that it engenders an inevitable downgrading of the position of members of the laity who do not exercise any particular ministry in the church and that it does not correspond to the total ecclesiology that Congar himself envisaged, see Flynn, Congar's Vision of the Church, 132. Famerée also criticizes Congar for his use of the expressions ‘periphery’ and ‘centre’ in his earlier works before the council as contributing to polarization in the Church, see Famerée, L'eccléssiolgie D'yves Congar, 117.
107 Chéno, “Retractiones,” 267–269; Congar, “My Path-Findings,” 174.
108 See John Paul II, 1989. “Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifidelis Laici on the Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World,” http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici_en.html (accessed April 10, 2010). For reasons that the theology of the laity is still unfinished see Gaillardetz, Richard R., “Shifting Meanings in the Lay-Clergy Distinction,” Irish Theological Quarterly 64, no. (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; O'Connell, Gerard, “The Synod on the Laity: An Unfinished Agenda,” Month 249, no. (1988): 869–879Google Scholar.
109 This involves the participative model of all the faithful in the life of the Church. See further details in Volf, 224–226.
110 Rahner, Karl, The Shape of the World to Come (New York: Seabury, 1974), 108Google Scholar.
111 See http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1204/religion-changes-affiliations-survey (published April 27, 2009, accessed November 3, 2011).
112 Writing under the topic “The Hidden Exodus: Catholics becoming Protestants,” in a recent article, the Jesuit Thomas J. Reese claims for example, that “the US Bishops have never devoted any time at their national meetings to discuss the exodus. Nor have they spent a dime trying to find out why it is happening.” See http://ncronline.org/news/hidden-exodus-catholics-becoming-protestants (April 18, 2011) (accessed 2nd November, 2011)
113 He writes, “Ohne den Heiligen Geist und ohne ein neues Sich-Öffnen für die Kraft von oben‘aber gibt es keine Neuevangelisation” and again, „Der …Auftrag, den der Herr der Charismatischen Erneurung anvertraut hat, ist die Neuevangelisation. To this end, he opines that the German bishops are not doing enough. “in Deutschland aber ist bisher wenig oder gar nicht geschehen. Mit wenigen Ausnhamen haben die Bischöfe kaum darüber gesprochen,“see Lochner, Hansmartin, Charismatische Erneuerung: Ein Weg Der Neuevangelisierung (Altoeting: Geiselberger, 2010), 20–21Google Scholar.
114 Rymarz, Richard, “Conversion and the New Evangelization: A Perspective from Lonergan,” Heythrop Journal 51, no. 5 (2010): 753–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
115 Rymarz, Richard, “The New Evangelisation in an Ecclesiological Context,” Heythrop Journal 52, no. 5 (2011): 772–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
116 Kasper, Walter, “The Renewal of Pneumatology in Contemporary Catholic Life and Theology: Towards a Rapprochment between East and West,” in The Holy Spirit, the Church, and Christian Unity, ed. Denaux, A. Donnelly, D., Famerée, J.(Leuven: Peeters Press, 2005), 14Google Scholar.
117 Jenkins, 55–78.
118 See Flynn, “Yves Congar's Theology,” 460.
119 This is important for current discussions in pneumatology, see Levison, John R., “Recommendations for the Future of Pneumatology,” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 33, no. 1 (2011): 79–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
120 Lohfink, Gerhard, Does God Need a Church? Toward a Theology of the People of God, trans., Maloney, Linda M. (Collegeville,MN: Liturgical Press, 1999), xviiiGoogle Scholar.