Much of Yves M-J. Congar's O.P. (1904-1995) later work concentrates more explicitly on pneumatology, most famously his three-volume I believe in the Holy Spirit (1979-80). Writing shortly after its publication, Congar notes that “if he could draw only one conclusion from [his] studies on the Holy Spirit, it would concern the Spirit's bond with the Word. There is no breath without speaking or articulating something.” Congar later argues in The Word and the Spirit (1984) that the doctrines of pneumatology and Christology should not be treated separately but should inform and shape each other. This led him to develop what he termed a pneumatological Christology and a Christological pneumatology. A criticism that Congar dealt with on several occasions was that Catholic theology suffered from a form of Christomonism, whereby the Holy Spirit appeared to be subordinated to the Son, with dire consequences for the ecclesial life of the church. This essay briefly examines the accusation of Christomonism and evaluates Congar's response to it. It primarily does this by critically engaging with Congar's image of the Son as the Word and the Spirit as the Breath. As well as evaluating Congar's approach, this essay also suggests how his language could be expanded further.

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that due to the so-called “accusation of Christomonism” made especially by the Orthodox observers during the Vatican II sessions, the pneumatology of French theologian Yves Congar proceeded to develop in a way that would have never happened without such a reproach. We will go through the accusation itself, its theological consequences, and then we will study the direct and indirect responses of Congar. Was Congar even aware of the effects that this accusation had on his theology?