Certain strands of radical
immanentism and evolutionary historicism threatened the Church’s faith toward
the end of the 19th century, and these often led to a religious subjectivism
and to a relegation of truth to historical contingency. This called into question
the objective content of the Church’s faith, and so, the Neo-Scholasticism
which reigned at the time rightfully combatted what was dubbed “modernism.”
Ratzinger elaborates on this point (in defense of Church doctrine) when he
writes: “Here the linguistic substrate of faith, faith’s fundamental language,
is en jeu. That boundary-point has been reached where, over and above
the question of interpretation, the loss threatens the interpretandum,
the objective content itself.” [1]
But an additional concern
was subsequently voiced by many great Catholic intellectuals: theology,
especially in seminaries, had become overly static, rationalist, and
restrictive. On top of this, the faithful, often cut off from the rich sources
of the broad tradition, found themselves engaged in individualistic forms of
piety. The sacraments were perceived as remedies for the individual, as opposed
to mysteries of union (the Second Vatican Council rectified this perception by
speaking of the Church as the “Sacrament of Salvation”). It is within
this context that a genuine explosion of Catholic intellectual life took place
after the Second World War, which created a spirit of optimism, especially in
light of the failure of technocratic liberalism as manifested in the bloodshed of
the twentieth century. Thinkers such as Etienne Gilson, Jacques Maritain, Henri
de Lubac, Yves Congar, Louis Bouyer, Romano Guardini, Joseph Ratzinger, Hans
Urs von Balthasar, and many others, contributed to this intellectual
springtime. Many of these thinkers were dissatisfied with the answers Catholic
theology was giving as well as its one-sided defensive stance toward modernity.
What they sought was a way to engage modernity critically, to respond to
genuine questions and to lay bare errors which modern thought had espoused in
its untethered movement away from the Tradition of the past.
But the theological resources,
present in the ecclesiastical landscape which these thinkers were critiquing, were
incapable of addressing these new questions (or at least they were not trying
to, and simply found themselves in a defensive posture). The divorce between
theology and history, between sacra doctrina and piety, between Mary and
the Church, between legal structure and sacramental reality, between morality
and spirituality, and between individualistic piety and the liturgical
dimensions of the community, contributed in part to the spread of an in-house
secularism, as Ratzinger pointed out in his 1958 article The New Pagans and
the Church. [2]
Viewing theology as a catalogue of truths (or merely a science based on
ahistorical principles) which excludes history and subjectivity so as to secure
objectivity at all costs, is necessarily reductive. Divine revelation cannot be
reduced to a “set of truths” because it is, first and foremost, the person Jesus
Christ (as the Council’s constitution on Divine Revelation will go on to
teach).
The dangers of an overly
malleable historicism and of a radical immanentism are very real, and,
resisting this with ahistorical propositions, and with concepts of truth which
(unfortunately) bracketed off the subjectivity of the believing church, did indeed
offer an effective “no” to these errors… but what does the Church say “yes” to?
What are the correct questions to rival these incorrect questions? The history
cat was let out of the bag... what do we do now? The Church needed to
address in a thorough manner both history and subjectivity, which, after all,
are essential aspects of Christology.
Ratzinger, explaining
the modernist crisis, comments on this context: “This development reaches its
zenith in the various measures of Pius X against Modernism (the decree Lamentabili
and the encyclical Pascendi [1907], and, finally, the ‘oath against Modernism’
[1910]). During these years there arose an embittered discussion that found
expression in such tragic figures as Loisy and Tyrell, men who thought they
could not save the faith without throwing away the inner core along with the
expendable shell.” [3]
The thinkers mentioned above realized the threat the Church faced in her
current context and turned to a Patristic revival to address the new questions
which a splintered Christianity and a secularized society brought with them. On
top of this, since Pius X at least, the Church knew that it needed to complete
and bring to a close the interrupted endeavors of the First Vatican Council: “Both
Trent and Vatican Council I set up bulwarks for the faith to assure it and to
protect it; Vatican Council II turned itself to a new task, building on the
work of the two previous Councils.” [4]
And so, Pope John
XXIII was the one to declare to the world the upcoming gathering of bishops in
what would be a Second Vatican Council. Preparatory commissions were
established and many theologians, mostly from the Roman Curia, conducted the work
of drafting documents which would be presented to the bishops of the world. The
Council convened in October of 1962. Deliberations began among the bishops, at
this first session, and they had brought with them expert theologians to advise
them. Among the more famous were Yves Congar, Karl Rahner, Joseph Ratzinger, and
Henri de Lubac. Ratzinger comments on this first session when he writes: “The
fact that no parties were formed indicated a sense of responsibility toward
truth. No Council can allow the individual to be subsumed under some kind of
party; each person must be responsible only to his conscience and his
theological convictions.” [5]
The very first
document to be promulgated was the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum
Concilium. It was almost unanimously accepted from the very beginning and,
for the most part, very little debate took place over the text. Important insights
concerning the intent behind this document were recorded by Ratzinger in his
highlights of the session: “The essence of the ancient Christian liturgy in the
texts was no longer visible in the overgrowth of pious additions,” [6] and, furthermore, “in practice
this meant that while the priest was busy with his archaic liturgy, the people
were busy with their devotions to Mary.” [7] But most importantly, an important
theme emerged from the very beginning of the Council: “The text [on the
liturgy] implied an entire ecclesiology and thus anticipated (in a degree that
cannot be too highly appreciated) the main theme of the entire Council—its
teaching on the Church.” [8] After lengthy debates over
the document which would become the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,
the first session came to a close. Following the first session, the death of Pope
John XXIII, although his pontificate was understood to be a transitional one
due to his age, took the bishops by surprise. The cardinals, however, elected
his successor Pope Paul VI, who continued to preside over the unfolding
Council.
At the second
session, the bishops found themselves debating and discussing at length the nature
of the Church. A more authentic and fuller ecclesiology from the sources eventually
became the consensus. Ratzinger brings up certain inadequacies of emphasis in
the history of ecclesiology: “It got off to a bad start by being a definition ‘against’
something. Bellarmine, in opposition to the reformers’ idea of an invisible
Church, placed great stress on its institutional character.” [9] Also in the realm of
ecclesiology, there arose debates over the nature of the episcopate, especially
as it relates to the primacy of Peter (what is called “collegiality”): “The
Council's goal was to correct the one-sided functions of an overemphasized
primacy by a new emphasis on the richness and variety in the Church as
represented in the bishops.” [10]
It was disputed
whether the Council should promulgate a standalone text on the Blessed Virgin
Mary or if the relevant passages should be included in the Constitution on the
Church. As can be seen by now, ecclesiology became the dominant theme of the
entire council, and so, this naturally led to the question of ecumenism. Thanks
to the works of Henri de Lubac (and Ratzinger) rich themes concerning the eucharistic
dimensions of the Church (and therefore to its sacramental reality) were able
to lend themselves to a deepened understanding of the role of ecumenism in the
Church’s current setting. Ecclesial elements were clearly present in fragmentary
ways in many ecclesial communities. And so, the council, understanding that the
perennial teaching that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church
was a teaching which the Tradition held to precisely because the Church, the “Sacrament
of Salvation,” contained within her bosom the salvific grace which flows from valid
sacraments. Thus, the Church was able to acknowledge the presence of Christ’s
work in separated communities. But in order to preserve the uniqueness and
identity of the Catholic Church alongside this need for ecumenism for the sake
of Christian unity, the Council emphasized that the Catholic Church alone is
the fullness of Christ’s Church as the time-bound ecclesial subject of faith
that she is (hence the use of the term subsistit, coined by the Neo-Scholastic
theologian Sebastiaan Tromp). Finally, in light of the atrocities of the holocaust,
the Council prepared a text on the Jewish people (which it inserted into the
document on world religions Nostra Aetate).
The third session contained
heated and lengthy debates over a document on Religious liberty. Many Catholics
to this day are divided over this document and how to interpret it (the best
work on this subject, it seems to me, is Freedom, Truth, and Human Dignity
by David L. Schindler and Nicholas J. Healy). For the sake of this blog post,
Ratzinger’s words will suffice: “Force used to promote faith injures nothing so
much in the long run as this faith itself.” [11] Finally, at the end of
this third session the document on ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio was
promulgated, as well as Lumen Gentium, arguably the most important
document of the Council, with the Marian passages inserted into it (restoring
Mary as the icon of the Church, and as the Church at its source).
In the fourth and
final session of the Council the final debates took place, especially over the
document on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae. Dei Verbum,
which clarified that there is only one source of Revelation—Jesus Christ—and
that we come to know and believe in him through the reading of scripture within
the sacramental context of the Church’s Tradition as guided by the Magisterium,
was promulgated. The Council Fathers then also promulgated Gaudium et Spes,
which, although it proved controversial after the Council for being too optimistic
concerning human progress, addressed itself to the modern world pointing to
Christ as the only source of genuine humanist progress, as John Paul II and
Benedict XVI interpreted it (authoritatively) by making the 22nd
paragraph the hermeneutical key to the entire text. The Council Fathers went on
to promulgate Christus Dominus (on the nature of the episcopate), Nostra
Aetate (as mentioned above), and Dignitatis Humanae
(finally). A grand papal mass concluded the council, alongside the mutual
lifting of excommunications between the Roman Pontiff and the Patriarchs of the
East.
Based on the above, we see
how a nuanced criticism of the enlightenment’s criticism, combined with a
non-negotiable openness to the broad Tradition (contra the
enlightenment), paves for us a path of continuity within said Tradition. The interpretandum
of Tradition, if it has real objective content, must possess the same identity
yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Yet this continuity, to be authentic, must
refuse to betray Tradition by reducing it to mere propositions from the past.
Likewise, it must refuse to relegate the interpretandum to that which is
historically contingent (thereby destroying it).
Continuity takes place
when the life of yesterday’s community is handed down to today’s community. To
oppose “life” to “truth” or “life” to “objective content” is to misunderstand
“communion” (which is in fact the term used by the Council to describe the
Church). The life of the community has as its source communion with Christ —
who is the truth. Thus, we see how truth and communion (and the life which this
communion makes possible) are inseparable and are the very grounds necessary
for continuity. This is why it is a contradiction to claim that schism is
necessary in order to preserve the truth, this is why it is a contradiction to
claim that the community in communion with Christ has lost the interpretandum,
this is why it is a contradiction to claim that the council was a rupture with
Tradition.
The conclusion, therefore,
based on Gaudium et Spes 22, is that the proper hermeneutic of the
Second Vatican Council is Christological, and this Christological hermeneutic
is only found in its fullness within an ecclesial context, a context of
communion and not schism, of continuity and not rupture. Reform? Yes, as the
above observations make clear. But reform is merely a more profound “handing
down” of the Church's life (which is what all councils are designed to do).
Reform is a call for the Church to remember anew, to discover more deeply the
life which animates her already. The Bible itself attests to this
inseparability of the truth with the life which flows from communion: “The
church of the living God [is] the pillar and bulwark of the truth”
(1 Tim 3:15, NRSV),[12]
and Jesus’ words: “I am the resurrection and the life”
(Jn 11:25). Let us not forget that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and
today and forever” (Heb 13:8).
[1] Joseph Ratzinger, Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press,
1988), 268.
[2] Joseph Ratzinger,
The New Pagans and the Church: A 1958 Lecture by Joseph Ratzinger (Pope
Benedict XVI). Translated by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J. (https://www.hprweb.com/2017/01/the-new-pagans-and-the-church/).
[3] Joseph Ratzinger,
Theological Highlights of Vatican II (New York: Paulist Press, 1966), 41.
[4] Ratzinger, Theological
Highlights of Vatican II, 44.
[5] Ratzinger, Theological
Highlights of Vatican II, 30.
[6] Ratzinger, Theological
Highlights of Vatican II, 129.
[7] Ratzinger, Theological
Highlights of Vatican II, 131-132.
[8] Ratzinger, Theological
Highlights of Vatican II, 31.
[9] Ratzinger, Theological
Highlights of Vatican II, 73.
[10] Ratzinger, Theological
Highlights of Vatican II, 184.
[11] Ratzinger, Theological
Highlights of Vatican II, 210.
[12] The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (New York: American Bible Society, 1865).
No comments:
Post a Comment