Vatican II was an extremely important ecumenical council. Some believe that it represents the most significant reform of the Catholic Church since the Gregorian reforms of the sixteenth century. Whether or not that is true, it departs from the Catholic mos maiorum in a number of important ways.
When Pope John XXIII called the Vatican II council, he expressed two purposes for doing so. First, he meant for the council to update the church (aggiornomento). The notion of updating the church was fairly revolutionary, considering that the pope who called Vatican I into session was an avowed anti-intellectual who would have nothing to do with modern innovations. Second, he asked the council to seek greater Christian unity. The phrase “Christian unity” here used in lieu of “Catholic unity” is extremely important. Prior to Vatican II, there were a great many restrictions on what activities Catholics could participate in with schismatics. To recognize these schismatics as “Christian” and to actually seek unity with them in not only an ecumenical but also a pluralistic way was unprecedented.
Beyond these broad parameters, the pope said little to delineate what shape he expected the discussion to take. The council itself was allowed to set the agenda, and the result was real, sincere dialogue across a very broad spectrum of issues. This stands in stark contrast to Vatican I, for which the pope set the agenda and defined the shape of the discussion in advance.
There were also a number of innovations in the way that the council’s meetings were conducted. For the first time, laypeople were allowed to participate as experts/advisors/consultants. They could neither draft conciliar documents nor vote (duties reserved for bishops), but they played a very significant role in the discussion of the drafts. Furthermore, non-Catholics were invited to participate as observers; this was done in the interest of Christian unity, as mentioned above. The council’s inclusivity is further demonstrated by the character of the documents themselves; for the first time, some of the declarations of a church council were addressed not only to Catholics but to both Christians and non-Christians the world over. Other firsts include the avoidance of anathemas (they even avoid the word with reference to war and anti-Semitism, both of which however they do condemn) and the use of a pastoral rather than scholastic style.
The council’s areas of emphasis and significant change are many; I will try to summarize them here as briefly as possible.
Several changes were intended to elevate the laity and to reduce the somewhat exaggerated importance of the hierarchy. Important changes that elevate the laity include the increased use of vernacular in liturgy, the allowance for the laity to receive the cup as well as the bread, the use of “People of God” terminology and the recognition of a priesthood of all believers, the translation of scripture into vernacular for public consumption, and finally the emphasis on religious freedom and theological pluralism. Changes that bring the entrenched hierarchy down a notch or two include the allowance for priests to celebrate mass with the laity, the revival of the diaconate, the replacement of the pope by the Eucharist as the source and center of unity, the primacy of scripture over the teaching office, and the assertion that the Episcopal College (rather than the pope) is the “supreme” authority over the church.
The principle of pluralism is also embodied in a number of important declarations. The council explicitly promoted theological pluralism within the church, which previously was prohibited, and even goes so far as to develop a theology of the church as a community of “churches.” The unique church of Christ “subsists in” but is not identical with the Roman Catholic Church, wording that allows for other churches to have partially ecclesial status. Non-Catholic churches have a less perfect communion with the invisible church than does the RCC, but they have communion all the same. Additionally, the council affirms these churches’ right to govern themselves, and in fact even says they are bound to do so. Unity can only be achieved insofar as this right is upheld. It even goes so far as to say that Eastern Orthodox priests—celibate or not—hold a valid priesthood! Less explicit but equally important is the allowance for Catholics to take Communion at other churches and for members of those churches to take the Catholic Eucharist. This is a dramatic turnaround from traditional Catholic practice.
A third theme of the council is an emphasis on addressing secular human concerns. It produced, for example, statements on anti-Semitism, human rights, family planning, love in marriage, and social justice. One of the more significant declarations in this category was one that called for the establishment of “some agency” that would “foster progress in needy regions and social justice on the international scene.” The Justice and Peace Commissions that have sprung up the world over in response to this call have been training grounds for a new generation of theologians: liberation theologians like Gustavo Gutierrez.
The Catholic Church of today would not be what it is without Vatican II. The seeds of reform were already present before the council, of course. Will Herberg already in 1955 was speaking about the American Protestant-Catholic-Jew consensus, disciples of Newman were calling for a greater role for the laity, and progressive theologians like Karl Rahner were defying Pope Pius X's denunciation of modernism ("the synthesis of all heresies") by trying to integrate faith with modern perspectives. But Vatican II gave these moves the imprimatur of a pope and a council, which accelerated the process and helped the Catholic Church leapfrog into the twentieth century. The council was not, however, without its traditionalist opponents. In recent decades there has been a resurgence of this sort of traditionalist opposition, with some calling, for example, for the reinstitution of the Latin Mass. Pope Benedict has tended to side with the traditionalists and to facilitate their defiance of the council. One can only hope that he doesn't win the day.
0 comments:
Post a Comment