Thoughts from P. Benedict XVI's 2005 address*
St Basil, the great Doctor of the Church...compares [the Church's situation after the Council of Nicaea] to a naval battle in the darkness of the storm, saying among other things: "The raucous shouting of those who through disagreement rise up against one another, the incomprehensible chatter, the confused din of uninterrupted clamouring, has now filled almost the whole of the Church, falsifying through excess or failure the right doctrine of the faith..."**
St. Basil is describing the tumult after the Council of Nicaea, but we definitely see a similarity in today's falsification of true doctrine "through excess or failure" following the Second Vatican Council (V2). Unfortunately, decrial against the confusion in doctrine is extended to the Council itself, as if the confusion is evidence that the Holy Ghost could not have inspired the Council, because the Holy Ghost could not possibly be the author of such confusion.
P. Benedict XVI offers a different explanation for what is happening.
P. Benedict gave an address to the Roman Curia in 2005 in which he discussed the implementation of V2. For me this address provides a window into understanding this ecumenical council in light of its tumultuous aftermath which still afflicts the Church today.
Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult?
P. Benedict answers this question by describing two opposing hermeneutics, or interpretations of the Council documents.
The hermeneutic of rupture
The hermeneutic of rupture is one in which V2 is interpreted without reference to Tradition. Proponents of this hermeneutic hold that the confirmation of "many old things" contained in V2 was purely a political move, and that these things are now "pointless" whereas "innovations" alone reflect the true spirit of the Council.
We have seen the fallout from this hermeneutic of rupture, come to be known as "the Spirit of the Council."
In a word: it would be necessary not to follow the texts of the Council but its spirit. In this way, obviously, a vast margin was left open for the question on how this spirit should subsequently be defined and room was consequently made for every whim.
The hermeneutic of rupture shows a misunderstanding of the very nature of an ecumenical council. As if a council can throw away the old constitution and replace it with a new one, with the people it serves as its mandator.
The Fathers had no such mandate and no one had ever given them one; nor could anyone have given them one...
No one could give the Bishops a mandate for writing a new Church constitution, because Christ Himself has given the Church her one constitution for our salvation. The hermeneutic of rupture is opposed to the very essence of Catholicism.
The hermeneutic of continuity
The hermeneutic of continuity, on the other hand, is an interpretation of the Council documents with complete faithfulness to what has come before, all the while guarding the "precious treasure" of the Faith. P. Benedict quotes P. John XXIII in distinguishing between the substance of the Faith and the manner in which it is presented.
"The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another...", retaining the same meaning and message.
Far from distorting the ancient doctrine, the Council instead intended that it be faithfully presented but in a new way, so as to robustly meet the minds of the modern era. This was no easy task.
In this regard, the programme that Pope John XXIII proposed was extremely demanding, indeed, just as the synthesis of fidelity and dynamic is demanding.
P. Benedict lists some challenges to the relationship between the Church and the modern era which precipitated the Council. They include "the Galileo case," Kant's "religion within pure reason," "the radical phase of the French Revolution," and the clash, under Pius IX, "between the Church's faith and a radical liberalism and the natural sciences." In the face of these challenges, it seemed there could be no dialogue between the Church and the world.
Three questions emerged that needed to be addressed. The relationships
"between faith and modern science,"
"between the Church and the modern State," and
"between the Christian faith and the world religions,"
all needed to be defined.
This definition necessarily involved some discontinuity, but this is not the same as rupture. P. Benedict explains that the Church's decisions on contingent matters must necessarily be contingent in themselves, i.e. subject to change, "precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself." Principles are permanent, but their application in the particular are changeable because the human condition is changeable. Hence, the necessary changes to meet the times involved a certain discontinuity in application, while at the same time retaining the continuity of the universal principles involved. (We find this is always the case in morality. Even though the principles of virtuous action are always the same, what is virtuous is different for different situations because changing circumstances determine what action is appropriate. )
It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.
On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change.
Thus, for example, the religious freedom promoted by V2 cannot be seen as a ratification of the false principle of relativism. Rather it is "an intrinsic consequence of the truth that cannot be externally imposed" but only adopted "through the process of conviction." Religious freedom is a different application of one Traditional principle: Faith requires assent.
The Second Vatican Council...has reviewed or even corrected certain historical decisions, but in this apparent discontinuity it has actually preserved and deepened her inmost nature and true identity.
The corrections made by the Council rather than causing rupture, ensure continuity with Tradition.
Although it is a mistake to think that the tensions between the Church and the world could disappear with an effort for new dialogue, nevertheless, needless tensions were intended to be overcome.
The Council could not have intended to abolish the Gospel's opposition to human dangers and errors...
[But] it was certainly the Council's intention to overcome erroneous or superfluous contradictions.
P. Benedict is speaking especially of the apparent contradiction between faith and reason, two sources of truth which in fact can never conflict.
In his First Letter, St Peter urged Christians always to be ready to give an answer (apo-logia) to anyone who asked them for the logos, the reason for their faith (cf. 3: 15).
From the very first Christians had to make contact with the prevailing "form of reason" of their time, at first Platonic and then Aristotelian, recognizing and rejecting it wherever it diverged from the Faith and reason, and embracing it where it conformed. Today, P. Benedict says, V2 guides us down the same path of discernment as Christians before us, i.e. of testing the current prevailing form of reason. While we must always be guided by the light of Faith, that does not make it acceptable to bury our heads in the sand in the sense of rejecting truths of reason when they seem to conflict with what we hold by Faith. Knowing that in reality they cannot conflict should motivate us to pursue a better understanding in order to reconcile the two.
The hermeneutic of essential continuity, with the nonessential discontinuity that necessarily entails, ensures the Church will move forward in this endeavor to reconcile Faith and reason, while being ever faithful to the Deposit of Faith.
Thus, today we can look with gratitude at the Second Vatican Council: if we interpret and implement it guided by a right hermeneutic, it can be and can become increasingly powerful for the ever necessary renewal of the Church.
My takeaway
The storm after a Church council is to be expected, and is a sign of the Holy Ghost working in the Church. It is a result of the the human mind grappling with important timely questions, sometimes leaning a little to one side, sometimes to the other, like a pendulum seeking its place of rest. To push forth novelty at the expense of true Traditional principles is an excess. To rigidly repeat the actions of our forebears, despite a change in circumstances, is a deficiency. Instead, while interpreting the Council documents with a hermeneutic of continuity, the Church must remain faithful yet bold, trusting the Holy Ghost to continue to steer the barque of Peter in the mean of right action and doctrine.
The issues that followed the Council of Nicaea have long since been put to rest, and we can now look back to see the Holy Ghost working through that council. We look forward to the day when these post-Vatican II questions we now struggle with will also be put to rest, and the storm will quiet. Until this happens let us resist the temptation to reject V2 on account of the storm. Instead we must weather the storm if we are to stay on the ever progressing barque of Peter until we reach our heavenly home.
* P. Benedict XVI, Address to the Roman Curia
** St. Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, XXX, 77; PG 32, 213 A; SCh 17 ff., p. 524.
Comments