Leonardo De Chirico reminds us of what happened at Vatican II and how it’s being worked out today
Vatican II (1962–1965) is widely regarded as one of the most significant events of the 20th century.
During and after the Council, there were three Evangelical Protestant theologians who dealt with it at some length. These three approaches are perhaps indicative of different Evangelical readings of Vatican II which have in turn contributed to the shaping of three ways of relating to Rome as a whole.
New Catholicism
Gerrit Berkouwer (1903–1996) was a Dutch Reformed theologian who had a firsthand experience of Vatican II. His experience gave rise to his book The Second Vatican Council and the New Catholicism(1965) which he wrote even though the proceedings of the Council were still in progress and the two main eccle-siological documents (Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes) had not yet been approved. The ‘New Catholicism’ that Berkouwer envisages is based on ressourcement, i.e. re-appreciation of biblical and patristic sources, and aggiornamento, i.e. an attitude marked by an openness towards inner renewal and new ways of relating to the world.
Berkouwer thought that Vatican II brought about a ‘new’ Catholicism, i.e. more biblical and less entrenched in its past, therefore calling Protestants to a more open ecumenical posture.
A divided mind?
Back in the 70s, David Wells (b.1939) was one of the few Evangelical theologians grappling with Roman Catholicism (RC) in the aftermath of the Council. His book Revolution in Rome (1972) well epitomises an Evangelical sense of puzzlement before the update proposed by the Council.
The main thrust of his reading of the Council is the observation that Vatican II on some strategic points seems to endorse ‘mutually incompatible theologies’, one conservative, the other progressive; one restating tradition, the other pushing beyond tradition. These conflicting tendencies can be found everywhere in Vatican II texts and contribute to the shaping of its overall theology marked by an unmistakably Catholic ‘both-and’ pattern. Rome appears to have a ‘divided mind’. The book testifies to the Evangelical perplexity in coming to terms with the complexity of the Catholic mindset. Evangelical Protestants need therefore to construe a ‘new apologetic’ in their understanding of Catholicism, because the old apologetic pattern does not fit Rome any longer.
Semper eadem
In the British scene, the writings of Herbert Carson (d.2004) well represent the less academic but strongly apologetic way of looking at Rome. His books on Catholicism (Roman Catholicism Today, 1964; Dawn or Twilight? A Study of Contemporary Roman Catholicism, 1976; The Faith of the Vatican, 1996) can be considered as a single, revised and updated work whose main interpretative thrust remains constant even when he interacts with different phases of recent Catholicism.
Carson reads Vatican II in terms of the semper eadem thesis, i.e. always the same. The theological structure of Rome may have changed in its linguistic covering but not in its fundamental orientation. According to him, in spite of all appearance suggesting differently, Vatican II has in no way modified its Tridentine, anti-Reformation stance for the simple reasons that, firstly, it has not formally and openly abandoned it and, secondly, the new teaching can be fully harmonised with the old without subverting it.
Carson observes that ‘the tone may be friendlier, and the presentation more acceptable to late-20th-century readers, yet the decrees of Trent are still there’, particularly as far as transubstantiation, justification by faith and purgatory are concerned. The inevitable conclusion of such a reading is that if Rome is semper eadem, the Evangelical approach to Roman Catholicism will always be the same as well.
After Vatican II, Evangelical Protestants dealt with it in three different ways: Rome really changed (Berkouwer), Rome still has to decide where to stand (Wells), Rome is always the same (Carson). Subsequent Evangelical approaches to Rome depended on which reading of Vatican II was preferred.
A new style
In order to make sense of Vatican II, one needs to put the Council in historical perspective. In its modern times, Rome has celebrated three councils: Trent (1545–1563), Vatican I (1869–1870) and Vatican II (1962–1965). The first two were marked by an antagonist approach. Trent reacted against the Protestant Reformation and hardened the role of the church as mediator of God’s grace. Vatican I fought against the modern world and elevated papal infallibility to a dogmatic status. Vatican II marked the transition towards a friendly and appeased relationship with the world.
For the first time in history a Council did not pronounce any ‘anathema’ (curse) but had only words of affirmation for non-Catholic Christians, world religions, trends in modern society, etc. The tone of the Council chose not to be doctrinal but rather ‘pastoral’. The language was no longer harsh and juridical, but mild and affirmative. Vatican II inaugurated a new ‘style’ of Rome. No longer against anyone but for everyone. No longer against perceived errors but always looking for the truth in all things. No longer excluding anyone but always looking at ways of embracing all.
The new catholicity
In the wake of the conclusion of Vatican II, in 1967 the Italian Protestant theologian Vittorio Subilia published a book whose title –The New Catholicity of Catholicism – captures the keyword: catholicity. RC emerging from Vatican II disrobed itself of the theocratic vestments inherited from the long centuries of its history and invested massively in the implementation of its catholicity. The catholicity of Catholicism is its skill to embrace divergent ideas, diverse values and heterogeneous movements, to hold tensions and integrate them within the framework of a system. In the Vatican II vision of the world, nature is coupled to grace, Scriptures to traditions, Christ to the church, grace to the sacraments, faith to works, Christian life to folk religion, ecclesiastical centralism to a universal scope.
In short, et-et, and-and, both-and, one thing and the other, too. The consequences are massive. Non-Catholic Christians are no longer considered as heretics but ‘separated brethren’ (unitatis redintegratio); non-Christians are no longer condemned as pagans, but are thought of as being somehow ‘related’ to Christ (Lumen Gentium 16 ). RC is seen as a completion, the achievement of aspirations existing in non-Christian religions. Christianity, religions, culture, society, the whole world: these are the borders of the catholicity of Catholicism.
Yes and no to the gospel
Borrowing the language of 2 Corinthians 1, we could say that RC is the religion of the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to God’s truth at the same time. It is the coexistence of submission and rejection of God’s Word. It cannot be denied that the ‘yes’ is totally missing from RC; the problem stems from the fact that it is not a ‘yes, yes’ but that it is a ‘yes and no’ at the same time.
Christ is told ‘yes’ but also ‘no’ because, in the Catholic view the prerogatives of the church end up by arrogating what belongs exclusively to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. As to grace, it is told ‘yes’ but also ‘no’ because nature holds in itself the capacity to be elevated in spite of sin. Faith is told ‘yes’ but also ‘no’ because in order to receive God’s grace there’s the need for the sacramental instrumentality of the church which makes faith insufficient. The Word of God is told ‘yes’ but also ‘no’ in as much as the Scriptures are sidelined by the tradition of the Church and its teaching, which end up prevailing over the Bible. The church worship rendered to God is told ‘yes’ but also ‘no’ because the veneration of Mary is encouraged as well as that of a host of other side figures which detract from the worship of the one and only God. Vatican II has made this system more apparent than ever.
Each one in his own way, Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI – the Popes who have reigned after the Council – have tried to implement the ‘letter’ of Vatican II by trying to present it as a ‘development-in-continuity’ with regards to the previous tradition of the Church. Pope Francis, though, confirms to be the Pope who without necessarily quoting Vatican II at length, perhaps embodies its ‘spirit’ more than his predecessors. The Pope is making its teachings evolve ‘pastorally’ towards more inclusive and elusive patterns.
The Council made RC more elastic and dynamic but no less resistant to the recovery of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Reformation which called the Church to submit to God’s Word, to focus on Christ, to receive his grace in faith, and to do all things to God’s glory, is as relevant as ever.
