On the Second Vatican Council II

Continuing my series, I have begun a close reading of the documents of Vatican II. Since the objections to the Council stem from a few of the sixteen decrees, I shall probably focus upon those most of all: e.g. Lumen Gentium, Dignitatis Humanae, and Unitatis Redintegratio. But first, I shall lay out the structure of the Council and examine as a whole the Opening Address of Pope John XXIII. Then I shall examine each Council text in the order of composition. When I reach a controversial declaration, I shall also examine pre-conciliar pronouncements to clarify the interpretation of the Council; so, for example, Pius XII's Mystici Corporis in conjunction with Lumen Gentium, Gregory XVI's Mirari Vos, Leo XIII's Immortale Dei, etc. with Dignitatis Humanae, and so forth.

The Second Vatican Council composed and promulgated sixteen documents over a period of four years, 1962 through 1965. They range from a constitution on the Sacred Liturgy to a decree on religious liberty (probably the most controversial of all the Church's pronouncements). In order of composition, they are:

Session I: 1962  

• Opening Address of Pope John XXIII 

Session II: 1963

• Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on Sacred Liturgy)
• Inter Mirifica (Decree on the Media of Social Communications)

Session III: 1964

• Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church)
• Orientalium Ecclesiarum (Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rites)
• Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism) 

Session IV: 1965

• Christus Dominus (Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops)
• Perfectae Caritatis (Decree on the Renewal of Religious Life)
• Optatum Totius (Decree on Priestly Training)
• Gravissimum Educationis (Declaration on Christian Education)
• Nostra Aetate (Declaration on the Relation to non-Christian religions)
• Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation)
• Apostolicam Actuositatem (Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity)
• Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration on Religious Freedom)
• Ad Gentes Divinus (Decree on Mission Activity of the Church)
• Presbyterorum Ordinis (Decree on the Ministry of Priests)
• Gaudiam et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World)

Pope John XXIII prefaces the purpose of the Council: men are either with Christ and His Church, in which case they are blessed with light, goodness, order, and peace; or they are without Him, or opposed to Him and His Church, in which case they are thrown into confusion, bitterness amongst themselves, and in constant danger of fratricidal war. For this reason, for the sake of throwing light on the darkness of mankind, the Opening Address identifies several aspects of the Council's mission: to let the Magisterium, taking into account the errors, requirements, and opportunities of our time, be presented in exceptional form to all men throughout the world; that the deposit of faith may be guarded and taught more efficaciously, for it embraces of all man, everything that is human; to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without attenuation or distortion, which has become the common patrimony of men. Thus the Supreme Pontiff is not interested in revising or altering traditional formulas, creeds, explanations of the faith, etc. As he says,

The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a Magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.

Vatican II thus presupposes the Faith. It will not alter or change it, but will re-present it that the Gospel might be preached more effectively; that all men might recognize their duty of ceaselessly tending toward the attainment of heavenly things. This means all the harsh-sounding encyclicals, all the fierce anathemas - all these will be presupposed within the texts of the Council, and these must be our guide in interpreting it.

I wrote last time about the staggering naivete (I cannot call it anything else) the the Pope put forth, and there is no reason to harp on it. The Enemy has been hard at work among men, especially in the West, for the past fifty years, and the fruits are available for all to see. But in the midst of this unbelievable wishful thinking, a peculiar prescient section produced itself: "She consider that She meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of Her teaching rather than by condemnations." Now if all the states of the world were confessional and the temporal reign of the Pope were a fait accompli, Holy Mother Church would and should use condemnations to confute error. But our era is one of faithlessness; immaterial reality has, as a certain German put it, ceased to be meaningful for us. It is thus clear that condemnations require, on the part of the faithful, adequate formation in faith. Everybody knows that the Church forbids divorce. But Her authority is no longer, as it once was, sufficient to keep the purity of the Faith intact. It must be known, its truth must be demonstrated, proposed. The Second Vatican Council, then, is the first post-Christian Council. No longer can the Mystical Body rely upon the secular arm to enforce the truth; it must be appropriated and imbibed in its life-giving purity by all men without exception. John XXIII is thus calling all the faithful to become saints.

The Catholic Church desires to show Herself to be the loving Mother of all, benign, patient, full of mercy and goodness toward the brethren who are separated from Her. The Church does not offer to the men of today riches that pass, nor does She promise them merely earthly happiness. But She distributes to them the goods of divine grace which, raising men to the dignity of sons of God, are the most efficacious safeguards and aids toward a more human life. She opens the fountain of Her life-giving doctrine which allows men, enlightened by the light of Christ, to understand well what they really are, what their lofty dignity and their purpose are, and, finally, through Her children, She spreads everywhere the fullness of Christian charity, than which nothing is more effective in eradicating the seeds of discord, nothing more efficacious in promoting concord, just peace, and the brotherly unity of all.

These are beautiful, inspiring words. The effusive naivete regarding the awfulness of humanity is still worrisome (and I'll probably encounter it again in the decrees), but the aim and purpose of the Council is finally clear. Next stop, Sacrosanctum Concilium.

On the Second Vatican Council I

I have decided to try and exorcize a particular demon. I have been plagued, haunted, and tormented by a persisting thought: is the Church, after the Council, a different Church than that which preceded it? Have doctrines changed? Do the new teachings of the Church contradict earlier ones? 

This is a serious question for any Catholic, particularly as the mass apostasy continues: if the polls be accurate, 70% of those 'identifying as Catholics' no longer believe in the Real Presence. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass admits of grave liturgical abuses, and ignorance is widespread; to say nothing of the prevalent sexual nihilism. No one can help me answer these questions, at least not yet. I must deal with them, in their beginnings at least, on my own. 

And there is much to do. I first need to absorb the Opening Address by Pope John XXIII on the aims and purpose of the Council. Then I need to read, and read carefully, the sixteen documents thereof; next, to meet the objection of those (I'm looking at you, SSPX) who claim it contradicts, in numerous important subjects, previously-taught traditions; finally, discuss the revisions to the liturgy and the rites (and where I disagree with the SSPX harshly, borderline uncharitably in their contention that Vatican II explicitly contradicts older tradition, I am in almost full agreement with what they write on the beauty of the old rites and the impoverishment of the new). 

To begin, here is a portion of the Opening Address:

We see, in fact, as one age succeeds another, that the opinions of men follow one another and exclude each other. And often errors vanish as quickly as they arise, like fog before the sun The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She considers that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations Not, certainly, that there is a lack of fallacious teaching, opinions, and dangerous concepts to be guarded against and dissipated. But these are so obviously in contrast with the right norm of honesty, and have produced such lethal fruits that by now it would seem that men of themselves are inclined to condemn them, particularly those ways of life which despise God and His law or place excessive confidence in technical progress and a well-being based exclusively on the comforts of life. They are ever more deeply convinced of the paramount dignity of the human person and of his perfection as well as of the duties which that implies. Even more important, experience has taught men that violence inflicted on others, the might of arms, and political domination, are of no help at all in finding a happy solution to the grave problems which afflict them. 

This seems radically imprudent. After Roe v. Wade and fifty-five million murdered children later, it does not seem at all the case that to "men of themselves," "violence inflicted upon others" is of no help in solving apparent troubles. And the abundance of fallacious teaching, opinion, and dangerous doctrine, far from being recognized as such by the world, is by it wholeheartedly embraced; and that fountain of truth, Holy Mother Church, is instead hated and reviled. I am not exactly comfortable calling the Holy Father (now raised to the Altar of Saints, in fact) naive, but I do not know how else to say it. The world hates the Church, for She proclaims the truth, the light -  which men hate because their deeds are evil. This I have seen in my own life, in private conversation, and in my experience of the world, especially public opinion. The world and the Church are irreconcilable enemies, and have always been so, if we take Christ's Gospel speeches (especially in John) seriously. 

I could write pages upon this quotation, because in deliniating the ways of life men "of themselves" are inclined to condemn, His Holiness has almost perfectly described the animus of the modern world. Act with consent, and live as you please; our new religion is Science (Comte would be proud), our confidence is in its technical progress, and our well-being is based exclusively on the comforts of life (thus the reviling of the Church, which apparently wastes money on gold monstrances instead of giving it to the poor, and our hatred of the rich; in reality an ill-disguised grasping, clawing, greed and envy). Was it really so different in 1965? I find such a supposition baffling, but then if things were not so different, this sentiment seems fluffy nothings, and I have little more hopeful prospects for the documents themselves, if they, as this opening address appears to do, so radically miss the modern soul and fail to criticize it properly.

This is not a happy way to begin my study of the Council.