{"id":298,"date":"2012-09-24T23:15:04","date_gmt":"2012-09-24T21:15:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/vaticanfiles.org\/?p=298"},"modified":"2013-06-27T16:40:08","modified_gmt":"2013-06-27T14:40:08","slug":"45-what-happened-at-vatican-ii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vaticanfiles.org\/it\/2012\/09\/45-what-happened-at-vatican-ii\/","title":{"rendered":"45. What Happened at Vatican II?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Three Evangelical Protestant Evaluations in the Aftermath of the Council<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Vatican II (1962-1965) is widely regarded as one of the most significant events of the Twentieth century. October 11th<\/sup> will mark the 50th<\/sup> anniversary of its beginning and the \u201cYear of Faith\u201d that Benedict XVI is about to open officially will be a year-long opportunity to reflect on its legacy.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Coming to terms with Vatican II is not a task for Roman Catholics alone. Even non Roman Catholic Christians are called to grapple with it. Their perception of present-day Roman Catholicism heavily depends on the way in which they interpret Vatican II.<\/p>\n

During and after the Council, there were three Evangelical Protestant theologians who dealt with it at length and in detail. 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.<\/p>\n

1. Gerrit Berkouwer and the New Catholicism<\/i><\/p>\n

Gerrit Berkouwer (1903-1996) was a Dutch Reformed theologian who had a<\/span> first-hand experience at Vatican II as an official observer on behalf of the \u201cGereformeerde Kerken\u201d. This experience gave rise to the writing of his book The Second Vatican Council and the New Catholicism<\/i> (1965) which he wrote even though the proceedings of the Council were still in progress and the two main ecclesiological documents (Lumen Gentium<\/i> and Gaudium et Spes<\/i>) had not yet been approved.<\/p>\n

According to Berkouwer, Vatican II is heavily indebted to the Nouvelle th\u00e9ologie<\/i> (i.e. the new theology) which he had already surveyed in his 1958 book Recent Developments in Roman Catholic Thought<\/i>. The Council might be thought of as being the cautious acceptance, even with its tensions and conflicts, by the official Church of the agenda proposed by the \u201cnew\u201d theologians which had been opposed by the Curia in previous years.<\/p>\n

The \u201cNew Catholicism\u201d that Berkouwer envisages is based on ressourcement<\/i>, i.e. re-appreciation of biblical and patristic sources, and aggiornamento<\/i>, i.e. an attitude marked by an openness towards inner renewal and new ways of relating to the world.<\/p>\n

If Berkouwer\u2019s pre-Vatican II book Conflict with Rome<\/i> (1958) centered on the gulf between Catholic and Protestant theologies concerning the doctrine of grace, his post-Vatican II New Catholicism revolves around the doctrine of the Church as the real issue still standing between them. Of course, Berkouwer is fully aware that these new emphases do not replace old ones but are simply added to the traditional Roman Catholic outlook, thus making the ecumenical agenda with Rome easier on the one hand, but more nuanced on the other. Before such a scenario, Berkouwer calls for a \u201crealistic ecumenicity\u201d \u2013 an ecumenicity which would overcome past polemical attitudes while awaiting further developments within Roman Catholicism.<\/p>\n

2. David Wells and the Evangelical Puzzlement<\/i><\/p>\n

Back in the Seventies, David Wells (b. 1939) was one of the few Evangelical theologians grappling with Roman Catholicism in the aftermath of the Council. In later years, Wells\u2019 focus has progressively turned to another field of research, namely Evangelicalism itself, and this move has left a significant gap in Evangelical reflection on Roman Catholicism.<\/p>\n

His book Revolution in Rome<\/i> (1972) well epitomises an Evangelical sense of puzzlement before the aggiornamento 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 \u201cmutually incompatible theologies\u201d, one conservative, the other progressive; one restating tradition, the other pushing beyond tradition. These two conflicting tendencies can be found everywhere in Vatican II texts and contribute to the shaping of its overall theology marked by an unmistakably Catholic \u201cboth-and\u201d pattern.<\/p>\n

Confronted with the inherent stereophony, if not cacophony, of Vatican II, Wells argues that the Council has practised the \u201cjuxtaposition of ideas\u201d in such a way that the reception and interpretation of the final redaction of the documents can be traced both along traditional lines as well as along more innovative ones. The main problem in coming to grips with Roman Catholicism is a hermeneutical one, namely \u201cwhich interpretation is correct?\u201d, \u201chow do we interpret?\u201d, which is all linked to the issue of magisterial authority: \u201cwho speaks for Rome today?\u201d From the outlook of Vatican II, Rome appears to have a \u201cdivided mind\u201d, as the titles of the chapters of Revolution in Rome<\/i> clearly shows: \u201cAuthority: inward or outward?\u201d, \u201cGod: in the earthly or heavenly city?\u201d, \u201cChristianity: a broad or narrow definition?\u201d, \u201cthe Church: the people or the pope?\u201d<\/p>\n

The book testifies to the Evangelical perplexity in coming to terms with the complexity of the Catholic mindset. Before the interpretative crux of Vatican II, Wells propounds for the view that the Council depicts a temporary and transient balance which will eventually lead to the affirmation of one party over the other. In other words, \u201cwait-and-see\u201d what is going to happen. Meanwhile, Evangelical Protestants need to construe a \u201cnew apologetic\u201d in their understanding of Catholicism, because the old apologetic pattern does not fit Rome any longer.<\/p>\n

3. Herbert Carson and The <\/i>Semper Eadem Thesis<\/i><\/p>\n

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<\/i>, 1964; Dawn or Twilight? A Study of Contemporary Roman Catholicism<\/i>, 1976; The Faith of the Vatican<\/i>, 1996) can be considered as a single, revised and updated work whose main interpretative thrust and theological critique remain constant even when he interacts with different phases of recent Catholic history and theology.<\/p>\n

Carson reads Vatican II in terms of the semper eadem<\/i> 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 \u201cthe tone may be friendlier, and the presentation more acceptable to late twentieth-century readers, yet the decrees of Trent are still there\u201d, 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<\/i>, the Evangelical approach to Roman Catholicism will always be the same as well.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Leonardo De Chirico<\/p>\n

leonardo.dechirico@ifeditalia.org<\/a><\/p>\n

Rome, 24th<\/sup> September 2012<\/p>\n

\"Share<\/a>