{"id":1620,"date":"2019-05-01T06:00:14","date_gmt":"2019-05-01T04:00:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/vaticanfiles.org\/?p=1620"},"modified":"2019-04-30T12:55:44","modified_gmt":"2019-04-30T10:55:44","slug":"vf162","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vaticanfiles.org\/ro\/2019\/05\/vf162\/","title":{"rendered":"162. Deciphering Vatican II: A New Book Especially Helpful for Evangelicals"},"content":{"rendered":"

May 1st, 2019<\/em><\/p>\n

Reading Vatican II has often been a daunting experience for evangelicals. While navigating Vatican II, evangelicals are puzzled to find the restatement of traditional Roman Catholic teaching together with something that appears to contradict it. The chief example of the evangelical puzzlement is David Wells\u2019 book Revolution in Rome<\/em><\/a> (1972) where he attempts to make sense of the nuanced, juxtaposing, and cumulative way of the theologizing of Vatican II. After carefully reading its documents, Wells concludes that Vatican II on some strategic points (e.g. authority, ecumenism, religious freedom, the presence of the church in the world) seems to endorse \u201cmutually incompatible theologies\u201d, one conservative, the other progressive; one restating tradition, the other pushing beyond tradition. \u201cHow do we interpret this?\u201d is the question that reflects the evangelical perplexity in coming to terms with the complexity of the Roman Catholic mindset as it is presented at Vatican II.<\/p>\n

Scores of books have been written on Vatican II, the discussions behind its texts, the documents that were produced, and the controversial attempts to implement it. Its legacy is still a fiercely disputed matter<\/a> in Catholic circles as well. This is to say that each new addition to the Vatican II library is a welcomed attempt at trying to navigate the deep waters of the Council. The recent book by Thomas G. Guarino, The Disputed Teachings of Vatican II. Continuity and Reversal in Catholic Doctrine<\/em><\/a> (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2018) is particularly helpful for evangelicals for at least two reasons: First, since 2009 the author has been co-chairing the US-based \u201cEvangelicals and Catholics Together\u201d initiative and therefore is used to dialogue with evangelicals. Second, while never quoting David Wells, some of the evangelical perplexities contained in his book are discussed by Guarino with the intention of suggesting a Roman Catholic way to handle them.<\/p>\n

Vatican II as \u201cProfectus Fidei\u201d?
\n<\/em><\/strong>The church has always been confronted with the issue of change in her understanding of the truth and her accounting of it in teaching, preaching, evangelizing, etc. This is why Guarino looks back to the 5th century at Vincent of L\u00e9rins\u2019 distinction between change as profectus<\/em> (i.e. the development of doctrine that preserves the core) and change as permutatio <\/em>(i.e. a mutation that alters the core). Without denying the significant changes in language, style and tone that are evident at the Council, Guarino argues that \u201cVatican II was in the main a homogenous profectus<\/em> of the earlier tradition\u201d (21), i.e. an advancement and expansion of previous tradition that nonetheless maintained its fundamental landmarks.<\/p>\n

The main thesis of the book is that \u201cVatican II is in clear congruence with the prior Catholic tradition \u2013 even while homogeneously developing it on certain points\u201d (10). Each word here is important: \u201ccongruence\u201d means compatibility with the past, but no mere repetition of it. \u201cDevelopment\u201d means organic growth, even with points of relative distancing from previous formulations, while remaining faithful to the doctrinal whole. The elastic yet firm combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels is what characterizes Guarino\u2019s appraisal of Vatican II. In borrowing Benedict XVI\u2019s terms, instead of a \u201chermeneutic of rupture\u201d one needs to come to terms with the meaning of Vatican II by using a \u201chermeneutic of reform\u201d (21). The Council witnessed an \u201corganic, homogeneous, architectonic growth\u201d (5): a kind of change that occurred within the parameters of a coherent development that did not betray the well-established heritage of the church.<\/p>\n

This reading of the Council is fascinating and in line with a typical Catholic et-et<\/em> (both-and) hermeneutical approach. However, its overall plausibility is difficult to accept wholesale when, for example, one analyzes the evidence as far as the issue of religious freedom is concerned. After centuries of strong opposition to religious freedom and freedom of conscience by Roman Catholic magisterial authorities, after multiple papal encyclicals consistently condemning it (which Guarino fairly makes reference to on pp. 184-188), how is it possible to see in Vatican II\u2019s approval of it an \u201corganic\u201d change that simply \u201cdeveloped\u201d what had been previously taught? Why not simply say that Rome was wrong when it condemned religious freedom and then came to change its mind at Vatican II? Is it because the institutional church is believed to be indefectible (i.e. not erring nor making mistakes)? The fact that the Roman Catholic Church made a U-turn on religious freedom is a clear example that the willingness to preserve Rome\u2019s continuity goes against the factual evidence. Guarino\u2019s overall interpretation of Vatican II as simple \u201cperfectus fidei\u201d seems to squeeze the dynamics of the Roman Church into a one-fits-all type of approach, instead of accounting for its complexity. Is it not too simplistic and a way to protect the unsustainable claims of indefectibility within the Roman Church?<\/p>\n

Three Key Words
\n<\/em><\/strong>Back to the central thesis of the book, there are three key words that one needs to become acquainted with. They are \u201cdevelopment\u201d, \u201cressourcement\u201d, and \u201caggiornamento\u201d. They form the vocabulary that is needed to try to make sense of Vatican II from within. Here is the way in which Guarino helps to clarify their meaning.<\/p>\n

Development<\/em>. Recalling J.H. Newman\u2019s famous book, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine<\/em> (1894) Guarino acknowledges its profound influence on Vatican II. Development means \u201can unfolding of something that is already present implicitly or in germ\u201d (57). According to Newman and Guarino, doctrine is inherently involved in an organic process of growth. The problem with this Roman Catholic view of development is always the same: what are the biblical boundaries of such a \u201cdevelopment\u201d? For example, can the Church develop its Mariology to the point of elevating two Marian dogmas<\/em> (like the 1854 dogma on Mary\u2019s immaculate conception and the 1950 dogma of Mary\u2019s bodily assumption) without any biblical support? In other words, \u201cdevelopment\u201d without the biblical principle of Sola Scriptura<\/em> (i.e. the Bible as the supreme authority for the church) safeguarding and guiding it can become a self-referential principle at the service of the institutional church. If the church can \u201cdevelop\u201d her own traditions even outside of the perimeter of the written Word of God, is it not a questionable development?<\/p>\n

Ressourcement<\/em>. The French word is another key term to enter the theological universe of Vatican II. It means \u201ctaking account of the entire theological tradition of the church\u201d (59), be it the apostles, the fathers, the councils, the liturgy, and the witness of the Christian people. Vatican II is known for having paid more attention to the biblical sources of the faith as well as to patristic and liturgical sources. The \u201cressourcement\u201d principle is important provided that the examination of the sources and their \u201cweight\u201d is put under the authority of the Word of God as the supreme source. Vatican II contained more biblical references than previous catholic documents, but it also stood in continuity with previous magisterial texts that had few Scriptural references and were primarily based on other<\/em> sources (e.g. as it is the case with the Marian dogmas). Vatican II\u2019s ressourcement added<\/em> sources but did not subtract any even when Rome had developed its theology and practice outside of the Bible. It expanded the ability of the Roman Church to absorb new emphases without purifying it from spurious ones which had been previously embraced.<\/p>\n

Aggiornamento<\/em>. The final word that Guarino expounds comes from the Italian language and was used by Pope John XXIII. \u201cAggiornamento\u201d means \u201cbringing up to date\u201d (66) the communication of the church by means of appropriating a different style and tone and making it more attuned with the modern mindset. \u201cAggiornamento\u201d can give the impression that at Vatican II Rome really and substantially changed but it is closer to reality to say that the Roman Church went through a season of up-dating her language and attitude without relinquishing any of what was previously believed and pronounced. For example, the \u201canathemas\u201d (i.e. curses) of the Council of Trent against the Protestants have been \u201cupdated\u201d at Vatican II with a friendly and brotherly language but never renounced (and this means that they can be resuscitated any moment). The previous layer has been updated without being removed.<\/p>\n

Guarino\u2019s book does an admirable service to the evangelical reader in explaining the Vatican II vocabulary of \u201cchange\u201d. Too often, evangelicals may have a superficial view of the Roman Catholic \u201cchange\u201d. They can be impressed by the emphasis on Biblical passages that they find in post-Vatican II documents without properly understanding the fact that these biblical sources supplement<\/em> rather than change the already established Roman Catholic sources which have shaped its teaching. It\u2019s also possible that evangelicals might rightly appreciate the friendly tone of present-day Catholic theological language without necessarily knowing that \u201caggiornamento\u201d adds <\/em>a new style on top of what Rome has said and done in the past without cutting off its roots. In other words, the vocabulary of Vatican II should not be taken as implying that Rome is now open to a biblical reformation: it simply means that the Catholic Church, as Guarino argues, \u201cwas in continuity with the prior doctrinal landmarks\u201d (read: the Council of Trent, the Marian dogmas, the dogma of papal infallibility) undoubtedly together with \u201ctrue development\u201d (199) that makes it more palatable to outsiders. The past is never renounced. It can be updated but remains untouched and continues to remain at the core of what the Roman Church is and believes.<\/p>\n

A Paradigm Change
\n<\/em><\/strong>Beyond the already mentioned contributions of Guarino\u2019s book to the understanding of Vatican II, this work has another strength, perhaps its most important one. In order to assess the theology of Vatican II, its \u201ctheological principles\u201d need to be grappled with and the book helpfully summarizes them. Yes, the \u201cstyle\u201d of the Council is important (as suggested by J. O\u2019Malley); yes, the keywords of the Council are foundational (\u201cdevelopment\u201d, \u201cressourcement\u201d, \u201caggiornamento\u201d); but what about its theological vision? From where did Vatican II derive its principles? And what were they?<\/p>\n

Guarino\u2019s contention is that \u201canalogical and participatory thinking are crucial, though generally overlooked, themes at Vatican II\u201d (25). In his view, analogical and participatory categories form the backbone of the Council. Analogical thinking means that similarities are stressed (rather than differences); everything is analogous to something else and therefore close, similar, next to it. Participatory category means that everything participates in one way or another to everything else; therefore, mutual indwelling and inter-relationships are underlined (rather than distance and separation). If pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism operated with a \u201cunivocal\u201d approach (i.e. defining reality in one way only) followed by dialectical thinking (i.e. distancing itself from what was not aligned with its univocal definition), at Vatican II Rome learns to reframe its whole theological vision according to what is in common with everything else and what unites it with the rest of the world. \u201cDialectical difference was not the style of the Council \u2013 analogical similarity was\u201d (73). Antinomies were replaced by analogies (75).<\/p>\n

It is true that Vatican II does not use the traditional terms such as \u201cprimary and secondary analogates<\/em> and intrinsic and extrinsic attribution<\/em>\u201d (27) but analogical and participatory thinking undergirds whatever Vatican II says. The Church of Rome is never called the \u201cprimary analogate\u201d and the non-Catholic churches are never addressed as the \u201csecondary analogates\u201d; yet it is clear that Vatican II stresses what is in common between the two because they are analogous to each other. The same is true as far as participatory categories are concerned. When Vatican II speaks of the modern world in friendly terms, wanting to affirm and to embrace it, it does so assuming that \u201call human beings participate in the same created human nature, the ultimate ground of similarity among people\u201d (26-27). The notion of a \u201cdiversified participation in a perfection\u201d (80) undergirds modern Roman Catholic thought.<\/p>\n

The is the theological background that allows Vatican II to talk about mutuality, friendship, partnership and cooperation with Protestants, Jews, Muslims, peoples of other religions, people of good will, the whole world. The Council promotes a \u201cconciliatory approach \u2013 emphasizing unity with, rather than difference from, all others\u201d (26). Again, in Guarino\u2019s words, \u201cthe \u2018others\u2019 formally participate in the unique attributes of Catholicism and are therefore intensively related to it\u201d (28). This is not the fruit of a generic kindness, but the result of a particular theological project based on analogical and participatory categories. This does not mean that the traditional claims of Rome being the only church, the perfect society, etc. are obliterated. They are no longer seen in exclusive and oppositional forms, but in analogous and participatory ways. It is no longer a matter of being \u201cin\u201d or \u201cout\u201d, inside or outside, but it is a matter of participating at various degrees to the same reality. \u201cWithout losing Catholic exceptionalism \u2026 the conciliar accent was placed on Catholicism\u2019s similarity\u201d (29) with other faiths. They are now considered as \u201cpartially similar to the Catholic faith and analogically related to it\u201d (201). Elsewhere Guarino argues that \u201cCatholicism did not change its self-understanding \u2013 but it did stress its close proximity to others\u201d (131). Vatican II presents the view whereby Rome has the fullness of grace, but those who do not belong to it still participate in it at various levels of intensity. According to Guarino, all this happened and is happening \u201cwithout betraying the material continuity of the faith\u201d (44, i.e. the Roman Catholic faith). We are back to the Catholic dynamics of \u201cdevelopment\u201d, \u201cressourcement\u201d, and \u201caggiornamento\u201d, i.e. change without alteration, renewal without reformation, addition without purification.<\/p>\n

Not Away From Thomism but Deeper into It
\n<\/em><\/strong>In pointing to the importance of this \u201cparadigm change\u201d (31) in the present-day Roman Catholic Church, Guarino stands on the shoulders of giants of 20th century Catholic theology such as G\u00e9rard Philips, Karl Rahner, Yves Congar and Joseph Ratzinger (30-31). His is not an isolated, fancy interpretation of Vatican II, but the mainstream reading of the theological principles at work in the Roman Catholic Church since the last Council.<\/p>\n

Following Congar, Guarino further argues that the real theological mind behind Vatican II is not a modern theologian but Thomas Aquinas himself. It was Aquinas who \u201cfurnished the writers of the dogmatic texts of Vatican II with the bases and structure (les assises et la structure<\/em>) of their thought (25, 74, 200). Thomas\u2019 doctrine of analogy and his reinterpretation of the neo-platonic doctrine of participation form the foundational axes of the theology of Vatican II. While the Council avoided \u201cthe language<\/em> of scholasticism\u201d it did make use of seminal \u201cscholastic ideas<\/em>\u201d (74); again, \u201cwhile Thomistic language<\/em> was absent at Vatican II, Thomist ideas<\/em> were in plain sight\u201d (201). While Vatican II practiced an eclectic type of \u201cressourcement\u201d it was Thomas Aquinas who was the main source behind it. A modernized form of Thomism, perhaps away from the rigidity of 19th century Neo-Thomism, but always within the same tradition expanded in the dialogue with the modern world, was and is the framework that provides \u201cthe bases and the structure\u201d of Rome.<\/p>\n

Three provisional implications
\n<\/strong>What are the implications of such \u201cparadigm changes\u201d that occurred at Vatican II for evangelicals? They are Massive! Here are three tentative implications.<\/p>\n

1) For the time being, Rome will not have an \u201coppositional\u201d posture in relating to the non-Catholics but will always try to find commonalities, to underline unity, to stress fellowship, and to embrace evangelicals as much as possible. Evangelicals need to be aware that if they want to be faithful to the gospel they need to be \u201ccounter-cultural\u201d and talk about gospel distinctives, biblical separation, covenantal allegiance to the Triune God that rejects idols and idolatry. Biblical truth always needs to confront and to refute error even if it comes from a traditional institution like the Roman Catholic Church.<\/p>\n

2) Even after Vatican II, Rome is not committed to the biblical gospel but is dedicated to the all-embracing gospel of \u201canalogy\u201d and \u201cparticipation\u201d that has translated into Rome\u2019s ecumenism, mariology, ecclesiology, inter-religious dialogue, mission, etc. Pope Francis may not even use the language of \u201canalogy\u201d and \u201cparticipation\u201d, but his message of \u201cunity\u201d and \u201cmercy\u201d is steeped into it. Evangelicals need to become more acquainted with the ground motives of present-day Roman Catholicism if they want to understand where Rome stands. The words used may be the same (gospel, grace, faith, conversion, etc.), but their meaning is different because Rome uses them within the theological framework of Thomistic \u201canalogy\u201d and \u201cparticipation\u201d.<\/p>\n

3) When Rome changes, it does so according to its own pattern of change. This change implies degrees of renewal that are always in the context of substantial continuity with its well-established self-understanding. Evangelicals need to learn to understand the Roman Catholic dynamics of change if they want to account for both continuity and discontinuity in present-day Rome. The Catholic Church may even talk about the need for a \u201creformation\u201d, but it will always be below the standards of biblical reformation and always in a way that self-protects the institution.<\/p>\n

For all these reasons, Guarino\u2019s book on Vatican II is particularly helpful for evangelical readers.<\/p>\n

\"Share<\/a>