{"id":2167,"date":"2026-04-01T06:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-01T04:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vaticanfiles.org\/?p=2167"},"modified":"2026-03-24T16:21:22","modified_gmt":"2026-03-24T15:21:22","slug":"vf253","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vaticanfiles.org\/ro\/2026\/04\/vf253\/","title":{"rendered":"253. Vatican II, 60 Years After and Two Lessons for Evangelicals"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Why on earth is a religious event that took place 60 years ago still passionately debated? Most Evangelicals are puzzled when observing the theological and emotional involvement many Roman Catholics show when thinking about the Second Vatican Council (or Vatican II). Evangelicals may hold the 1974 Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization in high regard,[1]<\/a>\u00a0but their investment in discussing the texts and the spirit of the Lausanne Movement is only remotely comparable to the heat generated by\u00a0the legacy of Vatican II<\/a>\u00a0in Roman Catholic circles.
\u00a0
Vatican II: Great Grace or Cause of all Problems?<\/strong>
On the one hand, it was no less than Pope John Paul II who bluntly stated that Vatican II is \u201cthe great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century<\/em>:\u00a0there we find a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0(Apostolic Letter\u00a0Novo Millennio Ineunte<\/em><\/a>, 2001, n. 57). On the other, there are sectors of the Roman Church that are cold toward the Council, if not critical of its outcomes. The issue of what Vatican II means for Roman Catholicism is still at stake.
\u00a0
Since the beginning of January, Pope Leo XIV has been focusing on the main texts produced at the Council in his Wednesday morning General Audiences given in St. Peter\u2019s Square. In so doing, he is signaling the permanent relevance of the Council for the Roman Catholic Church and providing his own interpretation of it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Meanwhile, the theological discussion on Vatican II goes on relentlessly. One of the recent contributions from a group of Italian Roman Catholic theologians is the collection of essays edited by Marco Vergottini,\u00a0Al cuore del Vaticano II. Una rilettura teologico-fondamentale<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(Brescia: Queriniana, 2026; English translation:\u00a0At the heart of Vatican II. A theological-fundamental re-reading<\/em>).
\u00a0
In its four chapters, the book opens some windows on the most important documents, i.e., the four constitutions on divine revelation (Dei Verbum<\/em>), on liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium<\/em>), on the church (Lumen Gentium<\/em>), and on the church in the modern world (Gaudium et Spes<\/em>).
\u00a0
More than touching on the details of each chapter, what is interesting is to appreciate how the whole reception of Vatican II is framed, especially as far as the \u201cheart\u201d of the Council and its significance for the present-day Roman Catholic Church is concerned.
\u00a0
Beyond the Conflict of Interpretations<\/strong>
Here is the gist of the reflection echoed in the book. The aftermath of Vatican II has been characterized by an ongoing conflict of interpretations. After the first phase, when the texts of the Council were commented on in the context of a very positive attitude towards them and in view of the application of its deliberations, later decades have seen the emergence of a critical reading of the Council, sometimes presented as a \u201crupture\u201d from the established tradition. Examples of this tendency can be found in the five-volume\u00a0History of Vatican II\u00a0<\/em>edited by G. Alberigo, 1995-2001, and the five-volume\u00a0Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil\u00a0<\/em>edited by P. H\u00fcnermann and B.J. Hilberath, 2004-2006.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This reading, which stressed the discontinuity between Vatican II and the pre-Vatican II Church, was opposed by an anti-conciliar sentiment that spread in traditionalist circles. In their eyes, Vatican II was seen in negative terms and as the cause of all problems. Other interpretations wanted to read Vatican II in merely pastoral terms, as if the Council wanted to update the language of the Roman Church and build bridges with the modern world, but not change its doctrinal posture and traditional practices.
\u00a0
The tension (at times, the chaos) generated by these discussions led Benedict XVI, in his 2005\u00a0Address to the Roman Curia<\/a>, to move beyond polarization by suggesting a mediation in the \u201chermeneutics of reform\u201d formula. In pure Roman Catholic style, the two extremes (i.e., discontinuity and continuity) were questioned and replaced with a dynamic category of renewal within the tradition that would account for the developments of the Council while remaining committed to the dogmatic outlook and the self-understanding of the Roman Church inherited from the past.
\u00a0\u00a0
Vatican II as an \u201cOpen\u201d Structure<\/strong>
The book wants to highlight the strategic importance of this dynamic principle both in the drafting of the documents and in their subsequent reception, whereby updating and fidelity are not to be pitted one against the other, but combined in a Roman Catholic, organic way.
\u00a0
Looking at\u00a0Dei Verbum<\/em>\u00a0in particular, here is how it works: Vatican II absorbed some fundamental principles of the two previous Councils (i.e., Trent and Vatican II), yet wanted to overcome their controversial and apologetic thrust (p.60). In the words of Vatican II itself, \u201csound tradition\u201d must be retained, and yet \u201cthe way remain open to legitimate progress\u201d (Sacrosanctum Concilium<\/em>, n. 23).\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

As far as the Church is concerned, the inherited rigid vision of the Church as the hierarchical perfect society is reiterated, yet expanded to include the importance of the laity in the logic of an ecclesiology of communion rather than mere obedience. In this sense, Vatican II adopted an \u201copen structure,\u201d no longer driven by the desire to separate and divide that was prevalent in past Councils, nor by the impulse to compromise between traditional and progressive positions. Rather, it was guided by the power of navigating \u201cbetween\u201d polarities. \u00a0
\u00a0
The Roman Catholic move is not an attempt to choose between positions, but to connect them according to the principle of \u201chospitality\u201d (p. 164) guaranteed by the Roman Catholic conciliar dynamic system.
\u00a0
Two Lessons<\/strong>
What can Evangelicals learn from these Roman Catholic debates? At least a couple of points should be mentioned.
\u00a0
First, Evangelicals need a better grasp of what happened at Vatican II, what was produced then, and how it has been received in the Roman Catholic Church. In the past, much attention has been given to Trent (and rightly so), but less attention has been paid to Vatican II. Today, many Evangelicals can be confused about what is going on in Roman Catholicism because of a lack of awareness over the last 60 years. Developing an\u00a0Evangelical analysis of Vatican II<\/a>\u00a0is still a work-in-progress, and homework needs to be done. The danger is to have either outdated, static views of Rome or unwarranted, evangelically hopeful perceptions of it. As the book indicates, Rome evolves in history while remaining committed to itself. Becoming acquainted with the different Roman Catholic voices discussing the legacy of Vatican II is a step forward toward a more theologically mature Evangelical interpretation of it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

\u00a0
Second, as intuitive as it may sound, the \u201cTraditional vs. Progressive\u201d grid does not fully fit the reality of Roman Catholicism. It probably fitted the \u201cConservative-Liberal\u201d divide within 20th-century Protestantism, but it does not neatly apply to Rome. Roman Catholicism has its own way of handling its movements through history. Yes, there are traditional voices, yes, there are progressive tendencies, but the overall direction is not driven by the polarization between the two. One needs to come to terms with the dynamics of the Roman Catholic system that is Roman (i.e., faithful to its centered structure) and Catholic (i.e., open to ongoing absorptions) at the same time.
\u00a0
Since the biblical Gospel is not the ultimate criterion, the Roman Catholic system is governed by its self-defined Tradition (which swallows the Gospel and does not submit to it) and can oscillate between the Roman and the Catholic poles. Instead of applying the \u201cTraditional vs. Progressive\u201d opposition in a simplistic way, Evangelicals should study the inner dynamics of Rome that allows it to change but not reform itself according to Scripture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a>\u00a0E.g.,\u00a0The Lausanne\u00a0Movement: A Range of Perspectives<\/em><\/a>, edited by Lars Dahle, Margunn Serigstad Dahle and Knud J\u00f8rgensen (Oxford: Regnum Books International, 2014).<\/p>\n

\"Share<\/a>