Jul 29 Wed
Should I fully embrace the Council?
A Christian Catholic must enthusiastically accept the teachings of all the Councils of the Church.
Last year, the Church celebrated the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea. Most Christians embraced it. Yet to this day, one can detect the lingering influence of the Arian heresy; there are theologians in Catholic universities still propounding the idea—anathematized at Nicaea—that Jesus is “mutable or subject to change.”
Aha! I tricked you, didn’t I? When I opened with a question about “the Council,” you assumed that I was referring to Vatican II. For decades now, Catholics have spoken about Vatican II as THE COUNCIL, often implying that it is the only Council that matters.
Every ecumenical council is an important moment in the life of the Church, and Vatican II is no exception.
The Second Vatican Council was convened in no small part to continue the work the First left unfinished, after the First was cut short when Italian troops occupied Rome.
Vatican I focused on the role of the Roman Pontiff, leaving open questions about the authority of bishops. Vatican II took up that question, among others, but still, many questions remain about the nature of a diocesan bishop’s authority. The Council (and here I do mean Vatican II) did not resolve all those questions.
Many questions remain. Not only questions about episcopal authority and collegiality, but also questions about the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation, the understanding of conscience, and the proper form of the Eucharistic liturgy. On all these questions, an inquisitive Catholic can easily find sharply opposed opinions, some of them clearly at odds with the actual written pronouncements of the Council.
How can these conflicts be resolved? Pope Benedict XVI, who participated in the conciliar debates, offered the very reasonable proposal that every conciliar teaching—of Vatican II or any other council—should be interpreted with the “hermeneutic of continuity,” on the unassailable understanding that what the Church has always taught remains what the Church will always teach, since the Truth entrusted to the Church in Jesus Christ is not “mutable or subject to change.”
Continuity –not rupture– is fidelity to Jesus, to his Revelation. Thus, the word of God with a new garment is kept alive and is handed down from generation to generation by the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.
Opposed to this continuity, we sometimes hear opinions about the need for “rupture,” to cut off with most of what the Church has always taught.
The teachings of an ecumenical council are not proclaimed to break or discontinue the Faith. Yet they do not represent the complete and final definitive statement of the Church. Every Council leaves some questions unanswered, some statements unclear, and some points in need of clarification.
But if anyone interprets Vatican II as repudiating fundamental principles of Catholic teaching, he must be misinterpreting the Council. But here again, I am saying “the” Council. Which Council is he misinterpreting? Probably all of them.
How I wish that many good Catholics would wholeheartedly accept Vatican II, what that Council actually taught and sought. For this to come, we should understand the teachings of Vatican II as the Council Fathers would understand them.
Excerpts from Phil Lawler