By Professor Roberto deMattei - Softcover - 640 pages
No event of the 20th century produced a greater effect upon the Catholic Church than Vatican II, the 21st Ecumenical Council. To many it might seem to have been simply a meeting of important churchmen gathered to discuss church matters, but because the Catholic Church is the only church founded on this earth by God himself to guide men to salvation, the reality is that centuries from now historians will likely consider it, (as well as the message to the world delivered by the Mother of God during her personal visit at Fatima in 1917), as one of the two pivotal events of world history for the recently ended century.
Vatican II opened fifty years ago on October 11, 1962. Since it ended in 1965, the council has been written of in countless books, articles, scholarly journals, magazines, and newspapers all over the world. Things said and done since the council, in the name of the council and in opposition to it, have affected the lives of everyone living since that time.
As with any significant historical event, it is only after considerable time has elapsed that a fuller story of exactly what happened in those years before, during, and after “the event” can be engagingly told and wisely summarized. Professor de Mattei’s genius lies in the application of a lucid, literate, and philosophical mind to thorough scholarly research and mountains of documentation. From this framework he has presented us with a story; a story of an event, a previously unwritten story that has been begging to be told for many years. This book will unfold for you the answer to the question, What happened at the Council?”
“A work that is as erudite as it is relevant. I am certain that thanks to its rigorous historical-critical method it will convince a vast readership.”
Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, President Emeritus
of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Science
1. Vatican II: a council different from the others
2. The two conciliar hermeneutics
3. The reception and implementation of the council
4. A “pastoral” or a “doctrinal” council?
5. The primacy of practice and reform in the Church
6. “Rewriting” the history of the council
I: The Church in the Age of Pius XII
1. The pontificate of Pius XII: triumph or the start of a crisis?
a) The high point in the Holy Year
b) The “theological crisis” of the 1950s
2. The modernist “reform” of the Church,
a) The “historical-critical method”
b) The principle of immanence
c) Between modernism and anti-modernism: the “Third Party”
3. The biblical movement
4. The liturgical movement
5. The philosophical and theological movement
6. The ecumenical movement
7. A secret society inside the Church?
8. The reactions to neo-modernism during the pontificate of Pius XII
a) Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira: in defense of Catholic Action
b) Father Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange: where is the new theology going?
c) Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton: a “Roman” voice in the United States
d) Father José Antonio de Aldama: modernism has not disappeared
e) Father Antonio Messineo: the relation between modernism and progressivism
9. Between false reforms and true revolution
II: Toward the Council
1. The death of Pius XII: the end of an era?
2. The 1958 conclave
a) The “great maneuvers”
b) The election of John XXIII
3. Angelo Roncalli: conservative or revolutionary. Roncalli the enigma
4. Toward the Second Vatican Council
a) How the idea of the council was born
b) The “Estates General” of the Church?
c) Cardinals Ottaviani and Ruffini suggest the council
d) What does “ecumenical” council mean?
e) Archbishop Pericle Felici, Secretary General of the Council
5. John XXIII and “the signs of the supernatural” in the Church.
a) “Fatima is not concerned with the years of my pontificate”
b) John XXIII and Padre Pio
6. The “vota” of the council fathers
a) Like the “cahiers de doléance” of the French Revolution
b) Bishop de Proença Sigaud: the council between revolution and counter-Revolution.
7. Italy “opens” to the Left
8. The “Roman Party” takes sides
a) The “Roman school of theology”
b) The Theological Commission’s “Profession of Faith”
9. Cardinal Bea appears on the scene.
a) The Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity
b) Bea and Ottaviani square off
10. The biblical controversy
a) Monsignor Romeo’s cry of alarm
b) Cardinal Ruffini enters the fray
11. Cardinal Bea’s ecumenical “tour”
a) Dialog with the “separated brethren”
b) The meeting in Metz
c) Communism at the council
12. The battle for the liturgy
a) Latin is the language of the Church
b) John XXIII removes the heads of the Liturgical Commission
13. The progressives declare war
a) The central European bishops organize
III: 1962: The First Session
1. The opening of Vatican II
a) The ceremony on October 11
b) John XXIII criticizes the “prophets of doom”
c) The observers from the Russian Orthodox Church
2. The break with council procedures: the session on October 13
3. A new organizational form: the episcopal conferences
4. The “message to the world”
5. The progressives at the council
a) The party of the theologians
b) The “network of relations”
c) The “Bologna workshop”
6. The “Little Committee” of the conservative fathers
7. The overturning of the “schemata”
8. The debate on the liturgy
a) The one “progressive” schema
b) The question about Latin
c) Bishop Peruzzo’s intervention
d) An ecumenical Mass?
e) The liquidation of the Breviary
9. The attack on the schema on the sources of revelation
a) Scripture and Tradition
b) The progressive critiques of the schema
c) “The crime” of November 20
10. Discussion on the constitution of the Church
a) The various schemas brought to the hall
b) The full-scale attack on the Theological Commission’s schema
11. Toward a new leadership
12. The role of the means of social communication
13. “Some fresh air in the Church”
14. Assessment of the first session
15. Majority and minority at the council
IV: 1963: The Second Session
1. From John XXIII to Paul VI
a) Assessment of the council according to Father Tucci
b) The last months of John XXIII’s life
2. Giovanni Battista Montini on the papal throne
a) The conclave of 1963
b) The election of Paul VI
c) The turn to the left in Italian politics
3. The intersession of 1963
a) The Fulda Conference and Father Rahner
b) The “moderators” of the council
c) The reform of the Roman curia
4. The opening of the second session
5. Pilgrim church and church militant
6. The Marian question
a) “Maximalists” and “minimalists” at the council
b) The anti-maximalist offensive gets underway
c) The success of the “minimalists”
7. The anti-Roman party in the second session
a) Jacobins and Girondists
b) The Belgian “middle way”
8. The birth of the Coetus Internationalis Patrum
9. Between the primacy of Peter and collegiality
a) The roots of the debate
b) The discussion in the council hall
c) The battle of The Twelve is won
d) The attack on the Holy Office
10. From the European alliance to the progressive world alliance
11. The debate on ecumenism
12. The constitution Sacrosanctum concilium
13. Appeals against communism
14. Paul VI’s journey to Palestine
V: 1964: The Third Session
1. The opening of the third session
2. The encylical Ecclesiam suam
3. The conservatives to the counter-attack
a) The official birth of the Coetus Internationalis Patrum
b) Cardinal Larraona’s “confidential comment”
c) Bishop Helder Câmara’s maneuvers
4. A compromise on the chapter De Beata Maria Virgine
5. Why doesn’t Vatican II speak of hell?
6. The clash over religious freedom
a) Two contrasting concepts
b) The debate in the hall
7. The Jewish question in the council
a) From 1959 to 1964
b) The 1964 discussion
8. “Let us lift up sacred scripture, not tradition”
9. Gaudium et spes: The council’s “promised land”
a) The Church in the contemporary world
b) First skirmishes in the hall
c) Teilhard de Chardin’s presence at the council
10. A new vision of the Christian family
a) Going beyond Casti connubii
b) The ends of matrimony
11. Marxism and communism are again discussed
12. The “updating” of religious life
13. Open conflict concerning collegiality
14. The “black week”: but for whom?
a) Bishop Felici’s announcements
b) The revolt of the bishops
15. The promulgation of Lumen gentium
16. Paul VI sets aside the tiara
VI: 1965: The Fourth Session
1. From the third to the fourth session
2. The conservatives’ new initiatives
a) The corrections by the Coetus Internationalis
b) Cardinal Siri’s criticisms
3. The opening of the fourth session
4. The battle over religious liberty
a) Again the conservatives critique the schema
b) The two groups confront each other
c) Vatican Council II and Freemasonry
d) Paul VI’s decisive intervention
5. Schema XIII: criticisms from opposite sides
a) The presentation of the schema
b) Critiques of the document’s optimism
c) Teilhard de Chardin mentioned again in the hall
d) Overpopulation and birth-control
6. Paul VI at the U.N.O.: a symbolic event
a) The speech in the Glass Palace
b) The pacifist appeal in the council hall
7. Non-Christian religions and Nostra aetate
8. Compromise on the constitution Dei Verbum
9. The council and communism: the story of a missing condemnation
a) Schema XIII and communism
b) The mysterious pigeonholing of the anti-communist appeal
c) The petition vanishes
d) The council fathers protest against the pacifism of schema 13
10. The final public sessions
11. The historic day, December 7
a) The promulgation of the final documents
b) The unsuccessful condemnation of communism
c) The reasons for the conservatives’ defeat
d) The final homily of Paul VI
12. The curtain falls on the Second Vatican Council
VII: The Counciliar Era (1965–1978)
1. The era of the “Conciliar Revolution”
2. The reform of the curia by Paul VI
3. The explosion of the crisis: the new Dutch catechism
4. The dissent against Humanae vitae
5. 1968: the revolution in society
6. Liberation theology
a) The birth of CELAM
b) The encylical Populorum progressio
c) The Medellín Conference
7. “The smoke of Satan” in the temple of God
8. The defeat of the conservatives after the council
9. The Vatican Ostpolitik
10. The post-conciliar period and the liturgy
a) The Novus Ordo Missae
b) The secularization of the liturgy
11. The Jubilee Year in 1975
12. The “Lefebvre case”
13. The “Italian way” to communism
14. The proximate and remote causes of the “world split apart”
15. Twenty years of Church history
Glossary of Technical Terms and Abbreviations
Index of Names
From the Introduction
1. Vatican II: a council different from the others
The history of the Catholic Church is at the center of universal history, on account of the primary role that the Church plays in the guidance of souls and the building up of civil society. From this perspective, the importance of the ecumenical councils in universal history is no surprise, since they are one of the highest expressions of the social life of the Church. If the Church has some relationship with the history of humanity, then an ecumenical council will have a relationship with that same history that is similar to the one that it has with the Church.
Councils are called ecumenical (or general) when, under the direction of the pope or of his representatives, they gather bishops from the entire oikuménē, which means from the whole inhabited world. In the councils the voice of the pope and of the world’s bishops united with him speaks up about historic events: this solemn voice makes the history of the Church and, with it, the history of the world.
In the history of the Church twenty-one councils have been held that are recognized by the Church as being ecumenical, or general. The last one was Vatican Council II, opened in Rome in Saint Peter’s Basilica by John XXIII on October 11, 1962, and concluded in the same place, after four sessions, by Paul VI on December 8, 1965. From the Council of Nicaea, which after the Council of Jerusalem was the first council written about by historians, to Vatican II, every council has been the subject of an historiographical debate. Every one of these assemblies not only made history, but then had its historians, and each of them brought to his work his own interpretive view.
Unlike the preceding councils, however, Vatican II poses a new problem for historians. Councils exercise, under and with the pope, a solemn magisterium [teaching authority] in matters of faith and morals and set themselves up as supreme judges and legislators, insofar as Church law is concerned. The Second Vatican Council did not issue laws, and it did not even deliberate definitively on questions of faith and morals. The lack of dogmatic definitions inevitably started a discussion about the nature of the documents and about how to apply them in the so-called “post-conciliar period.” For this reason the problem of the relation between the council and the “post-conciliar period” is at the heart of the ongoing hermeneutical debate.
The who, what, where, when, and why of the Council
The famous black-and-white photograph of the Second Vatican Council in session, taken from a high balcony at the back of Saint Peter’s Basilica, shows more than 2,000 Council Fathers standing at their places in slanted stalls that line the nave, with more than a dozen rows on either side. It resembles nothing so much as a gargantuan monastic choir—unless it puts you in mind of the British Parliament with the dimensions quadrupled.
Contemporary perceptions of the Council varied widely, partly because of the extensive media coverage. Although it promulgated a dogmatic constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, Vatican II was not a “constitutional convention.” An ecumenical council can teach about the Church but cannot modify a divine institution, any more than a pope can invent a new doctrine or change one of the Ten Commandments.
In his latest book, The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story (Loreto Publications, 2012), Roberto de Mattei, a historian in Rome, writes: “[Ecumenical] Councils exercise, under and with the Pope, a solemn teaching authority in matters of faith and morals and set themselves up as supreme judges and legislators, insofar as Church law is concerned. The Second Vatican Council did not issue laws, and it did not even deliberate definitively on questions of faith and morals. The lack of dogmatic definitions inevitably started a discussion about the nature of its documents and about how to apply them in the so-called ‘postconciliar period.’”
Professor de Mattei outlines the two main schools of thought in that discussion. The first and more theological approach presupposes an “uninterrupted ecclesial Tradition” and therefore expects the documents of Vatican II to be interpreted in a way consistent with authoritative Church teaching in the past. This is the “hermeneutic of continuity” emphasized by Pope Benedict XVI.
A second, more historical approach advocated by Professor Giuseppe Alberigo and the “School of Bologna” maintains that the Council “was in the first place an historical ‘event’ which, as such, meant an undeniable discontinuity with the past: it raised hopes, started polemics and debates, and in the final analysis inaugurated a new era.” The “event-dimension” of the Council is Exhibit A in making the case for the elusive “spirit of Vatican II” that looks beyond the actual words of the conciliar documents to the momentum that they supposedly generated.
Professor de Mattei counters such tendentiousness by making a clear distinction: “The theologian reads and discusses the documents in their doctrinal import. The historian reconstructs the events…understands occurrences in their cultural and ideological roots and consequences... so as to arrive at an ‘integral’ understanding of the events.”
Drawing on the work of two Catholic historians and the director of a Catholic news service, this article highlights features in the historical background to the Second Vatican Council by asking the basic questions of journalism: who, what, where, when and why.
Who: John XXIII
Although several were soon to become world famous, none of the 2,381 prelates in the stalls at St. Peter’s on October 11, 1962, and no combination of them, could have initiated an ecumenical council; that was the sole prerogative of the Supreme Pontiff. At that moment the bishop of Rome was the former Cardinal Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, who when elected pope in 1958 had taken the name John XXIII.
The media image of “Good Pope John,” the unpretentious, grandfatherly pontiff, had its basis in fact. Roncalli was gracious and optimistic by nature, and studiously avoided taking sides in the theological disputes that increasingly divided the Catholic Church. Yet a full portrait is more complex, as we read in Pope John and His Revolution, by the Catholic British historian E. E. Y. Hales.
Roncalli did have “peasant roots”—his parents were sharecroppers—but he was also descended from the impoverished branch of a noble family. His diary shows that he had pursued sanctity since his seminary days, yet he excelled in history rather than theology. His priestly ministry was spent almost entirely in chancery, seminary, and diplomatic positions (with the exception of a few years as an army chaplain during World War I); it is ironic that the ecumenical council he convened as pope should proclaim itself to be “pastoral”.
Hales’ specialty is 19th-century Church history, a politically tumultuous era when Catholic social doctrine began to be formulated officially. “John was as anxious as any previous pope to reaffirm some continuity in papal teaching; but in fact, in his brief reign, he changed both its spirit and its content.… The novelty of Pope John consisted in his embracing, with enthusiasm, novel ideas about world unity, colonialism, aid to underdeveloped countries, social security, and the rest, which belonged mainly to such recent times as the period since the Second World War; it consisted in his accepting these new ideas, saying they were good, and urging the world to pursue them.”
The 1961 encyclical Mater et Magistra, “On Christianity and Social Progress,” brings Catholic social teaching “right into the world of the Welfare State,” according to Hales. “The Pope…is embracing what many would call socialism, and he is acknowledging that a new concept of the duties of the State is involved.”
Another characteristic of the Roncalli papacy identified by Hales is its “universal quality.” “Addressing himself to ‘all men of good will,’ he went out of his way to make friendly contact not only with the separated brethren but also with those who professed a philosophy hostile to Christianity.” The 1963 encyclical Pacem in Terris, “On Establishing Universal Peace,” transcends the interests of the Church, or even of Christendom, and “looks steadily at the world as a whole.” Pope John XXIII took his role as Universal Pastor literally: “He was not directly trying to get the world ‘back in’ [to the Church]. He was going out into the world, to help the world. … [H]e was thinking of all men as sons of God and therefore of himself as their spiritual father on earth.”
Pope John’s contribution to the writing of the Vatican II documents may have been minimal, yet his view of his own pastoral ministry and of the Church’s role in the modern world had a momentous effect during the Council and in the years that followed.
What: Theological Currents
The question, “What was Vatican II about?” is objectively answered by reading the titles of the documents that the Council approved. From a broader perspective, it is often noted that in some respects the Council completed the work of Vatican I, which had defined precisely the powers of the papacy but had been adjourned before it could discuss episcopal authority in the Church.
Roberto de Mattei sees the remote causes of Vatican II in the early 20th-century Modernist crisis. Although Pope Pius X peremptorily clamped down on a wide range of philosophical and theological errors, many of them “went underground” in the academic world and in certain provinces of religious orders. The real need for reform in the Church continued, but it was not being addressed by erudite and antiquarian studies or fantastic speculation. (Recall that Teilhard de Chardin, SJ had many enthusiasts in the Council hall.)
Besides Modernism, de Mattei examines various 20th-century movements within the Church: biblical, philosophical, liturgical, ecumenical. He depicts a fruitful theological pluralism which in places was bursting the seams of the neo-Thomistic system that was still prevalent, especially in the Roman Curia. Through the participation of theological experts at Vatican II, the best of that scholarship contributed significantly to the conciliar documents. But the journals of several “periti”—scholarly experts—that have been published in recent years confirm that neo-Modernism was a real force and that some advisors arrived with scores to settle and strategies for refighting old battles.
Where: Spotlight on the “European Alliance”
An ecumenical council by definition is a gathering of prelates representing the Universal Church, and since Vatican I the Catholic hierarchy had become thoroughly international. During the preparatory phase of Vatican II every effort was made to consult the bishops worldwide and to distill from their input outlines on topics to be addressed during the council sessions. Professor de Mattei writes:
During the summer of 1959…the “vota” or recommendations from the bishops, the superiors of religious orders, and the Catholic universities arrived [in Rome]. The compilation of this enormous quantity of material began in September and concluded in late January of 1960. The approximately three thousand letters that were sent in fill eight volumes…
When the Council first met on October 13, 1962, “the day’s agenda provided that the assembly would elect its representatives (sixteen out of twenty-four) on each of the ten Commissions that were delegated to examine the schemas drawn up by the Preparatory Commission.” All Council Fathers were eligible, unless they already had been appointed to the commissions. Ballots were distributed with a separate page listing the names of those who already had expertise in certain areas because of their work on the related preparatory commissions.
In a planned preemptive strike, Cardinal Achille Liénart of Lille, France, grabbed the microphone out of turn, complained that “it is really impossible to vote this way, without knowing anything about the most qualified candidates,” and recommended that the Council Fathers defer the vote until they could consult with their national bishops’ conferences. His illegal “motion” was seconded by Cardinal Frings of Cologne, and Cardinal Tisserant moved to adjourn. De Mattei points out that “one immediate consequence” of Cardinal Liénart’s unsettling “solution” was “the introduction of a new organizational form…the episcopal conferences into the conciliar dynamics.”
“The Central-European conferences were the first to play the new role assigned to them,” according to de Mattei. The bishops’ conferences of the Rhineland nations—France, Germany, and the Low Countries—had a disproportionate share of the Church’s wealth, universities, publishing houses, and news services, so it was no surprise that most of the candidates whom they proposed were elected to the Conciliar Commissions. The “European Alliance,” as it was nicknamed, then used its position of dominance to discard many of the schemas that had been drawn up by the preparatory commissions, and to start over with texts drafted by the progressive periti.
These two shifts had momentous consequences during the four sessions of the Council and in the postconciliar period: (1) authority was displaced from individual bishops and Curial officials (who held authority delegated directly by the Pope) to ad hoc geographical gatherings of prelates that were usually run by a few movers and shakers, and to theologians who were simple priests; (2) the Council strangely became less “ecumenical” and more Eurocentric—an ominous trend, in hindsight. This influx of Central European and “democratic” ideas into the workings of the Roman Church was captured by Father Ralph M. Wilgten, SVD, editor of the Divine Word News Service, in the title of his classic book, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber.
When: Cold War politics
Political unrest interrupted Vatican I: King Victor Emmanuel of Italy captured and annexed the city of Rome, and French armies could no longer vouch for the Council Fathers’ safety. Less than 100 years later, Vatican II conducted its sessions during the Cold War, with Europe divided, the Soviet sphere of influence expanding, and an uneasy peace maintained by a policy of mutual assured destruction.
Father Wiltgen, in his week-by-week eyewitness account of Vatican II, notes that a significant percentage of the vota from the world’s bishops had recommended that the ecumenical council explicitly condemn Marxist socialism. During the third session, on October 23, 1964, Archbishop Paul Yu Pin of Nanking, China, speaking on behalf of 70 Council Fathers, asked that a new chapter on atheistic communism be added to the schema on “The Church in the Modern World.” “It had to be discussed in order to satisfy the expectations of our peoples…especially those who groan under the yoke of communism and are forced to endure indescribable sorrows unjustly.”
Despite this intervention and others like it, when the fourth session of the Council opened, the revised schema still made no explicit reference to communism. A petition asking for a reiteration of the Church’s teaching against communism was drawn up by the International Group of Fathers, headed by Archbishop Sigaud of Diamantina, Brazil, and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and signed by 450 Council Fathers. Although it was submitted in due form and in a timely fashion, a French prelate in the Curia shelved it, so that the intervention never reached the commission to which it was submitted.
Some Council Fathers had warned that the Council’s silence about the errors of communism would be viewed by history as cowardice and a dereliction of duty. The progressives at the Council argued that a condemnation would jeopardize negotiations with communist governments. Was a crucial teaching moment missed?
Why: Light to the Nations
Those who wonder why the Church held its 21st ecumenical council at all might have to wait until the next life to learn the full answer. Still, the stated purposes of Vatican II should be our starting point. Professor de Mattei notes that in October 1962 the Council Fathers informally issued a “Message to the World.” In it they proclaimed: “In conducting our work, we will give major consideration to all that pertains to the dignity of man and contributes to true brotherhood among peoples.” Good Pope John was apparently persuaded that a war-torn world was finally ready to listen again to the age-old wisdom of Holy Mother Church—a truly international society—and that the institutional Church had to gear itself up for this new dialogue with contemporary man.
This rapid, journalistic survey of Vatican II focused not on what it taught in its documents but rather on several important circumstances of the “event,” some of the opportunities and obstacles that helped shape the Council. As the Church observes the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the Second Vatican Council, the conciliar teachings should be understood against the contrasting background of historical facts, without being reduced to an “epiphenomenon” determined by those facts.
Michael J. Miller
Michael J. Miller writes from Glenside, Pennsylvania. He headed a team of translators who prepared the English edition of The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story by Roberto de Mattei. This article originally appearred in The Catholic World Report in 2012.
The new book by Prof. Roberto de Mattei, entitled Concilio Vaticano II. Una storia mai scritta (The Second Vatican Council: a story which has never been told.)Vatican Council II. The story which was never told), by Lindau Editions, has been published in Italy in the past few days. An vigorous debate has ensued with the participation of distinguished apologists such as Francesco Agnoli, Mario Palmaro, Alessandro Gnocchi and Corrado Gnerre on the one hand, and the progressive historian Alberto Melloni, of the so-called Bologna school, and the moderate sociologist Massimo Introvigne. on the other. Prof de Mattei has himself taken part in the debate with his article published in the newspaper “Libero” on December 12, 2010.
Forty-five years have passed since the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, the 21st such council in the history of the Church, but the problems arising from it remain alive and well. One of these problems is the relationship between the “letter” (the texts) and the “spirit” of the Council. These are advanced, respectively, by the two rival schools of continuity and discontinuity. The confrontation between these two schools, however, is in danger of becoming a dialogue of the deaf. The documents promulgated by Church authorities do not all have the same value, theologically speaking. If Benedict XVI expresses some opinions in an interview, as has happened in his latest book Light of the World, these should be received with great respect because they come from the Vicar of Christ. But regarding authoritative teaching, there is a difference between an interview and the definition of a dogma, since the former does not compel the assent of the faithful. The same can be said of a Council like Vatican II, which, as a solemn gathering of bishops united with the Pope, proposed authentic teachings that certainly do not lack authority. But only someone who ignores theology could attribute a level of “infallibility” to these teachings. Not all Catholics know that Papal infallibility applies only to rare, solemn pronouncements on matters of faith and morals, and many more non-Catholics do not understand this either.
A Council has the authority that the Pope who convokes and leads it would like to attribute to it. All the pronouncements of Popes John XXIII and Paul VI before, during and after Vatican II emphasise its non-dogmatic and pastoral dimension. Benedict XVI attributes to it the same pastoral and non-definitive intent and yet the “hermeneutic of continuity” he advocates is completely misunderstood by many Catholics, progressives and conservatives alike. The affirmation that Vatican II is in continuity with the Church’s Magisterium obviously presupposes the existence of some doubts and ambiguities in Council documents which therefore require some interpretation. For Benedict XVI, the criterion of interpreting such passages cannot be other than the Church’s Tradition, as he himself has repeated many times. If one agrees, on the other hand, with those such as the followers of the website “Viva il Concilio” (“Long Live the Council”) that Vatican II created a hermeneutical criterion for re-interpreting tradition, this would be paradoxically to attribute interpretative force to something that needs to be interpreted. To interpret tradition in the light of Vatican II, instead of the other way around, would be possible only if the position of Alberigo (the author of a very substantial 5 volume History of Vatican II) is accepted, which gives interpretative value not to the “letter” or the texts, but to the “spirit” of the Council. This is not, however, Benedict XVI’s position, which is critical of the hermeneutic of discontinuity precisely because it attributes primacy to the spirit , not the texts. Msgr. Gherardini, professor emeritus of Ecclesiology at the Lateran University, in his volume Concilio Vaticano II. Un discorso da fare (2009) has developed well the correct criterion of theological hermeneutics. Either one claims, as Gherardini does, that the Council’s doctrines are not compatible with previous definitions, and that they are neither infallible nor unchangeable and therefore not binding, or one assigns to the Council an authority that obscures the previous twenty councils of the Church, abrogating or replacing all of them. On this last point there does not seem to be a difference between the historians of the Bologna school, as Professor. Alberto Melloni, and sociologists such as Massimo Introvigne who seem to attribute infallibility to Vatican II.
There is also a second problem that goes beyond the question of the continuity or discontinuity of the Council texts, and it is not so much about theology as about history. It is the theme I wanted to tackle in my recent book Il Concilio Vaticano II. Una storia mai scritta (Editore Lindau). I have not attempted to undertake a theological reading of the Council documents, in the sense of wanting to assess whether they are in conformity or not with the Church’s Tradition, but I have tried instead to give a historical account of all that happened in Rome between October 11, 1962 and December 8, 1965. It is a work that complements theological studies and should not cause anyone to worry. It is impossible to understand the alarmist reactions of those who fear this history will be grist to the mill of the hermeneutic of discontinuity. Would this be a good reason for not writing the history of Vatican II? Should its history be left entirely in the hands of the Bologna school, which has made scientifically valuable but ideologically tendentious contributions? If elements of discontinuity were to emerge at the historical level, why should we fear bringing them to light? How can one deny a discontinuity, if not in the content then at least in the new language of Vatican II? A language which consists not only of words but also of silences, gestures and omissions can reveal the deeper currents of an event even more than the content of a speech. The history of the unexplainable silence about Communism on the part of a Council that should have been concerned with the facts of the world cannot, for example, be ignored.
The historian who has this task cannot isolate the texts of Vatican II from the historical context in which they were produced, because it is precisely the context, and not the texts, with which the historian is concerned. In the same way, the Second Vatican Council cannot be presented as an event that was born and died in the space of three years without considering the deep roots, and the equally deep consequences, that are also found in the Church and in society.
Separating the Council from the post-conciliar period is as unsustainable as separating the conciliar texts from their pastoral context. No serious historian, still less a person of common sense, could accept this artificial separation, which is born more from a partisan position more than from a calm and objective evaluation of the facts. Today we are still living with the consequences of the “Conciliar revolution” that anticipated and accompanied the revolution of 1968. Why hide it? As Leo XIII said when he opened the Vatican Secret Archives to scholars, the Church “must not fear the truth.”
Roberto de Mattei