[Music]
Well one of the most theologically
fascinating and plain entertaining books
I've read in a long time is "My Journal
of the Council", written by Yves Congar,
Father Yves Congar. Now Catholics of a
certain age might know that name. But I'm
afraid that most Catholics, probably
under 50, wouldn't even recognize the
name. Yves Congar was a Dominican
priest who was one of the most
influential, maybe the most influential
theological experts at Vatican II.
And what's really fascinating is Congar,
throughout his career, had been by turns
vilified, lionized, loved, hated, exiled etc.
but found himself at the age of about 58,
a "peritus" or theological expert at
Vatican II. And there he influenced
enormously the writing of the text on
"Divine Revelation", "Church", "The Church in the
Modern World" etc. etc. So he was a major
major player and the book I'm talking
about, is literally his Journal of his
time at the Council. So it's a big book. He
comments on all the events and
personalities, often in a very arch way,
I must say. Because I studied on one
friend and and I knew the French gem,
the academic scene of the '65. I
recognize the type, there's a certain old
kind of withering, you know, superiority
that comes out. Sometimes and Congar will
refer to some of the major players of
the Council to say, "Oh what a bore", "This
one's useless" or "This one talks too much".
And so I would laugh out loud in some of
these arch remarks that he would make.
But what comes through as you read this
book, and not every page is compelling
reading, but is, you kind of work your way
through it, and I'll use his overworked
phrase but "the spirit of the Council" by
which I mean the great themes of
Vatican II that indeed are found in the text.
I mean the Church's outreach to the modern
world. I mean the focus on the renewal of
the liturgy. I mean the universal call to
holiness.
I mean the recovery of God's Word, the
evangelical spirit, all these things that
we associate legitimately with Vatican II.
Well see, Congar was one of the major
instigators of all these. He's going to
meetings. He's giving speeches. He's
running all across Rome. He's appearing
in St. Peter's. He's talking, cajoling,
wheedling etc., trying to bring about
these great motifs. And by all accounts,
he was pretty remarkably successful
as he was doing his work. And this comes
through in the pages of the Journal.
His great, you know, enemies would be people
like Archbishop Pericle Felici and
Cardinal Ottaviani who was the head of
the of the Holy Office. They would have
represented that, somewhat you know,
old-fashioned very scholastic defensive
form of Catholicism that people like
Congar were fighting. Who were Congar's
allies? And they too were all over the
pages of Journal. Who want more of the
progressive figures like Cardinal Frings
of Cologne but also Archbishop the
young Archbishop Karol Wojtyła of Kraków
is a player in his Journal. And then all
of his theological colleagues, people
like Karl Rahner, Edward Schillebeeckx,
Hans Küng, Henri de Lubac, and a young
German theologian called Joseph
Ratzinger.
So all these players were on Congar's side
and they were indeed bringing into
expression this great spirit of
Vatican II. What I found, as I read the book, was
I was caught up in the sort of euphoria
of that time, and seeing these figures, you
know, coming back to life and seeing that
time, of coming back to life was was very,
you know, kind of exciting and
exhilarating. At the same time what
struck me was there was a great split
that occurred in the victorious party.
So all the people I mentioned on the more
progressive side that carried the day in
Vatican II, in the years after Vatican II,
a lot of those figures split with one
another. For example Karol Wojtyła
becomes Pope John Paul II.
He appoints Joseph Ratzinger as his
head of the Doctrine of Faith. He makes
Congar himself a cardinal, turns de Lubac
into a Cardinal, or von Balthasar and
others. That's one side of it. On the
other side though, people like
Schillebeeckx and Küng and Rahner stake out
very different positions. And in fact
Karol Wojtyła as Pope John Paul II,
pursues in a regressive way,
you know, Schillebeeckx and Küng and many
others. So there's the question which I
think is fascinating. What caused the
rift between the two wings, if you want,
of the Vatican II party. And here's one
way to get at it. There are many ways we
could approach it. But one way to get at
it is to look at the emergence of the
theological journal "Communio". Now here's
the story. After the Council, this
international theological journal was
born called "Concilium", Council, and it was
meant to carry forth, you know, the spirit
of Vatican II. Every figure I mentioned
on the victorious side, you know, from
Ratzinger, to Rahner, to Congar, to all of
them were on the board of Concilium.
And they saw this journal as carrying on the
spirit of Vatican II. Well not many years
after it was founded, three major players
on that board resigned. They were
Hans von Balthasar, Joseph Ratzinger
and Henri de Lubac. They resigned and
they formed this new journal called
"Communio" and even to this day you might
say Concilium and Communio represent the two,
you know, warring perspectives of how
to read Vatican II. What I find really
illuminating is Ratzinger's reflection,
some years later, on why the three of
them split and why they saw the need for
Communio always against Concilium. And here
were the three things he said and it
helps to clarify why the two sides split.
It's first of all, many of the board
members of Concilium wanted to form an
alternate or alternative "Magisterium",
teaching authority.
So there's a teaching authority of the
Pope and bishops. And then Ratzinger and
company argued, they seem to want to
establish themselves, the theologians, as
a sort of rival or alternative teaching
authority. Well, I mean certainly Baltazar
and Ratzinger and company understood the
importance of theology. But they also
knew that Church couldn't survive if it
had two, sort of rival, teaching
authorities. So they aborted them.
Secondly they said many of the members
of the Concilium board wanted a Vatican III.
When the ink on the text of Vatican II
was barely dry. In other words, they
wanted to ride the progressive wave of
Vatican II to all sorts of reforms that
weren't called for by Vatican II. So let's
say change in celibacy, women's
ordination, change in the sexual teaching
of the church, etc. etc. and we know that,
well, that's the whole agenda of much of
liberal Catholicism even to this day.
And Ratzinger said, "Look we just had Vatican II.
We've barely begun to appropriate
Vatican II and you people want Vatican III.
So that's the second reason they bought.
Here's the third one, but I think, is the
most significant really.
He said the very name of the journal,
"Concilium", Council, and the stated purpose
to perpetuate the spirit of the Council
He said, "That's not a good idea." Now mind
you, Ratzinger, de Lubac and those
fellows were men of the Council.
They were at the Council. They loved the
Council but Ratzinger said, "Councils are
held rarely in the life of the Church
for good reason because during Council
the Church has to, as it were, throw
itself into question. It has to ask some
fundamental questions about who it is
and what it believes. And it's dangerous.
That's problematic.
It means the Church's life is in
suspense for that time. Which is why the
Church has councils, but also turns with
relief from the council to get back to
its life, to its work. Which is why they
called their magazine "Communio"
because I saw communio as the essential
life of the church. Now I can
testify some of this because I came of
age at that time when the common
attitude was, well, the Church's beliefs
are all up for grabs. It's there in
suspense. What do we believe
about Trinity, about Jesus, about the Church,
about morality ... Well, who knows, the
theologians are debating all of that.
Well see, the Church can't survive that
way. It's like if suddenly all the rules
of baseball were up for grabs,
if suddenly all the rules of golf are up
for grabs. Well people couldn't play
baseball they couldn't play golf,
you know, and so Ratzinger said, "We don't
want to perpetuate the spirit of the
Council. We love the Council. We were we
were the great figures of the Council.
But we don't want to perpetuate its
spirit. We want the church to get back to
its essential work." That's why I think
reading this text of Congar where all
these men of the Council are on display
is very instructive, very illuminating.
And also to consider the fact that the
men of the Council, the victorious men of
the Council split in the years that
followed, and thereupon hangs a very
interesting tale that's still worth
pondering as we approach now the 50th
anniversary of Vatican II.
[Music]