Article #61
Subject: Jesuit perspective on Vatican II
Author: Andrew W. Harrell
Posted: 11/4/2010 09:09:42 AM

Father John w. O’Malley, S. J.’s 2010 Cole Lecture
Benton Chapel, Vanderbilt Divinity School,
“What Happened at Vatican II” Thursday October 21 and
“Interpreting What Happened at Vatican II”, Friday October 222


There was violent suppression of the Jesuits in the 18th century.
In the speaker’s opinion this was caused by mis interpretation of what
Happened at previous Church councils.
In his book there are flow charts of the different organs in the recent
council.
Its upshot was 16 Church documents
During the council there were majority and minority opinions in the council.
This was caused by the divisions among those represented
(the Curia, the Bishops, the Theologians)
During the council the theologians gave separate training sessions to the
Bishops
To help them prepare
There was a new vocabulary and some new literary forms introduced
(see book)
1) The 1st group said the council was a “big deal.”
2) the 2nd group said the council was not such a “big deal”
3) There was a small (marginal group led by the bishop Leferve
Which was adamant in its opposition to the reforms.
This group was altogether negative

In 1985 there was the election of John Paul UU,
He was somewhat ambivalent in his behavior toward the council
Toward the outside he was rather open and liberal.
Toward the inside and within he was very restrictive.
This followed from his belief that:

“There are 2 ways to intrepret the council… one as continuity…
two as a rupture.

2) Question: “Is the present Pope taking steps backward from Vatican II?”
answer “Yes”
The period from 1965 to 85 falls into three categories under the influence of
three groups.

Question: “Was the council the end of the Constantine era
(the end of this form of unity of Church and state)…
and of the counter reformation (which looked at Protestants as enemies0?”
answer: “Yes”


There has been very little historical analysis of church councils.
There is the one by the German Lauteur which left off at
The beginning of Gregorian reform period.

What is reform?
Making changes in disciples?
e.g. ther were 877 Canon law rules in Vatican II.

Up to the Council of Trent the councils dealt exclusively in new Canon law.
e.g. the previous canon law had a rule that nuns could not inform Protestant
ministers
(so that they could pray last rites) when one of their flock was dying in the
Catholic hospitals)

some of the reforms in Vatican II got rid of “relics” and the excessive
veneration of “relics”

After the reformation there developed a new paradigm of church councils.
Where does the 2nd Vatican council fit into these 3 paradigms?
There was nothing as revolutionary as in the reformation, but
New “rules of the game” were introduced.

What have some of the problems been?

First, focusing on the documents there is
the negative stuff:
3 labels are frequently applied to the councils as “red herrings”

1) that its purpose was to “modernize the Catholic Church”
2) that it was a “pastoral council”…all councils are pastoral.
3) That it was liberal…because liberal is a bad word.

The positive stuff:
1) strong engagement of a majority in favor of changing the “status quo”
2) council spelled the end of the classical world view that the best phrases,
the best words, have already been spoken..
3) It had a keen historical conscience

What are the main questions still left to be answered.
1) What was the councils “style”?
It changed the “Canon law” paradigm
the 16 documents alluded to one another.
2) What was the spirit of the council?
It wemt someways beyond specifics to a more general coherence..
Not just a grab bag of ordinances.