Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T14:12:43.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vatican II: Misunderstandings at the Council

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 August 2024

E. Schillebeeckx O.P.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We can only rejoice that after the turn taken by the second Vatican Council during its first phase we may justifiably hope for greater freedom for what is, somewhat erroneously, called the ‘new theology’. In an earlier article I have already commented on that aspect of the Council. Since then I have given some thought to related aspects of the Council.

When we examine more closely the speeches of the council fathers in St Peter's we have to admit that some of the utterances of the socalled ‘open wing’ strike us as less felicitous, and such as might evoke, during the second phase of the Council, reactions of a kind that could easily cause confusion in the ranks of this ‘open wing’.

Type
Research Article
Information
Life of the Spirit , Volume 18 , Issue 203 , July 1963 , pp. 2 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © 1963 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

References

1 Life Of The Spirit, June 1963 (Both articles appeared Originally in the Dutch weekly De Bazuin).

2 I prefer to set aside here the more complicated question of whether it would, for instance, be morally justified from a Catholic-ecumenical viewpoint to declare an actually revealed truth as dogma at a moment that the inner Life of the Church does not feel the slightest need for such a declaration, and which, seen from the other side, would consolidate the positions of separated Christian brethren vis-à-vis the Catholic Church.

3 For however much the faith itself is expressed in theology, the latter may still place an emphasis where faith itself does not, and in this way differences may arise, e.g., between Catholic theology and the Reformed confession (which is less sharply distinguished from 'theology' than ours is), whereas in both cases one and the same datum of faith is involved.

4 Fr Tromp is secretary to Cardinal Ottaviani.

5 Ofcourse the ‘open wing’ was right to protest against a separate schema on the Christ or to the Redemption. For although this schema on Mary may repeat ad infinitum that Christ is the one and only saviour and that Mary contributed and contributes nothing to salvation that is not Christ's gift and Christ's grace, the fact remains that the Council (the preparatory commission) has put the wrong emphasis and created the impression that a short (and on the whole well-balanced) synthesis of belief on the subject of the mysteries concerning the Virgin Mary seems more important than a statement of faith regarding the mystery of Christ (which was not provided by the preparatory commission). In my opinion a protest against a separate schema in this connection is more than Justified, for such a schema (however well-balanced it has turned out to be) is bound to cause a shift of emphasis in the life of the Church after the Council. Surely the history of dogma ought to have taught us this lesson long ago!

6 This is, of course, a consideration of only one aspect of the use of the Latin language. A wider consideration of this problem would bring many other aspects to light, placing the ‘one-sidedness’ of what I am saying here in a truer perspective. My objections apply mainly to the exclusive use of Latin in theology.