By Father Edward Duff

Three acts of the profound religious drama which is the Catholic Church’s experience of self-discovery and renewal at the Second Vatican Council have transpired. While Rome prepares for the reassembling of the bishops on September 14 for the fourth and final session, it will be useful to review the background, the nature and the direction of the spiritual revolution.

So central a theme has the Council and its preoccupations become in the religious news of the world, so crucial for the aspirations of all Catholics (as well as in the hopes of many millions not of the Roman faith) that one forgets the astonishment that greeted the first public announcement of Pope John XXIII to a group of cardinals at the church of St. Paul’s Outside the Walls on January 25, 1959, a short three months after his election.

Why a council? The popular notion assumed that with the infallibility of the pope defined at the adjourned First Vatican Council in 1870, there would be no need to convoke the bishops of the world to deliberate on matters of doctrine. To be sure, the Catholic Church -- as all religions, for that matter -- are experiencing relentless persecution in the regions where one-third of humanity was under Communist control. Moreover, much of modern civilized mankind, mesmerized by technological triumphs, felt liberated from the constraints of religion which it deemed unnecessary and outmoded. A resurgence of the ancient religions of the East, allied to an aggressive nationalism, menaced the precarious Christian missionary outreach in Asia and Africa and the soaring population growth in pagan lands promised to reduce Christianity to a diminishing minority.

But no coherent doctrinal threat confronted Catholicism. In the United States it was not theology that was felt to be in short supply but rather funds for the expansion of parish plants in the burgeoning suburbs.

In any case, after three years of preparation Vatican II would meet in an atmosphere devoid of hostility towards Catholicism that had attended its predecessor. The New York Herald Tribune had termed Vatican I “a big farce, a grand archaeological show.” Thanks in no small part to a series of brilliant popes, this time there was everywhere a benevolent curiosity as to the meaning and the effect of the ecclesiastical event that invited suggestions for an unrestricted agenda from the bishops of five continents, from the Religious Orders and the faculties of Catholic universities throughout the world.

The difficulties inherent in the process of what generally came to be called, following Pope John’s phrase “aggiornamento,” the updating, the refurbishing, the making of the Church relevant to contemporary needs, were inescapable. The original agenda was composed of 70-odd schemata or draft documents. These were to be scrutinized, debated and voted by a body of roughly 2,500 men of all races and of diverse cultural experience, each entitled according to the rules to speak for ten minutes at his pleasure, a prospect that promised a Council of 20 years duration.

(At Vatican I the 750 bishops of the world had assembled in the epistle transcept of St. Peter’s Basilica. When Vatican II opened on October 11, 1962, the bishops overflowed the football field type stands running the length of the largest nave in the world, the youngest finding place in the tribunes overhead.)

Perhaps most awkward of the problems was the sheer inexperience of a Council and the absence of contact between the national hierarchies. There had been in all history only 20 General Councils of the Church; no one present at Vatican II had ever attended one.

John XXIII was considered an appealing, generous-minded person and a holy man but hardly a commanding, imposing character. Yet it was his opening address that gave firm direction to the Council, revealing his profound purposes. He was wholly unimpressed, he remarked, by “prophets of doom” who luxuriated in describing the wickedness of the world. As Pope John read history, “Divine Providence is leading us to a new order of human relations which, by men’s own efforts and even beyond their very expectation, are directed toward the fulfillment of God’s superior and inscrutable designs,” a vision he was to adumbrate subsequently in his widely-hailed encyclical, Pacom in Terris.

There was, therefore, no point in repeating “one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.” There was no profit either in sterile condemnations.

What was needed, the pontiff declared, was “a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciences in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought.” Moreover, it must be remembered that “the substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing and the way in which it is presented is another.”

The purpose of Vatican II had been proclaimed; it was to be pastoral. The bishops were to plan how the Church could best fulfill its mission to mankind.

The first session October 11 - December 8, 1962, was the novitiate of the bishops, their personal introduction to and experience of the common life and action of world Catholicism. Not a single text was adopted, although five schemata were discussed. The discussion was free and frank, demonstrating the growing realization by the bishops of their individual and collective responsibilities and disclosing simultaneously the inevitable division of opinion between two mentalities, described in variations on the “progressive” and “conservative” categories.

That the bishops, particularly those of northern Europe, proposed from the outset to do more than merely ratify documents submitted to them was made decisively clear at the first working session. On the notion of Achille Cardinal Lienart of Lille, seconded by Josef Cardinal Frings of Cologne, the prepared lists of members of the various Conciliar Commissions were dropped in favor of an adjournment to enable the national hierarchies to caucus and make nominations looking to a freer election.

What specified the difference in outlook of the two main attitudes present in the Council soon emerged. These turned, speaking generally, on opposing judgements on the state and role of the Church in the modern world and on the nature of theology.

The conservative viewpoint, popularly identified with Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, Secretary of the Congregation of the Holy Office of the Roman Curia and Chairman of the Council’s Theological Commission, sees the Church as the beleaguered bulwark of salvation surrounded by aggressive forces of atheism and unbelief. In such a crisis one must close ranks against the treacherous enemy and stand stalwart behind traditional policies.

This conservative group, moreover, sincerely believes that the purity of doctrine is being threatened by those who would compromise it by concessions to non-Catholics or eviscerate it by false philosophical interpretations. All the more need, then to reiterate, and in approved formulas, the perennial truth proclaimed by the Church with new condemnations for what are deemed contemporary aberrations. It is not for nothing that Cardinal Ottaviani’s coat of arms bears the motto “Semper Idem” i.e. “Change Nothing!”

The other viewpoint, soon revealed as shared by the majority of the Council, saw the Church not so much as under attack as ignored by the modern world. What theology needed, these bishops sensed, was language that would make the ancient message of man’s dignity and destiny intelligible to the modern mind, language whose concepts had been enriched especially by the findings of archaeological and exegetical scholars. Such a viewpoint steadily gained ground among the bishops of the non-Latin countries; it was more and more embraced by the American hierarchy, originally thought to be quite conservative in outlook. In the first session early prominence was gained by modest but plain spoken Joseph Cardinal Ritter of St. Louis and the broadly trained Archbishop Paul J. Hallinan, former navy chaplain with a doctorate in history.

Archbishop Hallinan was the American especially identified with the schema on the Liturgy, the first topic to come before the Council. The discussion indicated a widespread desire to make the official worship of the Church what Pope St. Pius X proclaimed it to be, “the chief and indispensable source of the true Christian spirit.” The corporate character of the Church would be brought into greater relief by a more active participation of the laity and by a wider use of the vernacular language. Preaching would be given greater emphasis as would use of the Bible.

The contrasting viewpoints displayed in the discussions as to whether Latin could be lifted from some parts of the Mass to become more pronounced when the next topic was introduced. The schema was entitled “On Revelation” and its first chapter asserted that there are two distinct sources, Scripture and Tradition.

The document was a polemical one, an effort to force the opinion of a single theological school on the Council. The opposition was general and heated. On November 20, by an almost two-thirds majority (1368 versus 822), the bishops voted to scrap the text altogether; their action was termed “the end of the Counter-Reformation.” At this point Pope John intervened and referred the matter to a mixed commission to be composed of members of the Theological Commission and, most significantly, members from the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity under the renowned biblical scholar, Augustin Cardinal Bea, S.J.

The session concluded with discussions of proposed texts on Modern Means of Communications, on the Unity of the Church and on the Church. In the final week Cardinal Suenens, seconded by Cardinals Montini and Lercaro, called for a new focus to the work of the issue involved two questions: What does the Church conceive her self to be and how does she see her mission in the world. Clearly, much revision of the draft documents would have to made by the Commissions during the intercession in the light of the sentiments expressed by the majority of the bishops and the suggestions of Cardinal Suenens.

The heart of the world was held for days as the much loved Pope John agonized to his painful death on June 3, 1963. His successor was his confidant, Giovanni Battista Cardinal Montini, elected on June 21. Choosing the name of St. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, the new pope promptly announced the reconvening of the Council and showed himself a supple and realistic continuer of the Joannine spiritual revolution.

His own theological orientation was revealed in the footnote references in the Pastoral Letter on the Council he had addressed to the people of Milan: his intellectual guides proved to be Charles Journet (whom he subsequently made a cardinal), Yves Congar, O.P., Henri du Lubac, S.J., Hans Kueng, Daniel - Rops, Christophe Dumont, O.P., Hubert Clerissac, O.P., Georges Dejaifve, S.J., and Gerald Phillips. The strongly Christological character of his opening address at the second session of the Council on September 29, 1963 was even more revealing. Now the bishops had more specific goals set for their work. As set down by Pope Paul, these were 1) self-awareness of the Church, 2) renewal of the Church, 3) reunion of all Christians, and 4) dialogue with the world.

It seems a law of the Council’s life that it takes two sessions for a schema to mature. Thus, the second session saw the promulgation of the splendid, revised Constitution on the Liturgy and the short (13 pages) Communications Decree. It saw the introduction of a new and more scriptural document “On the Church” and began the revolutionary questions of anti-Semitism and religious liberty as well as the dealings of the bishops with the Holy See.

The Americans whose growing influence was noted at this session were the late Cardinal Meyer of Chicago and Bishops Charles Helmsing of Kansas City and Ernest Primeau of Manchester, N.H.

The closing ceremony on December 6 was startled and thrilled by Pope Paul’s announcement that he would “become a pilgrim to the land of Jesus, our Lord.” On the Mount of Olives on January 5, Paul exchanged the kiss of peace with the Ecumenical Patriarch, Athenagoras.

Despite the keen disappointment felt especially by Americans, that a vote on religious liberty did not take place in its closing hours, the third session of Vatican II which sat September 14 through November 21, 1964 was a resounding success, a giant step forward in the “aggiornamento” envisaged by Pope John.

For the first time the Catholic Church officially described herself. For the first time the Catholic Church recognized that not only are there morally good people in other Christian bodies but that they are such through the ministry of preaching and sacraments dispensing grace in these separated Churches.

In eight chapters, rich with biblical insights, the bishops saw the Church not as an imposing international organization with religious goals but primarily as a mystery, the instrument of God’s dealings with mankind. In place of the military metaphors of an army with commanders ordering docile troops through hostile territory, an old concept was restored; that of the People of God, whose father was Abraham, pilgrimaging through time, a company of the children of God, equal in essential dignity but some assigned a special ministry of service as shepherds of the march. And in this family of the Church, Mary has a special place as the mother of Christ. The document incorporated much of the thinking of the Fathers of the Church. The Church of the East, whose treasure had too long been neglected, was being effectively heard in the Council of the universal Church.

The incomplete view of the episcopacy, resulting from the abrupt adjournment of Vatican I because of the Franco-Prussian war, was balanced by the emphasis on the collegiality of the bishops of the Catholic world. These were asserted to be the successors of the Twelve Apostles upon whom -- with and under Peter -- Christ founded his Church. So, the bishops -- with and under the Pope -- were declared to have responsibility for teaching, sanctifying and governing the whole Church.

The effects of the Decree on Ecumenism are already being experienced in many countries, not least our own, and in the official, continuing consultation between the Holy See and the World Council of Churches. Christ’s clear will for the unity of all His followers was clearly recognized, the theological orientation of different ecclesiastical traditions assessed and guides for action set down. The “primary duty” in all this enterprise for Catholics, it was stated, “is to make a careful and honest appraisal of what is to be done or renewed in the Catholic household itself.”

The Council adopted a Decree on the Eastern Churches which won small attention in the world press. What did, however, create wide-spread comment were the speeches on successive days of Cardinals Leger, Suenens, Alfrink and Patriarch Maximos calling for a more personalist view of marriage. In the aftermath the English professor of dogmatics Father Charles Davis, declared: “My position as a theologian today is not what it was yesterday.”

It has been a long, arduous and often tedious process, this movement of “aggiornamento” in the age-old Catholic Church. Much remains to be done. But the meaning of the results to date is not too distant from the message Pope Paul included in his first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam: “Let the world know this: the Church looks at the world with profound understanding, with sincere admiration and with a sincere intention of not conquering it but of serving it, not of despising it but of appreciating it, not of condemning it but of strengthening and saving it.”