NLM has a piece up asking the question "Why is Vatican II so Vexing?"
My guess is that it's because the council was summoned without a clear purpose or urgent need. It produced documents that at least in some cases seem to dance near the edge of Catholic orthodoxy. And the whole thing was hijacked ex post facto by people who were determined to turn the Roman Church into a progressive social club. In fairness Rome has a lot of councils that it considers OEcumenical. In the grand scheme of things though only a handful merit more than a footnote in history. The majority were either of little long term importance, or in some cases were outright failures.
I suspect that the verdict of history will ultimately put Vatican II into one of the latter two categories.
St. John of San Francisco
Orthodox Information & Resources
Orthodox Blogs
-
-
The Lord Blesses the Righteous22 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Non-Orthodox Blogs
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Who controls the narrative. . .23 hours ago
-
-
-
Politics Economics Culture & Miscellaneous Blogs
Don't blame me... I voted for George (the Third)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Switchcraft: 19431 day ago
-
-
-
-
Miscellaneous Sites of Interest
The Blog Yard
Where the best blogs go when they die...
Gone But Not Forgotten
-
-
A Brief Return10 months ago
-
‘The Jews are beloved of God’4 years ago
-
-
Moving day5 years ago
-
Sayonara for now6 years ago
-
MY FELLOW AMERICANS7 years ago
-
A Week in Iceland! Part 17 years ago
-
Coda8 years ago
-
Ten Years is a Long Run…8 years ago
Atom / RSS
8 comments:
"... without a clear purpose or urgent need."
In that respect, rather much like Justinian's Second Council of
Constantinople.
I think a lot of bad things result from solutions in search of a problem.
In that respect, rather much like Justinian's Second Council of
Constantinople.
I disagree. The purpose of Constantinople II may not be easy to put into a single phrase, but it was not without purpose. The teaching of Chalcedon was being painted by the Monophysites (and their sympathizers among the orthodox) as a surrender to Nestorianism. The achievement of Chalcedon was at risk of being lost. The need to prevent that was indeed "urgent".
Constantinople II set the teaching of Chalcedon (and of the Tome firmly in its proper Cyrilline context. In so doing, it not only confirmed the place of Chalcedon in the Church's tradition, but made it safe for the Church to appropriate the legitimate insights of the Antiochene tradition (safe because safeguarded against Nestorianizing by Constantinople II), particularly in the thought of St Maximos Confessor and the teachings of Constantinople III.
That is no small accomplishment. The fact that it is hard to put the purpose of Constantinople II into a pithy phrase should not prevent us from recognizing that.
Constantinople II was wildly important for setting Orthodox Christology on the right track. Without it, the Nestorian reading of Chalcedon, so popular in Syria and Rome, would've continued unabated... Anti-Gnostic is very right here.
Dr. Tighe surprises me. Really scraping for a tu quoque.
I should have thought the purpose and need of the 5th council rather obvious, resolving the disputes which had erupted with greater vigor in the wake of Chalcedon. Moreover, I don't think "without clear purpose" describes Justinian. All of that stands regardless of how one evaluates the success/goodness of the 5th Council or Justinian.
@Samn - I think I am too, but I believe Chris Jones' scholarly response is the one you are talking about.
Oddly, for a "Council called for no purpose," Vatican II cleared up a fair number of important things.
Pace Fr. Kung, it ratified the decrees of Vatican I--that was no "robber council."
In a remarkable anticipation of the sexual revolution, it was (as far as I know) the first general council to characterize abortion as an "abominable crime," and to affirm that the sacrament of marriage was instituted by God, for one man and one woman, and ordered toward procreation.
It plainly repuditated the antisemistism that has for so long plagued Christendom.
It affirmed that the Church was both the People of God and a society with a hierarchical constitution, where consultation was recommended, but democratic governance plainly not in the cards.
It reversed the Church's (very) longstanding practice of seeking "establishment," and of promoting privileges for the Church in secular law.
I could go on, of course. Yes, it was abused by some. No surprise there. But, as we get historical perspective on the council, it seems to me that many of the missteps that were blamed on the council were in fact manifestations of secularizing trends that hit all religious societies in the late 20th century. As I read and re-read its pronouncements (as fewer and fewer people seem to do), it appears to me a remarkable resource that, far from being dated, continues to address many of the issues still vexing the Church, and seems to me, in its details, still more vexing to the Church's detractors than to the faithful.
Vatican II has the distinction of destroying the traditional Catholic liturgy, of "dumbing down" the Mass and introducing Protestant-friendly elements like altar girls, communion in hand, bad hymns, Protestant style vestments and modernist church architecture.
Post a Comment