The Great Struggle

The Second Vatican Council, which took place between late 1962 and 1968, was perhaps the most revolutionary event in Church history, at least since the age of the Church Fathers. It represented a culmination of ideas and conflicts that had existed in the Church since the Renaissance, intended to address the issues raised during this period up into the 1960s. In a sense, it was a completion of this attempt that had begun with the First Vatican Council in the late 1860s. (1,2) During that time, from 1500-1960, there had been innumerable oppositions to the Church and Her teachings, including the Reformation, the advent of scientific materialism and atheism, the rise of various ideological economic systems such as socialism, capitalism, Communism and fascism, and the "modernist" trend which arose in the early 20th century that attempted to dispel the constant nature of Catholic Tradition, many long-held view of biblical exegesis, and many other teachings of the Church. (3) The conflict that existed during this period of time continues to this day, dividing not only those in the Church but in all the West and those parts of the world affected by Western culture. With the contemporary tension with Islam, it has rose to the forefront of people's attention.

I believe there is no better way to understand the present than to study the past, nor is there any better way to predict the future than by understanding its preceding influences. This article is not meant to be an exhaustive historical study. Rather, it is intended to be a study of the ideas, movements, philosophies and events that have come to shape the state of religion and belief in the modern world.

The aforementioned conflict within the post-medieval West is centered on two worldviews in direct opposition to one another: what I will call Progressive (referring to the way they view themselves; outsiders might call them "liberal" or more pejorative terms), and what I will call Conservative, though these are not meant to be concrete usages. It consists of a specific type of spirit, common to all those who participate in it despite any differences of culture, religion or time period they may have: the spirit of change. Progressives believe (or feel) that preexisting social, religious, economic, or any other structures need to be changed, often with the attitude that any change would be for the better. This spirit is often distinctly negative or pessimistic, viewing current and past aspects of society as essentially flawed or even corrupt, unworthy of improvement, only replacement. (see endnote 5)

There have been many different expressions of the Progressive worldview over the past five centuries, to varying degrees. At the end of the Middle Ages, particularly at the time of the Plague, Europe began to doubt the traditions they had held since the fall of Rome and even before, especially their Catholicism, their monarchies, their feudal systems, and their essential belief that tradition, heritage and other constants in life (particularly those based on the past) are the basis of identity and strength. I have espoused elsewhere that the mass panic, desperation and tragedy of the Black Plague was the primary catalyst of this doubt. (4)

In the Renaissance (14th to 17th centuries), the spirit of change blossomed. At first, it was very small, taking the form of a rediscovery of ancient Greek and Roman practices, particularly in art and government. While this had occurred to some degree in the past, many Renaissance leaders, primarily out of a sense of nostalgia (5), did not merely want to build upon the past - they wanted to completely discard and replace it. Thus, this was a major step in the Progressive movement. However, the greatest steps occurred a bit later in the Renaissance, with the Protestant Reformation (or Revolution would be more appropriate), the rise of modern science, and the beginning of mercantile. Each of these were decisive deviations from medieval models of religion, science and economics. With the dispersion of power these three brought, lending more power to secular authorities, a governmental change soon developed: absolute monarchies. (6,7) Royalty in the Middle Ages was distinct in many ways from those of the Renaissance. Medieval monarchs were not the absolute standard for their own actions - they were expected to be holy, according to Catholic teaching, to be exemplars to their people of a true and virtuous leader. If they were not, they could be deposed and replaced. Absolute monarchy abolished this, however, granting Renaissance monarchs ultimate power and authority over their subjects.

This absolute monarchy was paralleled by another governmental change in the Renaissance: secular, republican governmental institutions. While many monarchs gained more power, many governments also began to institute various councils, parliaments, constitutions and similar political and legal constructs that either did not exist or were less influential in government before. In the Middle Ages, the word "state" was never applied to a country - all nations were kingdoms, founded on the religious and cultural heritage and identity of the peoples within it. But in the Renaissance, nations became more secular, defining themselves more by their political, economic, and military actions and their differences with other nations.

Religion was one of the most influential changes in the Renaissance - not only in name, but in worldview and inspiration. Previously, for the greater part of history throughout the world, religion was based on three specific ideas: tradition, sacrifice, and imagination. The vast majority of pre-Renaissance religions viewed humanity as unworthy and impure, requiring vicarious sacrifice to make us holy before the Divine. Their understanding of the nature of the divine and earthly realms was transmitted via tradition, based upon historical revelations, mystical experiences and teachings of wisdom safeguarded by the priests and authorities in the religion. The constant, uniform nature of this tradition and the holy authority of the religious leaders was the foundation of tradition. The basis of daily liturgy and religious ceremony was imagination, using imagery, symbolism, language, music and rituals to see the invisible spiritual realities of existence and to interact with them. (8)

Catholicism in the Middle Ages exemplified these tenets. Combining constant Tradition, the authority of the clergy and papacy, the sacrificial quality of the Mass and Christian suffering, and the use of sacramental imagination, the medieval Church was very traditional. In the Renaissance, these fundamental qualities of religion came into doubt, in various ways and to varying degrees. Some Protestants viewed the use of imagery, symbolism and ordered rituals as idolatry or superstition; some viewed the sacrificial quality of the Mass as erroneous, unbiblical or superstitious, especially the teaching of transubstantiation; some dismissed or derided the authority of the clergy and papacy as contrary to the Bible, citing the corruption of some priests, popes and religious as examples of the inability of corrupt humans to properly use such authority; and some dismissed the idea of Tradition. They replaced these with many ideas, including a centralization of the Bible as the sole authority, various new understandings of the Eucharist (ranging from consubstantiation, which definitively removed its sacrificial character, to communion as a mere community tradition), replacing the Pope with secular authorities (Anglican) or individual religious figures (Luther, Calvin) and their teachings, and transforming the clergy into a religious function without sacramental power. The uniformity and order of the Church was largely replaced by disparate religious movements and positions within Protestantism. (9)

I list all these changes to emphasize the fact that the Progressive movement was the central innovation of the Renaissance and has increased in influence and scope ever since. It continued until Christianity was splintered into thousands of disparate religious groups, government became a loose and ephemeral collection of representatives, law became sway to the political and cultural preferences of the times, and the arts were reduced to originality for its own sake, forsaking all meaning or reason unto the absurd and debased, all driven by the belief that all change is progress for the good.

This Progressive worldview has been historically countered by the Conservative worldview. I have already described its state prior to the Renaissance, if that state could truly be called Conservative since the impact of deviating socio-economic and religious movements was quickly dealt with with little residual effect (though this could be doubted). Conservatism largely began in the Renaissance in opposition to the Progressive movement. At first, many traditionalists who still held on to the medieval worldview embraced many aspects of the Renaissance, such as the rejuvenation of the positive aspects of Antiquity, such as their art and science, and the ideas of Catholic humanism. (10) But Protestantism brought into focus the conflict of worldviews that had insidiously begun at the end of the Middle Ages and the challenge traditionalists faced for the future.

Due to its essential attributes, Conservatism changed very little in worldview over time. The most significant change they expressed between 1500 and 1960 was the transformation of some Progressive groups into Conservative forms, such as some Protestant denominations and some forms of capitalism. The Conservative movement is centered on the belief that change for its own sake is not true progress, that the past should be built upon and not discarded. This leads naturally to an embrace of many ancient socio-economic and religious structures, such as monarchies, agrarian economies, and medieval Catholicism, though this is more true of Conservative Catholics than for all Conservatives.

Over time, as Western society continually changed, for better or worse, under the ruling spirit of Progress, Conservatives took on a highly defensive stance, rooting themselves ever deeper in their long-held traditions and beliefs, whatever form those took. By the beginning of the 20th century, Progress had become the dominant position of the West, especially in Europe, as new and ever more powerful technological, scientific, political, economic and spiritual innovations were readily embraced, including machines, atomic physics, eugenics, democratic republics, socialism, communism, fascism and atheism, all promising an ideological utopia of the future. They believed that by deviating more and more from ancient traditions and instituting various socio-economic ideologies, the causes of evil would be demolished and all people would live happy, successful and moral lives. (11) This was the dominant mindset of the time.

Conservatives saw this "progress" as leading inevitably towards an apocalyptic collapse of a society that built ever higher towers without any foundation. (12) As these changes continued, Conservatives embraced their traditions ever more heartily, distrusting any semblance of "modernism" and the Progressive worldview. The two World Wars were to Conservatives a horrifying affirmation of their worst fears as to the ultimate result of Progressive change. In their wake, Progressives were greatly undermined, and not for over a decade would they regain a strong foothold in society.

The first half of the 20th century brought another challenge to Conservatives, however, particularly for Catholics - a challenge from within. At this time, many Catholic academic scholars and theologians, including some Church officials, were beginning to doubt that Tradition was truly perfect or constant, that the central dogmas of the Bible were historically true (such as the Fall and the supernatural events of the life of Christ), and several moral teachings of the Church, effectively succumbing to the Progressive influence which had long dominated academic circles. (13) Catholics outside these circles grew in fear, believing the Progressive threat had taken a hold within the Church by persuading many of its own members to treason against traditional Catholic values and beliefs.

This conflict came to a head in the 1960s, at the Second Vatican Council. This Council was called to address the issues raised by the Progressives - not to automatically dismiss them, or to immediately accept them, but rather to use them as opportunities to reaffirm, clarify and open up aspects of Catholicism that, over the centuries-long battle with the Progressives, had become too stale, defensive and routine. Since the Reformation, Catholicism had become more Roman than Catholic. More concern was placed on the appearance of things than the reasons or meaning behind them. The cultural expressions of the Church were held higher than the actual truths and spirituality of Catholicism. Many things that were emphasized by Protestants and modernists, such as the Bible and science, were largely ignored by Catholics as a defensive measure against the Progressives' assault. I do not intend to say that the Progressive movement was not attacking traditional Catholicism. Truly, I believe that was one of the central intents of that movement, and remains a uniting feature of Progressives even today, though it has now taken on a more indifferent or dismissive tone. Nor do I mean to demean the state of the Church between the Reformation and Vatican II, or to apply my assertions about it to all Catholics of that period. But Vatican II wanted to heal the damage done by that struggle, returning Catholic universality to the Church.


Endnotes (I do not claim to agree with all of the statements made in my cited sources)
1. Bokenkotter, Thomas (2005). A Concise History of the Catholic Church. New York: Image. pp. 337. ISBN 0385516134.
2. Hahnenberg, Edward (2007). A Concise Guide to the Documents of Vatican II. City: Saint Anthony Messenger Press. pp. 44. ISBN 0867165529.
3. For general information on Catholic modernism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism_%28Roman_Catholicism%29
4. My article, "The Birth of Modernity Part 1", p. 3 of my gallery here. I cannot find my other sources on this view of the Plague, though there are many books about it. For more info, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequences_of_the_Black_Death
5. Huizanga, Johan, The Waning of the Middle Ages (1919, trans. 1924)
6. http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/westn/absolutism.html
7. http://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/classes/louisxiv.html
8. See Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "The Spirit of the Liturgy", for much more information on these ideas.
9. For more information on Protestantism, see: http://www.tyndale.ca/seminary/mtsmodular/reading-rooms/history/16th-century and Belloc, Hilaire (1928). How the Reformation Happened. Tan Books & Publishing. ISBN 0-89555-465-8. (a Catholic perspective; reprinted 2009)
10. For more on humanism: http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/h/humanism.html
11. See the works of Francis Bacon, Karl Marx, Hitler, and various other social, moral and political philosophers from the mid-19th century through to the early 20th century.
12. See the philosophical works of Hilaire Beloc, G.K. Chesterton, J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, and others from the early 20th century.
13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism_%28Roman_Catholicism%29


Part Two

 Although many different philosophies, worldviews and ideologies have been prominent at various times through history, often conflicting with an opposite set of ideas, the forces of history are both higher and more open than this. There are two forces that determine the course of history: spiritual realities, and human freedom. St. Augustine understood this and went to great lengths to explain it. (1) Ideas and movements are merely the expression of these two forces. Ideas are never inherently evil - they express the sinful heart of those who invent and hold such ideas. Thus, the Progressive and Conservative models I used in the first part of this essay are only models. In modern times, there are far too many attempts to apply some conspiracy of ideologies onto history when in truth, history is much more developmental and rational, at once mundane and spiritual.

There are virtues and faults to both the Progressive and Conservative models. As Catholics, our sight goes beyond the perspectives of cultural figures, even saints. We look ever towards God's truth, wherever and by whomever it is communicated. As St. Paul said, "Test everything; retain what is good. Refrain from every kind of evil." (1 Thessalonians 5) (2) As St. Justin Martyr said, "All truth is mine." The spiritual forces of good and evil transcend human ideas and thus influence the development of history far more than any human idea could. One could say, for example, that the 20th century had such a great deal of atrocities as it did because of the promulgation of violent political and economic ideologies, or because of the power and influence held by certain despotic tyrants, or because of extreme advancements in military technology we could not control, etc., when in truth these were mere expressions of the sin in this world and the sin human beings are capable of choosing, as we have been since our earliest days. It is thus a fallacy to assign the strict and decisive label of good or evil to any particular set of ideas, even something like fascism. Unless an idea is merely a statement of one's evil intentions, all ideas contain both good and evil. We can learn something from everything.

The Renaissance was not an abrupt break with the Middle Ages, without any connection or shared worldview, nor did the end of Rome signal the "Dark Ages" as many past scholars fallaciously label the early Middle Ages. History develops, as individual human lives develop - it does not run in sudden, drastic changes unrelated to past conditions. The Progressive and Conservative movements were not large conspiratorial ideologies which were spawned by some evil at the heart of the Renaissance. No - both developed out of the Middle Ages and were merely ideas expressed by the people of that time, in response to their experiences and based on their own inner thoughts and feelings, their choices and the choices of others.

There is both good and bad in both of these movements. This was the primary mindset of Vatican II. The Council was the attempt to put into practice St. Paul's aforementioned teaching. They desired to test both movements, to sift out the impurities and incorporate the good remainder into the larger truth of Catholicism. I believe they accomplished this with resounding success which has yet to be fully appreciated, like Trent which preceded it. But were people exempt from interpreting and using Vatican II for their own ends? Of course not. Since the Council, there have been a mixture of good and bad interpretations and applications of its principles. The bad still linger and the Church has tried very hard to amend them, one of these attempts (and a very successful attempt I would add) being the recent new translation of the Mass.

Many have perceived the new translation and other such works by the Church to repair errors that have appeared since Vatican II as the result of Vatican II itself. To them, Vatican II itself was an error and the Church is now trying to fix the Council itself. Using the Latin missal as the basis of the new translation thus comes as no surprise to a traditionalist of this persuasion, who would see the new translation as merely going back to the original, true, pre-Vatican II format. Of course, this is not true. The same Church that instituted the new Tridentine Mass at Trent in the 1500s is the same Church Magisterium that instituted the changes at Vatican II with no less authority and no greater degree of deviation from preexisting forms.

Trent was a response to its times, just as Vatican II was. Both Councils used the issues raised by both critics and conservatives of their respective times as grounds for improving the Church - not its fundamental, unchanging and unchangeable dogmas and institutions, but the way these are expressed, understood and promulgated in the world, these being open to change as the Church grows. The Catholic Church is not stagnant. Like its ancestor the Jewish Church, its wisdom grows over time even as its underlying truths of God are changeless. The history of Church doctrine and practice between the Ascension of Christ and the 5th century can clearly show this. Despite the claims of some Protestants, this growth is not wrong, nor is the participation of human reason and creativity in the Church wrong. We cannot corrupt the truths of God's Revelation that form the heart of the Church.

Like the Protestant Reformers, the points made by those of the Progressive movement were not entirely wrong or unfounded. They raised issues that the Church of both time periods had overlooked or misunderstood. But, like their more conservative brethren, as humans they were vulnerable to going to extremes, and so both the Reformers and Modernists ultimately abandoned the Church in favor of their own minds. This departure from the Church was a large factor in the completely negative response of conservatives and their general ignoring of the issues both groups had tried to point out. However, just as the Reformation was followed by the Counter-Reformation and Council of Trent which tried to answer and repair the issues the Protestants had raised, the Church since World War II attempted to do the same with the ideas of Modernism, Vatican II being the summit of this attempt. Furthermore, both Councils were not only attempting to address the issues of critics within the Church, but also the issues predominant in the culture of the times, whether posed to the Church directly or not.

The ideas prevalent at the time of Vatican II, ideas still very central to society today, primarily center on three issues: the spiritual and historical nature of Sacred Scripture; the connection between the supernatural and natural realms of existence; and the meaning and nature of Catholic morality and the life of a Catholic in the modern world. The sixteen documents of Vatican II dealt with these three issues exceptionally well, in keeping with constant Tradition and the fundamentals of Catholic doctrine and spirituality as transmitted over two thousand years. Dei Verbum, the constitution on Divine Revelation, effectively answered the issues raised concerning Scripture. Sacrosanctum Concilium (on the Sacred Liturgy), Lumen Gentium (on the Church), and Nostra Aetate (on Non-Christian Religions) were wonderful answers to the questions of the connection between the spiritual and natural worlds. The other documents produced by Vatican II were in-depth answers to the life of a Catholic in the world today, based on the truths of the Church as well as the new conditions and dilemmas Catholics face in the modern world, especially the role and vocation of priests, bishops and laity (3), and the general role of the Church in the modern world with perhaps the greatest document of the Council, Gaudium et Spes (On the Church in the Modern World). With these documents, the Council laid the foundation for the Church of the future.

Since Vatican II, many issues have developed, progressions of many problems that existed before the Council as well as new dilemmas, both in and outside the Church. Naturally, the use of vernacular languages in the Mass rather than the uniform use of Latin as in the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass caused many problems and was perhaps the most difficult change for many devout Catholics at the time. Not only did the use of vernacular languages give the Mass a more "common" or profane feel to traditional Catholics - the specific translations made immediately after Vatican II were rushed and were also generally less intelligent, devout and faithful to the Latin than they should have been. In a world full of profanity and sin, the use of Latin in the Mass gave it a distinctly sacred, Heavenly feel, set apart from the world. However, because of this many Catholics lost sight of the fact that remains the official language of the Church, just as the Vulgate remains Her official Bible.

The use of vernacular languages in daily Mass does not remove sacredness, nor does it make us any less Roman. Truly, the Mass was not always uniformly in Latin. Greek was in fact the earliest Church language. But the Church has always understood that the specific words used in Mass, the way they are delivered, is the true merit of the Latin missal, not the fact that it is Latin. Furthermore, as with the allowance of married deacons to still become priests in the Eastern Rite, the use of vernacular is an allowance, not a mandate, nor a supplanting of the high place of Latin in the Church. Any parish who desires a Latin Mass may receive one. The Council did not change anything they were not allowed to. No fundamental, unchangeable doctrine of the Church was altered by the Council, only that which was open to growth - namely, the expressions of the Church in the world through the Liturgy, and the Church's understanding of various points of revelation, such as the factual historicity of the Bible and its inerrancy.

Since the Council, there has developed a significant new worldview that is quickly spreading from the West throughout the world. This worldview is characterized by a hunger for truth and honesty. This hunger can lead to many sources for sustenance, whether atheistic, pagan or Catholic. But, indeed, it can lead to Catholicism, as we are the only bearers of the fullness of God's Truth in the world. As we work to apply the teachings of Vatican II to the Church, the world and our own lives, we must strive to address the specific issues raised by our own ever-changing times, meeting people on their own level and seeing the good in the questions people raise, without generalizing, judging or focusing entirely on the negatives and extremities people often fall into. Further, we must try to bridge the gap between Vatican II and pre-Vatican II. We are not two different Churches. There is one Church as there is one Shepherd, one Truth and one God. We are just as Roman as they were, and we must work to affirm this fact and to reconnect us with our Roman Catholic heritage and tradition, in devotion, faith and love, ever working to be witnesses to the world and to one another in the Church.

This article is not intended to be an in-depth study of Vatican II. I freely admit to lacking the academic knowledge and skill to accomplish such a thing, nor do I see the need to do so considering the many excellent books out there about it. (4) I merely intended to survey the ideas that led into and developed out of the Council. I pray that my attempt may bring some benefit to whoever should read it, and I pray that all who are splintered out from the Faith may return to it in full communion, not letting their doubts, fear and questions separate them from the one true Church, rather using those issues to strengthen and clarify Her ever more.

God bless.










Endnotes
1. See St. Augustine, "The City of God", for his in-depth extrapolation of these ideas and his application of them to history and spirituality.
2. Quoted from http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/121111.cfm
3. See Christus Dominus (on Bishops), Perfectae Caritatis (on The Renewal of Religious Life), Optatum Totius (On the Training of Priests), Presbyterorum Ordinis (On the Ministry and Life of Priests), and Apostolicam Actuositatem (On the Apostolate of the Laity) for further information.
4. I especially like "What Happened At Vatican II?" by John W. O'Malley, copyright 2008, published by the Belknap Press of Harvard University.