In the first episode of the new year, JD and Ed talk about the 60th anniversary of the opening of Vatican Council II, and ask: why does it take so long to implement?
The Pillar Podcast (defunct)
Weekly Catholic conversations about the news, with JD Flynn and Ed Condon.
Weekly Catholic conversations about the news, with JD Flynn and Ed Condon.
Fantastic job gents. One of the marks of a good podcast is when you both thoroughly enjoy it and it causes you to think even when you don't agree with some of it.
One thing worth considering - there is often this idea that the Council is the documents and the documents are the Council. But is this true? Can we simply reduce the council down to its documents? I think probably not. While a few people have gripes about the council documents (and I think there's a valid way in which someone can complain about them), most people haven't even read them. Which leads me what is at least in part the origination of the spirit of the council in its various forms. Can we really say that all of the discussions, speeches, debates, etc aren't a part of the Council? We can certainly say they're not an infallible part of the Council, but I'm not sure it can be so easily dismissed as separate from it.
Take for example a Council father involved in the discussions comes home in the immediate aftermath and says "at the Council we discussed X and therefore I'm implementing Y reform". An astute observer could find many instances of X and Y that someone like a Ratzinger may not find acceptable. A devout Catholic can be forgiven, I believe, if they were under the impression that the sudden shift weren't a part of the Council even if they're not directly found in the documents (take the Liturgy for example).
I think the position you're proposing falls apart when it is applied to any historical Council of the Church. Arius was present and a part of the conversation at Nicea, but the outcome of the Council was the Nicene Creed and final documents, which rejected Arianism as a heresy.
The Holy Spirit protects the official teaching of the Church, not every word that falls from the mouth of a bishop sitting in a council room.
A given Catholic surely can be forgiven for misinterpreting the conversation or for being too swayed by "spirit of the times" which also influenced the council's conversation, but that is distinct from the Holy Spirit and the actual work of the Council as reflected in the final approved documents.
I appreciate your comment, but I don't think you're responding to what I said. I'm not questioning the documents as the official teaching of the Council that are protected from error by the Spirit. Of course they are! Let me put what I'm trying to say another way - is it possible for a Council to have some negative outcomes even though the Spirit protected its official teaching from error?
Historically I think the answer is obviously yes. Take the Council of Constance. That Council voted to approve the proposition that popes are under the authority of ecumenical councils - conciliarism. Pope Gregory then went on to reconvene that Council and reject that teaching. Of course that didn't stop a ton of people from believing the proposition (I'd be willing to bet a lot of people still believe it). Are we to understand that belief in the error of conciliarism wasn't an outcome of the Council even though it was derived from its very proceedings?
If you're glazing over at this point allow me to get back to the point. Many (most?) people are very sensitive to any criticism of Vatican II. Say one negative thing about it, and immediate claims of heresy or rejecting it start flying. Often those reactions are unfounded or even ridiculous. All the sudden the burden of proof that there is a relationship between two things happening at the exact same time (mass exodus of religious from their vocations, dramatic drop in Mass attendance, etc.) falls on those who believe the most likely thing - a relationship between the two things exists. I believe this defensive attitude is what's behind much of the claim that those who attend the TLM "reject" Vatican II.