In an effort to show that OldLife is not unaware of developments in the Roman Catholic world and to help Called to Communion folks shed their own romantic understandings of Rome, I offer a few reflections from John W. O’Malley on differences between Vatican II and the Council of Trent. I had the privilege of taking a class from O’Malley, a leading Roman Catholic historian, during my days at Harvard Divinity School when he was teaching at Weston School of Theology. The quotations to follow come from “Trent and Vatican II: Two Styles of Church,” From Trent to Vatican II: Historical and Theological Investigations (OUP, 2006):
Trent and Vatican II dealt not only with different issues in quite dissimilar historical circumstances, or deal with and/or avoided the same issues in the same or different ways. They were different cultural entities. In this regard, Vatican II was not only unlike Trent but unlike any council that preceded it.
We are dealing, in other words, with two significanlty different modles of council. True, within Catholicism the continuities almost always outweigh the discontinuities. But Trent and Vatican II, when viewed in the large, are emblematic of two fundamental, interrelated, but notably different traditions of the Western Church. Those traditions are the juridical or legislative-judicial and the poetic-rhetorical. They both have their origins in the Greco-Roman world of antiquity and antedate the advent of Christianity.
O’Malley is here playing off the different ways in which each council communicated. Trent issued anathemas and called for crusades. It asserted church authority and hierarchy in response to the dangers posed by both Protestants and Ottomans. It echoed the precision and order of Thomism and scholasticism where the church had neat and definite beliefs that needed to be affirmed, or else. In contrast, Vatican II avoided condemnations for engagement with the modern world. Instead of issuing condemnations, Vatican II spoke in terms of praise and congratulations. Rather than pounding the table, the 1960s bishops wanted to engage in persuasion. And instead of invoking the precise formulations of scholasticism, Vatican II followed the Ressourcement movement of trying to recover the early church fathers as an alternative to Thomism.
He continues:
In adopting a new style of discourse for its enactments, the Council thus effected a shift of momentous import. . . . It is perhaps fitting to conclude with one of the most radical of those ramifications. Vatican II was, indeed, unlike any council that preceded it. In fact, by adopting the style of discourse that it did, the Council in effect redefined what a council is. Vatican II did not take the Roman Senate as its implicit model. I find it difficult to pinpoint just what the implicit model was, but it was much closer to guide, partner, and friend than it was to lawmaker and judge.
If O’Malley is right, and I dare someone to question his historical insights, this puts CTC in a pickle. Those called and calling like the authority of Trent and Vatican I, when Rome assumed an authoritarian posture, the one that supposedly answers the diversity and confusion of Protestantism. At the same time, CTCers often invoke the early church fathers which Rome appropriated through de Lubac’s Ressourcement efforts. But as O’Malley suggests, these two phases of twentieth-century Roman Catholicism two exist uneasily side by side. It is hard to be judicial, laying down the law, and rhetorical, trying to persuade. This may explain why Protestants are unsure of their status. We thought we were condemned, but now were only separated brothers.
Either way, the folks at CTC do not seem to acknowledge these different sides of Rome. Maybe Called to Communion should be renamed Called to Confusion.
67 Comments
mikelmann:
As an interesting (to me anyway) sidenote, I was speaking to a Muslim student yesterday and he was trying to use this same sort of argument of historical rootedness (as you said, an aesthetic/argument according to things seen). Though their claims are fairly easily annihilated by Scriptures (in their view our Scriptures were “not properly preserved”), they like to claim this primacy of tradition and try to claim the idea of political conspiracy at the Council of Nicea that rejected “the earliest traditions” since Muslims are essentially a Christian heresy that denies the Triunity of God (I think they are tied to the Ebionites). They, of course, claim that theirs is the true tradition and that they have the proper way of viewing Christ, which has Christ as being merely the first-born of all God’s creatures who indeed ascended and is currently in heaven with God, but hasn’t died just yet (though they say Jesus will die at the end of time). They are hard to argue with due to their insistent denial of historical proofs and due to their view of “improperly preserved” (I think it has to do with not being written in Arabic) Scripture references. Nonetheless, I found it fascinating that they were also concerned with this idea of having a certain level of authority rooted in historical tradition. I may learn more and find my observation to be made of little import, but at least for now, it seems to be a relevant side-note.
CD, I don’t actually disagree with your overall assessment. The group with which I interacted were undergraduate students, an age and environment that lends itself to considering such things. Consider it and FWIW anecdote.
The local Greek Orthodox Church has an annual event at which they set up tents and booths and sell some wonderful Greek food of all kinds. If I were to convert, that would be my draw. But I did sneak in to the building itself and I have to say I had no idea how ornate it would be, with all kinds of interesting details and history right there in the sanctuary.
MM, Was it mostly a naked history?
Reminds me of Calvin on false worship in the institutes talking about RC churches ( though I imagine GO churches would be similar) decorated with art that made brothels look like examples of modesty.
John B., Thanks for the link. I can’t believe I failed again in Bryan’s logic course — NOT! But it is a handy index to OldLife resources against CTC. If Bryan were a better historian, he’d know that you shouldn’t dispute the other side because you wind up publicizing their arguments. Thomas More unwittingly broadcast William Tyndale’s arguments by “refuting” them.
John Yeazel: This internal driver concept is interesting. When the focus is taken off Christ, the Gospel, the atonement, what Christ did for us,ie., the double imputation, then numerous internal drivers begin to flow back into our fallen consciousness and fill the void of what Christ accomplished.
RS: How does an internal driver take the focus off of Christ? I tend to think of it as focusing more on Christ and getting to the inner things rather than just the external behaviors. Genesis 6:5 “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
If we begin to see the real sin of the heart along with the thought and then even every intent of the thoughts, but then that all those are only evil continually, we see the need for a Savior from all that sin as well. These things should drive us to think of Christ. This is also why we need a new heart so that we can have a new internal driver. Instead of the life of self being reflected in love of self and nothing but motives for self, the believer has Christ working in him or her and giving them a new love and new motives. After all, as Paul said in I Cor 4:5, judgment day will bring about a time when the motives of our hearts will be brought to light.
John Yeazel: We then begin focusing back on our own internal righteousness and the internal righteousness of others, stability, certainty, etc., etc. Our internal righteousness is still filthy rags but we don’t really want to believe that. That is a huge internal driver that has to be put to death. Our only hope is Christ and the righteousness he provided for us. We want to suppress Christ’s righteousness and glory in our own righteousness. And that is a very subtle process.
RS: But the other side of the issue is that it is by seeing our own internal unrighteousness that we see the real nature of sin and that is to break us from all hope in self and see the righteousness of Christ alone as our only hope.
Cross – “Initially I offered some comments in the comment boxes at Hart’s site, but after further reflection, I decided no longer to interact with Hart on his site”. Translation: After addressing no one but Hart and avoiding everyone else’s questions I eventually realized I was convincing no one of anything and took my ball and went home.
John, I’m still trying to understand the Trent-V2 harmonizing. Cross provides links to help, but in the end we ordinary Protestants seem to have no reason to think we’re under anathema—that’s for the likes of Luther and anybody born into the RCC who then rejects her (the likes of you). So, why are the likes of me being called to communion? Maybe we’re not?
No, B, there wasn’t an abundance of flesh tones. One quirk was that they bought the building from Presbyerians and they left the Presbyterian stained glass in place. As a result there is some stained glass adorned with thistles,hearkening back to the Scots. But there were so many other things to look at that I didn’t notice that at the time.
Hi Zrim — You are not one of the reformers who got anathematized … you are, through no fault of your own, merely one of their unthinking and therefore un-responsible descendants. I think T-Fan posted some anathemas from some pope, however, condemning folks like you who even read the works of the reformers.
Hi CD,
Just one point of disagreement. I don’t think that the existence of the EO is so much a “theoretical internet problem” as it is an “elephant in the room” problem. In your hypothetical scenario in which the EO failed to persist, the RCC claims become more “truthy.” In our universe, its existence and persistence makes the Roman apologetic obviously false.
In other words, without the EO, we have a theoretical complaint about Rome. With the EO, we have a bird in hand.
John, so what happens when I start thinking and remain opposed to the RCC? Or is my opposition proof that I don’t think, which puts me back in the safety zone? But I thought thinking was proof of autonomy. Maybe it’s only autonomy if I conclude with Protestantism, but if I conclude with Rome it’s kosher? Maybe you could design a flow chart for me?
Zrim, now that Bryan has made his “call”, you understand a bunch more than you used to. You are baptized, but that baptism is all the “safety zone” you get. Now, you’ve committed mortal sins and thus have no recourse to the sacrament of penance. Maybe you can follow Bryan’s advice and, every time you do a mortal sin, say an “Act of Contrition”. That can hold you over until you do get to confession, or until such time as a priest administers you “last rites”, should the Lord bless you with that kindness. But only the RCC sacraments work after baptism.
Zrim, don’t take my word for it. I may have stated some things improperly. For your actual status at the moment, perhaps you should consult Bryan directly.
Zrim,
This is actually a good experiment. Check with Cross on the status of your soul and I’ll try to get Fr. Morrell’s OST email and you can compare answers. My guess is it’ll track along the Vat II-Trent dissonance.
Sean, LOL
Jeff –
OK gotcha. Why doesn’t Syriac Christianity, Islam or Sufism work equally well?
EO has a unique feature: On one point of doctrine, the filioque, they have a legitimate historical claim to be sticking to the tradition.
To establish the same for Syriac (coptic?) Christianity would require serious argument concerning monophysitism (IIRC), and Islam and Sufism … no chance.