Quench Not The Spirit
When looking at any ecumenical council, to understand its declarations, one must move beyond the written letter and look to the spirit behind those declarations if one wants to understand what the council is teaching. It is easy to misconstrue a dogmatic declaration if you look only to what the councils had written down as all the council was declaring. What a council teaches extends beyond the written word, indeed, often the written word can confuse the reader and lead them to erroneous beliefs if they do not understand and follow the spirit behind the words being used. The letter can be easily misconstrued, especially as time goes by and the words change their meaning; but even if the meaning behind the words does not change, the words being used cannot fully express the truth which is being pointed to by them. This means we must not be legalists and ignore what is being pointed at by the words. The words are signs, what is it they signify? They do not signify themselves, as the legalist thinks they do. To avoid this mistake, we must be reminded that even in Scripture, St Paul tells us to follow the spirit and not just the letter of the law, for the letter alone kills (cfs. 2 Cor 3:6). The history of the church, and the reception of the earliest, and most important, dogmatic teachings, proves this point.
At the Council of Nicea, the fathers of the council had a very difficult time generating a creed which they felt properly propped up their Trinitarian beliefs. Even though it has taken a central place in Christian history, nonetheless, we must understand that the creed from Nicea would later need modification. Indeed, its ending was later to be dropped, so that many people do not know of its existence. In it, we read:
And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion–all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.[1]
In Greek, the words behind “substance or essence” are “hypostasis” and “ousia.” Hypostasis, at the time the creed was written, did not have the technical meaning it would later have, a meaning which would equate it with the concept of person. Rather, it was seen as an equivocal word for ousia. The spirit of the anathema is to deny anyone from saying the Father and the Son are different in essence; it is not disputing their personal distinction. However, it should not surprise anyone that this definition can be – and has been – used by modalists as a way to try to prove Christianity does accept three persons in the Godhead. They would easily point to the anathema, point to the words used, and say we should “stick by the letter,” while ignoring how the meaning behind the words changed and the words themselves were only pointers to a doctrine beyond themselves. The early defenders of Nicea understood this, pointing out that the creed was written to help defend a faith which transcends words:
But the errors of heretics and blasphemers force us to deal with unlawful matters, to scale perilous heights, to speak unutterable words, to trespass on forbidden ground. Faith ought in silence to fulfill the commandments, worshiping the Father, reverencing with Him the Son, abounding in the Holy Ghost, but we must strain the poor resources of our language to express thoughts too great for words. The error of others compels us to err in daring to embody in human terms truths which ought to be hidden in the silent veneration of the heart.[2]
One must be careful and not close oneself from the spirit by pointing to the letter of the text. The letter without the spirit is dead, and is easily manipulated and turned against its original purpose. The words used must be understood properly as pointers, not ending points, and the spirit behind them must be followed so that one can receive the transcendent teaching being defended by, and enclosed by, words. The words are not the teaching, but the vehicle by which the teaching is expressed, and it is not the only way the teaching can be promoted (as should be obvious by the many sound theological treatises we find on the Trinity). By ignoring the spirit of the creed, one can easily be led astray, and actually enter heresy.
This, however, is not just true with the Nicene Creed. Early Christological definitions also follow through with a similar problem. Trying to define the unity of the person of Christ, we find St. Cyril of Alexandria, the leading theologian behind the Christological definition of Ephesus, consistently talking about the “one incarnate nature” (physis) of Christ.[3] This, of course, created the means by which another schism was to take place in the Church, with those who follow Cyril’s wordage as being unable to see or appreciate the words used at Chalcedon as promoting the same faith about Christ: one person who is God and human, who, as God and human, finds his divinity unchanged and his humanity remaining entirely human like our humanity. The spirit behind St Cyril’s words helps us understand why he can talk about the divine person suffering at the cross, but not according to his divinity; if there was only one nature as nature was to be understood at Chalcedon, this would promote a self-contradiction in Cyril’s theology. Nonetheless, as Cyril himself expresses, the unity of Christ is a transcendent mystery, and again, one must understand the limitations of the human mind in expressing that mystery:
He suffers in his own flesh, and not in the nature of the Godhead. The method of these things is altogether ineffable, and there is no mind that can attain to such subtle and transcendent ideas. Yet, following these most correct deductions, and carefully considering the most reasonable explanations, we do not deny that he can be said to suffer (in case we thereby imply that the birth in the flesh was not his but someone else’s), but this does not mean that we say that the things pertaining to the flesh transpired in his divine and transcendent nature. No, I have said, he ought to be conceived as suffering in his own flesh, although not suffering in any way like this in the Godhead. The force of any comparison falters here and falls short of the truth…[4]
We see Cyril understands the limitations which hinder his exposition; while there would be a better, more refined terminology which develops after his death, this does not mean the terminology is perfect or that we are to be limited by it and think all that is said using it is the fullness of the doctrine being discussed. We must acknowledge that, as with the Trinity, so with Christology we are dealing with a transcendent truth, that we are revealed a mystery which cannot be properly expressed by words; there must be the ineffable silence behind the words, the silence led by and directed by the spirit, in order for those words to lead us to the proper understanding. The point is, Cyril, like Hilary, understood that the truth of the faith, while it can be defended and pointed to by words, is not grasped by them. If one settles with specific words, and thinks they represent the fullness of the doctrine, one actually finds oneself in error, for the spirit behind the words which gives them life has been abandoned, making one’s faith less than was intended by the words themselves.
This problematic relationship between spirit and letter remains throughout all of theology. Scripture, itself, suffers from many of its readers not comprehending this basic point. The text is to lead us to the truth which transcends the text. The text is, by itself, a dead letter; without the spirit, it does not lead to truth but a dead end:
Everyone who does not apply himself to the spiritual contemplation of Holy Scripture has, Judaic-wise, also rejected both the natural and written law; and he is ignorant of the law of grace which confers deification on those who are obedient to it. He who understands the written law in a literal manner does not nourish his soul with virtues. He who does not grasp the inner principles of created being fails to feast his intellect on the manifold wisdom of God.[5]
Theologians have long known the apophatic silence which lies behind all positive pronouncements. It is behind the analogia entis (analogy of being) which is central to scholastic thought. Words are important as signs, and they indicate something real, but that reality must be allowed life, life in and of the spirit, in order for it to be real and not a construction placed over the real.
The whole world, limited as it is by its own inner principles, is called both the place and age of those dwelling in it. There are modes of contemplation natural to it which are able to engender in created being a partial understanding of the wisdom of God that governs all things. So long as they make use of these modes to gain understanding, they cannot have more than a mediate and partial apprehension. But when what is perfect appears, what is partial is superseded; all mirrors and indistinct images pass away when truth is encountered face to face (cf. 1 Cor. 13: 10 -12).[6]
Human wisdom, at its best, points to the truth and allows one, through struggle, to be united to it, but once that wisdom is misconstrued and the ineffable nature of the truth is ignored, people fall short of the truth and turn words into idols, and they sacrifice to those idols all that their imprisonment by words does not allow of the truth. They make for themselves a simpler, and easily described, illusion of reality. They sacrifice, in their impiety, the truth of God. To cut off the spirit of truth from a text which is meant to help lead us to the truth is to cause grave error and is capable of leading one to eternal perdition. For it is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, a refusal of being open to the spirit, which is the sin which cannot be forgiven, not because God is unwilling to forgive, but because the blasphemer closes themselves off from the spirit which brings the grace needed for such forgiveness.
This need to follow the spirit, and not the mere dead letter, remains with us today. Vatican Council II, like every other ecumenical council, can only be understood if one follows the spirit behind the Council’s teachings. Obviously, we might find many people claiming something is in the spirit of Vatican II which is not, but that does not neglect the need to understand the way to follow the council is to follow the spirit behind the council and not to be limited merely by the words used by the council itself. “Do not quench the Spirit,” as St Paul said (1 Thes. 5:19 RSV). We, who want to live life more abundantly, want to be guided by the spirit of the council, so that its decrees, established to help the church in the present age, do not suffer due to legalists who want to bring the church to a standstill.
When the work which the Father gave the Son to do on earth was accomplished, the Holy Spirit was sent on the day of Pentecost in order that He might continually sanctify the Church, and thus, all those who believe would have access through Christ in one Spirit to the Father. He is the Spirit of Life, a fountain of water springing up to life eternal. To men, dead in sin, the Father gives life through Him, until, in Christ, He brings to life their mortal bodies. The Spirit dwells in the Church and in the hearts of the faithful, as in a temple. In them He prays on their behalf and bears witness to the fact that they are adopted sons. The Church, which the Spirit guides in way of all truth and which He unified in communion and in works of ministry, He both equips and directs with hierarchical and charismatic gifts and adorns with His fruits. By the power of the Gospel He makes the Church keep the freshness of youth.[7]
To follow the spirit of Vatican II is to follow the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life. In the middle of the wounded nature of the world we live in, in the middle of great, uncharitable strife we find in the church itself, we need the guidance of the Spirit now more than ever. Let us not quench the spirit, but let us heed where it lead, for the glory of God, amen.
[1] NPNF2(14):3.
[2] St. Hilary of Poitiers, “On the Trinity” in NPNF2 (9): 52.
[3] See Normal Russell, Cyril of Alexandria (London: Routledge, 2000), 41-2.
[4] St. Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ. Trans. John Anthony McGuckin (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1995), 130.
[5] St. Maximus the Confessor, “Fifth Century of Various Texts” in The Philokalia: the Complete Text. Volume II. Trans. and ed. G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, and Kallistos Ware (London: Faber and Faber, 1984), 267.
[6] St. Maximus the Confessor, “First Century on Theology” in The Philokalia: the Complete Text. Volume II. Trans. and ed. G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, and Kallistos Ware (London: Faber and Faber, 1984), 128.
[7] Lumen Gentium 4. Vatican translation.
Like this:
Comments are closed.
OK, but who decides what the “spirit” of the Council intended? How do we discern it if not through the words of the Council?
Agellius
Isn’t that similar to “who decides the meaning of Scripture”? Many factors, of course, help in deciding the answer.
1) Research into the thoughts and writings of those involved with the council and what they said was behind what they produced. Sometimes, of course, what is produced has more than intended, and the Spirit often has that happen, so why we have
2) the Holy Spirit guiding the Church as a whole. This is especially true in relation to the hierarchy. Yes, they can be sinners, yes, they can do wrong, but we are Catholics do believe their unified work leads to and shows us the direction the Spirit is leading us. This has been the case throughout all the centuries.
Take, once again, the Christological controversies. If you study Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople II and Constantinople III, you will find many people opposing the new clarifications based upon the “letter” of the old text. This is especially clear in relation between Ephesus and Chalcedon and those who didn’t accept the decrees of Chalcedon.
It also, however, fits in relation to the filioque and the debates over the filioque. If we look what happened initially with the creed, it was often adapted, and allowed for a flexibility; the idea that “this should not be changed” was seen more as in the content/meaning than the words themselves (we can see this even in Egypt, where they developed a variation of the creed for their use in the early patristic era). When you see the Westerners defending the filioque, one of the things they mention is this very point — they are not altering the creed, because the creed is the content not just the words.
Henry writes:
“1) Research into the thoughts and writings of those involved with the council and what they said was behind what they produced. Sometimes, of course, what is produced has more than intended, and the Spirit often has that happen…”
What this seems to overlook is the fact that the final, approved and published texts of the Council represent the results of the proposals, disagreements, discussions and compromises that took place. Things that were left out of the wording of the final documents, often were left out on purpose, after careful deliberation. Thus it seems to me that the actual texts are the best source for interpreting the collective intent of the Council, as opposed to the intent of this or that individual participant or sub-group.
Henry writes, “2) the Holy Spirit guiding the Church as a whole. This is especially true in relation to the hierarchy. Yes, they can be sinners, yes, they can do wrong, but we are Catholics do believe their unified work leads to and shows us the direction the Spirit is leading us. This has been the case throughout all the centuries.”
What about (3) interpreting the Council in the light of the rest of the councils of the Church’s history? It seems to me that if you value the Holy Spirit’s guidance, then this is the best way to be assured of getting it.
If the Holy Spirit has been guiding the Church since the beginning, and guides each council, then it seems that insofar as an interpretation of V2 conflicts with teachings of prior councils it is less likely to be correct; and insofar as it is in harmony with prior councils it is more likely to be correct.
You still fail to understand. Yes, the text (Bible, Council) was written down. And, as I pointed, at Nicea, this “written down” includes as anathema which more or less is saying the Father and the Son are not different in hypostasis. Now, if we do not want to go and say “so the Trinity was denied by Nicea,” we must look deeper. Again, following your way with engaging a text, we would have a problem with Nicea. We would not be able to use the spirit behind the text, the desire to promote the Trinity, to say it does not contradict the Trinity. However, this is not how the Church has viewed the matter, from the beginning, nor in history.
Your suggestion of interpreting a council in light of other councils is helpful, and is always to be done; but again, this only goes so far. The hermenuetic you use to engage them can still lead to wrong conclusions, especially if you ignore the greater spirit behind them. This is exactly the problem which happens with Scripture, and indeed you are merely offering the Sola Scriptura Protestant explanation of Scriptural interpretation, suggesting that one is merely “interpreting Scripture with Scripture.” This is never the case. No one goes to a text and treats the text purely without outside references, outside interpretations. Where do we go for them? Again, the point is — the spirit; and this is exactly the point in understanding the authority of the Church in interpreting Scripture; the same reason why we do not go with a Protestant “Sola Scriptura” is because Scripture can never be Scripture alone. And a conciliar declaration, which is not Scripture, clearly will have this involved with it as well.
I don’t doubt that I’m failing to understand. Though I allow the possibility that I may simply be disagreeing.
I’m not sure what you mean by “following [my] way with engaging a text”. What exactly do you understand my way to be? If you think I’m saying that no source outside a council should be used in interpreting a council, I never said that.
I agree with you that interpreting a council in the light of other councils only goes so far. Its usefulness will depend, for example, on the extent to which other councils address the same or related issues. But I do think consulting other councils is the minimum one should do; as you say, it “is always to be done”.
I don’t agree that interpreting councils in the light of other councils is like Sola Scriptura. You have to interpret the writings of the Magisterium by other writings of the Magisterium. You have no choice since the Magisterium doesn’t issue definitive teachings or solemn definitions orally. The difference between that and Sola Scriptura is that no new scripture has been or ever will be written since the close of the canon, whereas many councils have been held and more are likely to be held.
I agree that “No one goes to a text and treats the text purely without outside references, outside interpretations.” But in response to your question, “Where do we go for them?” I answer, “primarily the Magisterium”.
Your answer to the question — “the spirit” — is unclear to me. Do you mean the Holy Spirit? Or are you referring to the intent of the human authors? If the latter, then you are still presented with the problem of discerning what their “intent” was. If they happen to be alive and you have access to them, you can ask them. But otherwise you can only judge it by their writings. So, you’re left to judge writings by other writings. Is that like Sola Scriptura too?
But my problem with judging the intent of a council by the writings of individual participants is that, again, there is no guarantee that the writings of individual council participants are guided by the Holy Spirit; whereas we have a strong assurance that the writings of the council, and of prior councils (not to mention papal teachings), were so guided.
And again, judging the intent of a council by the writings of one or more individual participants — depending on how far you take it — defeats the purpose of holding a council. You hold a council not to obtain and publish the opinions of individuals, but to arrive at an authoritative consensus. The consensus is the fruit of the council, not the notes and contributions of individuals. And the consensus is what we have an assurance of being guided by the Holy Spirit.
This is not to say that the intentions of individual participants should be ignored. Certainly they might have their place in interpreting the intent of a council. But I would give them less weight than the writings of the council itself, and the comparison with other councils.
By the way, when I say that one council should be interpreted in the light of the rest, I don’t mean that it must have the exact same meaning as all prior ones. If that were the case then doctrine could never develop. But insofar as an interpretation of a new council *conflicts* or *contradicts* the teachings of prior councils, we should be wary of it; and insofar as it agrees with prior councils we should give it weight. Not doing this at a minimum, I would say, is its own version of “quenching the Spirit”.
Once again (and this will be my final reply; you can continue to do so as you wish, but I don’t want to go around in circles), I highly suggest you read what I wrote. I highly suggest you read the issues involving Nicea and Ephesus. I suggest you read what St Maximus himself says on the matter of spirit vs letter. You could look further with Maximus — get a copy of the Philokalia, and read the texts attributed to him in it. It should help you.
Again, how does the Magisterium, how does the Church interpret? The authority lies in the spirit, always in the spirit. This is what Paul himself said. This is what you find consistently in history. The Church is alive with the Spirit and does not just live by dead letters.
If, for example, you lived at the time of Chalcedon, would you have followed Dioscrous? “Let’s interpret the earlier councils together, and well, we see they don’t have what Chalcedon is saying, but rather, talk about the oneness of Christ?” When you ignore the spirit behind the teaching, , you do _not_ have the doctrine, and you get led to the kinds of problems we find throughout history when you have people rejecting the church because of “previous councils.” Saying “it must agree with previous councils” often ends up really being “agreeing with _my private interpretation_ of the previous councils.” That is exactly what we see happening with those rejecting Vatican Council II. They do not understand, again, we are a living Church, and that Vatican Council II _is the legitimate interpretation_ of the previous councils. It might be easy to make apparent contradictions between councils (Ephesus with Chalcedon, again, is one such example). It is another to try to understand how they relate despite the apparent contradiction; once again, this often cannot be done by the letter, since the terminology at different times will differ in meaning; you have to again delve into the spirit behind the texts — then you will be able to discern what is being pointed to. It’s almost like triangulation.
Still at it, eh?
People read what you write Henry. You think you are writing something profound but it is gibberish because you are exiled to Babylon.
I still write.
And yes, some people do read what I write. I don’t think I needed you to tell me that. I mean, I post on the net, and people respond to it. I didn’t think it was bots writing responses.
This isn’t a profound piece.
I am sure, for people without basic theological knowledge, words like “hypostasis” and “ousia” might indeed seem like gibberish, but this piece isn’t for them. I expected at least a little knowledge for this piece.
We are all aware of your delusion that your babel is a product of superior intellectual processing. The finite definitions of hypostasis and ousia is immaterial to this irrational and demented piece of theological cacca.
Well, I will let others decide for themselves if they think you are correct.
Anna,
Henry has shown Christian forbearance far in excess of what is required in posting your comments. But, as a fellow contributor to this blog, I find your language harsh, intemperate and completely uncalled for. Furthermore, scatological obscenity, no matter what the language, has no place in commboxes. (Soy pocho pero no soy tonto.) If you disagree with Henry, engage his ideas: leave the taunting on the playground.
David,
I am letting Anna’s comments through for one reason: to let people see the kind of immaturity and spite many people have. Just look to her newest post — she still does not actually show any understanding of what I wrote. She says I am opposing the Holy Spirit when I make it clear the Holy Spirit is who we follow and gives life to the Body of Christ. There is a desire to falsely represent what I say, which is common with someone else who uses that IP, and so win debates with positions I do not hold. I mean, look at the newest comment. Did I say anyone should ignore teachings? No, I said one must follow the teaching in its fullness, and not confuse something which is not the teaching (the letter used to declare it) with the teaching itself. If they were one and the same, once again, Nicea must now be read as saying there is only one hypostasis in the Godhead, and Oneness would be the teaching of the Church not the Trinity.
Henry,
If you were truly trying to ascertain whether you are writing gibberish, you would be able to tell by the questions and comments posted. You try to cleverly pollute the faith by implying there is some kind of spirit that ignores teaching and comes up with their own interpretation. Since I’m thoroughly aware of the ‘spirit’ you are speaking about, I’m here to remind you that spirit opposes the Holy Spirit in Catholic theology.
David, I do not take advice from men wearing kerchiefs. God Bless.
David, I do not take advice from men wearing kerchiefs. God Bless.
Anna, I think I will treasure this as simultaneously the lamest and most unchristian rejoinder ever directed to me on a blog.
I think in discussing the “Spirit of Vatican II” or indeed of any council, it is worth distinguishing two meanings of the word spirit that are inter-related and implicit in what Henry is writing. Prior to everything is the Holy Spirit, which St. Paul is referring to when he says that the spirit gives life while the letter kills. It is the Holy Spirit that guides the Church and helps councils to speak the truth. However, in aiding the Church the Spirit does not dictate text to council participants (or to popes and bishops for that matter). The Holy Spirit must speak through limited mortal beings—people like us. In doing so, we have to recognize the second meaning of spirit, which is captured by the German expression Zeitgeist, the spirit of the times.
A council does not exist in a vacuum, it is situated in a particular time and place, and informed by the problems and concerns of its context. In turn, the acts of the council influence and shape the times. In other words: the Zeitgeist both shapes and is shaped by the council and its documents. Further, the way in which the council documents shapes the Zeitgeist depends on the spirit—the background and context—in which they are read and interpreted. (In literary criticism this is referred to as reception theory.)
Thus, for example, the Council of Trent was shaped by the polemical hostility that existed in western Europe as a result of the Protestant Reformation. This does make what it said false, but it does mean that in reading and interpreting its decrees we must be conscious of the context. In the same way, we cannot properly understand and interpret the documents of Vatican II without looking at the Zeitgeist of the Church at the time. One way to do this is to look at the thinking of the individual participants and how they viewed themselves. Consider the trajectory of John Courtney Murray, who in a decade went from being silenced to being a peritus and the author of Dignitatis Humanae. This document cannot be properly understood unless we take this into account, and understand how the “spirit” of the participants (under the prompting of the Holy Spirit) was critically examining 200 years of papal teaching and extracting from it a deeper truth.
David:
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve written here, so far as I understand it.
Oh, I got the implied meaning without your explanation. “The spirit of the times”. Quite a clever name for legion.
You are polluting the Catholic religion with this nonsense.
That’s all I dropped by to say.
One wonders what precisely is Anna’s basis for so authoritatively declaring what Henry writes as being theological cacca and gibberish. When I read her posts, I wonder where exactly is that sense of Chritian Charity? Where is Christ in the name calling, personal attacks etc. This is one more example of what Henry was discussing in his previous posts about the blogosphere…there is too little dialogue and too much ad hominum attacks. It is a wonderful example of the bleeding of out political environment in the US into the realm of faith discussions among Catholics. Too much “i’m right, you are wrong, and not enough “We are many parts, all one body” I seriously thought I left that behind when I left my fundamentalist protestant upbringing.
Brian
Thanks. Sadly, there is a lot of that kind of attitude on the blogosphere…. and I thought about deleting Anna’s posts, but, since they are not extreme in what they said, I thought I should let them through and let people see and decide for themselves.
I think you are criticizing a position of legalistic interpretation without identifying any examples of such interpretation. Im not sure what you are getting at.
Can you give an example of a legalistic interpretation of Vatican two?
Michael
I didn’t just discuss Vatican II. I did point out historical examples (Nicea and Chalcedon). As for legalistic interpretations of Vatican II, I think some people who limit discussion of other religions only to the bare bones of what Nostra Aetate said could be an example, or some of the “Vatican II didn’t say we should have what we have with the Novus Ordo” applies.
Sure. The document on the liturgy allowed vernacular liturgies but spoke approvingly of retaining Latin. The overwhelming response of the bishops was to fully embrace the vernacular, letting Latin drop by the wayside. This I would think is an example of the Zeitgeist in which Vatican II was received. On the other hand, when people lament this fact and support their demand for a return to Latin only liturgies by pointing to the text of the documents, I think they are engaging in a “legalistic” reading that ignores the broader context, and so the spirit.
I don’t think the issue regarding Latin is how “legalistically” V2 is read.
I don’t think it can be credibly argued that the OF did not go beyond what V2 specifically authorized. But that’s beside the point.
The point is that the changes resulting in the OF were approved by the proper authorities. Appealing to what V2 authorized is, in a sense, superfluous, since V2 did not strip the Pope of his authority to approve changes to the liturgy — you can tell this by carefully reading the *letter* of V2.
So I would say that people who argue against the vernacular Mass based on V2 are guilty not of legalism but of missing the point, since a strictly legalistic reading of all the relevant facts reveals that the Pope who approved the changes had legitimate authority to do so.
Whether it was *wise* is another question … ; )
On the other hand, many people will point out that “the new liturgy goes beyond what Vatican II allows,” and so will say “Vatican II must be followed to the letter.” That is where the spirit vs the letter gets involved, with those who will use Vatican II as a way to undermine the current, normative (and approved) liturgical practice around them. They fail to understand VII when they do that, I would say, and what it was pointing towards (and the source of that change).
Among differences between Vatican II and earlier councils is that many participants and observers are still alive. It seems as though this still-living memory ought to be powerful resource in trying to understand the council. Yet, if we search, for example, “Vatican II” on youtube, most of what comes up seem aligned with Anna’s comments, expressing nostalgic wishes to return the entire Church to pre-conciliar practice.
Here’s a lecture by John O’Malley, the first video I could find from the perspective of someone who was there and who has studied the council extensively. Around 40 minutes in, he discusses the “spirit of the council”, and gives some ideas how to understand that.
Frank
Right, we have people alive now who were there at the council. That does make it a part of our living experience, instead of just something in the past which can then be interpreted without the people who were there responding. It reminds me of CS Lewis saying that as long as he lived, no one but him should try that with his own writings.
Henry:
I admire you for being so tolerant of Anna’s remarks. Personally I think lack of civility should be the only grounds for censoring comments, so in this case I would have supported your deleting Anna’s. However it’s admirable in you to tolerate them, and allow yourself to be abused in that way, for the sake of letting readers “decide for themselves”, as you say.
agellius
Thank you. Anna’s comments did end up getting even worse, and I thought I had given her enough of a chance to make her point. If she had more substantive things to say, they would be allowed. It is frustrating, and I am not the most patient of people (my aspergers gets in the way, and so, as I’ve hinted at many times, I constantly have to remind myself of the need for charity).
Henry writes, “On the other hand, many people will point out that “the new liturgy goes beyond what Vatican II allows,” and so will say “Vatican II must be followed to the letter.” ”
Yes, but my point is that following V2 to the letter does not result in the conclusion that the new mass is illegitimate.
When you follow it to the letter says you must have Latin (as some people say), then yes, you do have people saying liturgies are illicit.
My point is that I think the spirit of Vatican II is to allow for vernacular and to go for it, but we see at the council itself, is a pointer in this direction which would come soon after the council, following what what we see allowed at the council forward some more.
I understand your point, and I’m not trying to be quarrelsome.
Of course people do say that. But note that here, we’re not talking about understanding what the Council intended. If the Council says “Latin is to be retained”, it’s pretty clear that’s what it meant. I don’t think the “spirit” of the times can legitimately be used to change that clear statement to mean its opposite.
But what we’re talking about now is not merely interpreting what the Council meant, but going beyond that and *applying* that interpretation to the actions of the Pope who later made the decision to approve masses entirely in the vernacular. They’re making a judgment, not of what the Council intended, but of what effect that intent has on later popes. This is an interpretation not of the Council itself, but of the legal effect of the Council.
In other words, does the Council’s decision to retain Latin bind the hands of later popes who want to allow Latin to be dropped? That’s a question of canon law or something, but it’s not a question of interpreting a Council document.
The Council did allow for vernacular to be used when no vernacular was being used before; this again is a part of the point in understanding the context in the change to see what is being pointed to. And you do agree with me that Vatican II cannot be used as a wedge against what is used in services all around the world. I would say it is still the spirit of Vatican II which took what was started at the council and moved it forward more; this is the triangulation issue which I have pointed to before. When we see a quick allowance for a full vernacular liturgy afterward, it should tell us the move of the Spirit at the council. When dealing with the spirit of a council and how it applies beyond the council, clearly interpretation has to be used, and when dealing with issues like this, official sanction of the vernacular I think gives us a good reason to see what was started at VII continued to its fruition after, which again, shows us the spirit involved with the council and how the council itself is a midpoint between what happened before it and where the church was heading after.
I don’t think we entirely differ on this point, other than I am pointing out that with the spirit of Vatican II and watching the triangulation, one can indeed see this push and see it connects and flows out from what was started at the council, but it is not limited to it. Those who want the letter alone will ignore this greater context and will challenge what happened after the council because of the council itself. They do not see what VII was doing and pointing to, but only end with the council itself.
We must, of course, keep in mind the greater picture. The point is that many people complain about discussion of the spirit, in general, even though Scripture talks about spirit vs letter, and saints, when dealing with dogmas, talk about the need to go forward and engage the spirit and not just the letter of the dogma. The spirit is what gives it depth and life. It might not always be easy to discern (clearly), but that is a different question. Once we recognize the role of the spirit involved with dogmatics it helps us understand councils much better (which is why I try to give examples of early councils, where the spirit involved was working to have us better understand the Trinity and Christology, but the letter of particular councils might seem to contradict later councils if one does not understand how conciliar definitions themselves were taken; this again, is how many would deal with the filioque when one sees councils say one should not add to the creed — the filioque is not an addition because it is part of the spirit of the creed itself).
No, we don’t differ entirely. But I still consider “spirit” to be too vague a term, too much open to ambiguous interpretations. I have no problem with individuals saying, “In my opinion the spirit indicates that such-and-such is the correct interpretation.” But I think it’s a mistake to insist that a particular interpretation be given authoritative weight based on nothing but the supposed “spirit” of the times, the Council, etc.
After all, I did agree that other things besides the Council text itself may be taken into account when interpreting Council documents. What we seem to differ on is how much weight these other sources should be given, relative to the texts of the Council itself, the texts of prior councils, papal teachings, etc.
Just because it might be difficult to determine the spirit does not mean, however, it is not involved with any proper, authentic interpretation going on. Hermeneutics is always a difficult task and the more one studies it, the more one learns the ambiguity of words in general. That is one of the reasons why we the spirit of the words and not the words must be involved with understanding what is going on. Theologically, the notion has been there since the foundation of the church (as pointed to with the words of Paul). St Maximus is a very important writer on the issue, and I would once again, recommend reading his works (and not just the one quote I gave). But you will find the question of spirit vs letter was intrinsic to many patristic commentaries on Scripture and how they justified disagreement of interpretation with Jewish commentators; you will also find St John of the Cross following with this and pointing out the spirit goes beyond the intention/understanding of the authors themselves. It is why it is not an unimportant point, though of course, the difficulty is discerning the spirit as you say, and it can seen ambiguous or arbitrary at times until one works with and grasps what is going on.