Introduction

The Issue

The Second Vatican Council, with its intended reform of the Church to meet the needs of the Faithful in the twentieth century and beyond, failed to achieve many of its larger goals. The Council itself evolved and reformed many aspects of Catholicism and our interaction with the modern world – in such a short space it would be folly and an injustice to attempt to evaluate them all. Therefore, as unity amongst Christians is a key objective of Holy Mother Church, and was so at the Second Vatican Council, the focus of this paper will be on both the internal and external unity of Christians after the reforms, as ‘ecumenism became a central commitment of the post-Conciliar Church.’ ^[1]As such, unity will be treated here as the overarching aim of the Second Vatican Council, through the ecumenical movement, the Church’s relations with our forefathers the Jews, and the Church’s relations with Eastern Catholics. Ecumenism, as Pope John XXIII held it to be one of the main focuses for the Council, has not materialized in any meaningful way in the years since, with Catholics and our separated brethren growing increasingly distant. ^[2]

Not only for Christians, but, as John XXIII’s ‘heart seemed directed to reaching out in solidarity to embrace the wider world of the human family,’ the Church’s relationship with others such as our elder brothers the Jews needs to be highlighted. In recent times, the repugnant and grievous heresy of antisemitism has become so widespread that even the Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Archdiocese of Westminster, and the Papal press office are spreading blood libel, fostering hostility among Christians to Jews not seen since arguably Kristallnacht. [3] This is a significant issue not only for those involved, but also for the ecumenical movement, as many of our separated brethren, namely Evangelical Christians, have good relations with Judaism.

Unity among those in full communion with Rome, another aim of the Council, has also failed to occur, with a rift in the Roman Rite between liberals and traditionalists subsuming the lay Faithful in many aspects, including liturgy and politics – with ‘some unhappy because the Church has conformed too much to the standards of the world; others are angry that she is still very far from doing so.’ [4]

Definitions

Before analyzing whether the Second Vatican Council achieved its objectives with regard to ecumenism and a greater unity, then, a definition of the three words essential to understanding the Council’s intentions must be given. These words will play a vital role in interpreting the course of events. The Council intended to update (aggiornamento) the Church and how she interacts with the modern world, drawing from Patristic sources (ressourcement) and dogma, whilst still affirming prior Magisterial statements and thus declaring itself ‘to be in organic continuity with established ecclesial tradition.’ [5]

These three words – aggiornamento, ressourcement, and dogma – whilst not wholly the original aim, as highlighted in the preparatory work for the Council by the Theological Commission (as these ideas were in the minority), came to define the aspirations of John XXIII’s vision after the Council. [6] Ressourcement theology, which encompasses not only the texts of the Church Fathers but also Holy Scripture and sources of liturgical life, as well as some later prominent theologians such as Thomas Aquinas, was crucial for achieving this goal. It revitalized active participation in the liturgy and fostered a closer relationship between Holy Mother Church and our divided brethren. [7]

This ‘collapse of a theology that was one-sidedly built in conformity with the latest encyclicals’ allowed for a ‘return to the sources,’ and a move away from the legalistic nature that the Faith was beginning to revolve around in modernity. [8] So that the Second Vatican Council could achieve what the Council of Trent had intended but could not accomplish due to the pressures of the Reformation – as, for example, ‘Trent approached liturgical matters from a different angle because its purpose was different’ due to its avoidance of more contentious ecclesiological issues at the time. [9]

Namely, the Second Vatican Council intended to ‘enhance Catholic teaching, with a view to the penetration of souls,’ and ‘by complementing the doctrinal reformulations of its four constitutions with a broad program of renewed practice in worship, ministerial service, and the apostolate.’ [10] Renewal and rejuvenation, not radical change, in order for Holy Mother Church to adapt to the world around her: essential because the Church Militant is by her nature situated in the temporal realm and must engage in the affairs of man. Therefore, one can state that ‘the Council of Trent has certainly been completed and perfected in many respects by the Second Vatican Council.’ [11]

The Objective

But ‘perfecting’ the Council of Trent was not the goal; ecumenism and unity were. Therefore, it is wise to first define what ecumenism means for the Catholic Church. Ecumenism, in the Catholic tradition, means not a triumphalist subjection of other Christians, but rather joining with the already established ecumenical movement in order to foster closer cooperation between the divided Church, thus preparing for the eventual unity that only Our Lord can accomplish. [12] As ‘the attainment of union is the concern of the whole Church,’ and ‘every renewal of the Church is essentially grounded in an increase of fidelity to her own [the Church’s] calling. Undoubtedly this is [therefore] the basis of the movement towards unity.’ [13] Because ‘the churches in their separation and divisions are a countersign to the one Church that the economy of salvation portends as a witness to the truth of the Gospel.’ [14] In order for this paradoxical stance – as the Catholic Church is not divided yet finds herself still in division – to be realized, one must have a ‘dynamic eschatological framework,’ something that the Second Vatican Council attempted, and to some extent achieved, but has not been fully realized yet. [15] And will not be until the Second Coming.

Ecumenism

A Short History

Ecumenism, as a movement, is a uniquely modern development in Christianity, originating in the latter half of the nineteenth century amongst non-Catholics on the Continent, and at the 1910 World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh. [16] Whilst Catholicism has always to some degree sought the unity of the Church, the Catholic ecumenical movement originated in France and Belgium specifically at the turn of the twentieth century, at the recognition of the Anglican Society of the Atonement in 1909. It aimed to further this attempt by actively fostering unity, rather than declaring that those in schism must submit to Rome. [17] This is significant because the drive for ecumenism at the Second Vatican Council was led by figures such as Yves Congar O.P. and Augustin Bea S.J., and other theologians of whom those ‘drafting the text [Unitatis Redintegratio] were mainly Belgian, Dutch, and French,’ highlighting how influential this small movement became for the direction of the Council, as well as for this region of the world. [18] Congar had even penned one of the earlier arguments for ecumenism in Chrétiens désunis: principes d’un ‘œcuménisme’ catholique in 1937. [19]

However, from the moment of its adoption into Catholicism, the ecumenical movement was met with deep suspicion – partially due to the zealous drive to eradicate modernism, and partially because of the fine line between religious indifferentism and holding Holy Mother Church as the only true Church – by the papacy as well as the laity, as it was also seen as an occasion for scandal and confusion among the laity. [20] This attitude was exemplified by Pius XI’s 1928 encyclical Mortalium Animos, in which those who sought ecumenism were ‘admonished’ for falling for such a ‘dangerous fallacy’ that amounts to ‘evil.’ [21]

This new approach from the Second Vatican Council, exemplified by the Secretariat for Christian Unity, and what would become Unitatis Redintegratio, allowed for a way to find the catholicity in our separated brethren by abandoning the methodology of the Counter-Reformation and starting anew. [22] This effectively allowed for actively seeking what will unite us, rather than what divides us. Although this suspicion did not leave the movement until the eve of the Council, preparatory progress had been made through the work of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, and Cardinal Bea. Though that is not to say no progress had been made prior to even that, as a little had been made in the decades before; the most notable breakthrough with ecumenism pre-Second Vatican Council was Ecclesia Catholica, the acknowledgement that those not in communion with Rome may possess the Holy Spirit. [23] Additionally, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, in which it technically applied to all baptized Christians, and not just those in communion with Rome. [24]

The Second Vatican Council

The Second Vatican Council, with the promulgation of Unitatis Redintegratio, Lumen Gentium, and Orientalium Ecclesiarum, sought to completely change this approach for both Catholics in communion with Rome, as well as Christians not in perfect communion. Instead of being considered ‘evil,’ ecumenism is the renovatio and perennis reformatio of the ‘Church’s fidelity to Christ,’ as ‘every renewal of the Church essentially consists in an increase of fidelity to the Church’s own calling.’ [25] It is declared that ‘many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure’ and as such, other Christians, though in an imperfect communion with the Church, are still the beloved of the Bridegroom. [26] This is aptly summarized by Ratzinger – albeit still depending on access to the sacramental life in his Called to Communion – in the affirmation that being involved in the Church does not necessarily predicate a person being Christian: ‘there can be people who simply live by word and sacrament alone and practice the love born of the faith without ever having attended church groups, without ever having concerned themselves with the novelties of ecclesiastical politics, without ever having taken part in synods and voted in them – yet [who] are true Christians.’ [27] This understanding is relevant in light of the cessation of heresy charges against the contemporary Orthodox and Protestants, as they are not obstinate in schism and as such cannot be guilty of formal heresy. [28] Their love for Christ must be commended.

Orientalium Ecclesiarum, principally concerned with Church discipline rather than doctrine, follows on from earlier apostolic letters such as Orientalium dignitas and calls for Eastern Catholics to play a special role in bringing ‘forward the realization of full communion between the Catholic Church and the “separated Eastern Churches.”’ [29] It permits them to return to ancient rites and liturgical customs that had existed in their Churches long before the Latinization that early full communion had forced them to jettison. [30] ‘Orientalium Ecclesiarum thus stands as a prime example of development – not away from but toward – a fuller recovery of the Church’s tradition’ and the unity found in the Age of the Apostles. [31] As Eastern Catholics are in full communion with Rome, this decree will also be of relevance in the section on unity within the Church, and not just for external unity through the ecumenical movement.

The Present Situation

These are just examples of the significant areas thatressourcement theology at the Second Vatican Council developed in regard to the ecumenical movement. To list all of them would take more space than can be devoted. However, all the effort put forward has, on the face of it, achieved nothing. Between the Orthodox Church, the Protestants, and the Anglicans, none have unified with the Body of Christ that is the Catholic Church. The two key divisions – the Nestorians/Monophysites of the Oriental Orthodox, and the Protestants and Anglicans – remain in division. There are some notable exceptions, such as the Anglican Ordinariate, which has allowed for Anglican communities to join with the Church, not just ‘individually’ but ‘corporately,’ whilst still retaining liturgical traditions and customs that have developed since the Reformation. [32] There has also been more cordiality with the Orthodox Church.

It would appear that no real progress has been made. Nor have relations with the Eastern Churches – the non-Catholic ones – largely changed since the time of the Second Vatican Council; they are still outside communion. However, this assessment supposes a unification on a mass scale, a visible union, and also supposes that the full unity of our separated brethren can occur before the Second Coming of Our Lord; but, as Lumen Gentium declares, that cannot happen until ‘the end of time [when] it will gloriously achieve completion […] [and all] will be gathered together with the Father in the universal Church.’ [33]

Wood argues that the ‘achievements of Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio’ have led to ‘more than fifty years of subsequent ecumenical dialogue.’ [34] Wood further argues that the fruits began to ripen post haste post-Council, with the removal of the sentences of excommunication between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, and vice versa, a significant development toward unity. [35] Further advances in unity, using the aforementioned conciliar legislation, have been made between Catholics and Protestants, specifically Lutherans, with the 1999 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, which provides an underlying framework for Lutherans to adapt their understanding of sanctification and justification to that of Catholicism. [36]

The teaching of theology and history in the Catholic tradition, especially at the university level, has, as a requirement for an evolving, deeper relationship, broadened to include Orthodox theology. [37] Though perhaps this too is one-sided, as the Orthodox do not always engage with our great theologians as often as we do with theirs. [38] But, if the ‘receiving [of] the Eucharist in a Catholic Church is the strongest affirmation of full communion with the Catholic Church,’ as Morerod argues, because ‘a non-Catholic person consciously receiving it […] in effect solemnly claims not to be a non-Catholic’: then there is no communion, as ‘only a baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to Holy Communion.’ [39]

Whatever progress is made, however, can never be actual progress, merely dialogue, as full communion cannot be achieved until the end of the world. As such, we are perpetually stuck in a circle of progress: as if one walks in circles, one can say one moves, yet one never reaches a destination. Therefore, this is the situation with ecumenism and the Catholic Church: perpetual travel towards, and never reaching, the goal on her own. Even if the behavior of the Commission on Christian Unity and Cardinal Bea went a long way towards the goodwill at the start of this perpetual journey. [40]

Internal Unity

A Short History

If the Second Vatican Council sought unity with our separated brethren, it concurrently sought it with our brethren already in full communion. Unity within the Church has a long history, and as such, a historical treatment such as that given for ecumenism cannot be made here. However, key historical changes leading up to the Second Vatican Council will be mentioned in order to fully understand what the Council did and what its actions led to in the years since. The liturgy in the Roman Rite had begun to be reformed by Popes John XXIII and Pius XII in the years leading up to the Council, as evidenced in the Holy Week reforms of 1956, though a complete overhaul was only first considered by the Council itself. [41] The de-Latinization of the other rites had begun in 1894 through Leo XIII’s apostolic letter Orientalium dignitas, which not only prevented further Latin influences but also used poetic language to describe the beauty and worth of a liturgically rich and diverse Church. [42] With ‘the Eastern Churches described as “jewels,” “ornaments,” “flower in first blush,” and so on.’ [43]

The Second Vatican Council

The Council sought, through its promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concilium, to achieve increased participation in the liturgy by the laity, thus bringing the laity and clergy together: ‘to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ.’ [44] Orientalium Ecclesiarum, ‘a significant example of […] aggiornamento and ressourcement,’ focused on the preservation of the Eastern Rites, equalized the standing of all liturgical rites, and allowed for the cross-rite reception of the Sacrament of Penance. [45] Something that may have underpinned the theology for other cross-rite sacraments between the Catholic Church and our separated brethren, such as the recognition of baptisms in the Trinitarian formula, as well as potentially marriage in the future.

The Present Situation

A summary of the effects of the conciliar documents can be provided in two words: unintended consequences. The Second Vatican Council, through Sacrosanctum Concilium, intended to unify the liturgy in the Roman Rite, while allowing for regional episcopal adaptations in order to accommodate the unique expressions found in a diverse world – as well as to expressly equalize the rites of the twenty-three other sui iuris Catholic Churches in full communion with Rome.

The current situation in the Latin Church, however, is that there are, 60 years later, two expressions of the same Rite: the ordinary form, and the extraordinary form, which is clung to by a diminishing number of societies, religious communities, and parishes. Both forms are further subdivided into different configurations. Those that still celebrate according to the Old Rite – whilst not all, it is to be noted – still frustrate the Council’s objectives for a liturgically diverse Church with, as Chupungco noted, an ‘isolated perspective.’ [46] Namely, the primacy of the Latin Rite over any other. This division was further exacerbated by Benedict XVI in his apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum, which, regardless of intent, caused an often-noted increase in rejection of the Second Vatican Council amongst those who believe in error that the Church can never update her liturgical expressions. [47] This division still exists in the pontificate of Pope Leo, with an idealized veneration of a liturgy that, whilst noble, does not encapsulate the other historical liturgical norms celebrated by our brethren in the universal Church, and that is becoming borderline schismatic in cases where it exceeds mere liturgical expression, as in the case of Strickland, as well as the schismatic SSPX. [48] Thus, rendering it a de facto rejection of the Council’s ecumenism.

Religious liberty, which was seen by John XXIII as essential for Catholic participation in the ecumenical movement, led to schism within the Church as well. [49] This manifested in Lefebvre’s schismatic movement, the aforementioned Society of St Pius X, which, reasoning upon an erroneous understanding of the Church’s ability to evolve, claimed that the ‘Declaration of Religious Freedom [was] contrary to the Magisterium of the Church.’ [50] Vernacular Masses are still burdened by complications in getting translations approved. [51] The Church has not been able to overcome divisions such as those created by the laudable drive for ecumenism.

Conclusion

A Failure?

In conclusion, yes, the Second Vatican Council failed to fulfil arguably any of its objectives, especially with regard to ecumenism and unity. The liturgical reforms as set out in Sacrosanctum Concilium never materialized, and what we now have across parishes is merely a butchery of the liturgy, rather than allowing for an expression of Christ ‘in a distinctly local accent.’ [52] Ecumenism too never seemed to catch on, with a much wider divide in the last decade between the Church, the Protestants, and the Orthodox than there was when we were actively seeking division. Though dialogue still continues, the Churches in separation drift farther and farther away on moral issues such as the sanctity of life, female ordination, and ordered holy matrimony. [53]

Antisemitism in Christianity is alarmingly on the rise at a rapid pace not seen since Kristallnacht: with not only the Latin Patriarch spouting unsubstantiated claims that amount to blood libel, but the Vatican press office rubber-stamping it and broadcasting it in a papal address. [54] No doubt, this is an issue going forward for unity amongst those in the Church who adhere to the magisterial teachings on the Jews and those that stray into error, as well as for the ecumenical movement writ large, with regard to our relations with other Christian Churches that are less hostile to our elder brothers.

What the Second Vatican Council was to the First, – that is, addressing arising questions – is what the inevitable Third Vatican Council would be to the Second. If the Second Vatican Council had succeeded, would there be a need for a third council? No; therefore, logically, the Council has failed at this particular moment in time. Perhaps this is too soon for an analysis of the Church; after all, the Second Vatican Council is only just now beginning to address issues created by the Council of Trent. And the previous pontificate, that of Pope Francis, was still trying to implement ‘a number of those neglected conciliar teachings.’ [55] But I have analyzed the Church at the macro level and not the micro. ‘The very hairs of your head are all numbered,’ so I would like to conclude with looking at the detail of one of these little hairs. [56] For perhaps I am wrong; perhaps the objectives were fulfilled in ways we often overlook out of arrogance. As ‘the simple faith of simple people deserves the respect, and reverence, of the preacher, who has no right simply to play off his intellectual superiority against their simple faith, which in some circumstances grasps the heart of the matter more surely as a simple intuition.’ [57]

Hope?

There is a humble parish in London of not more than about a hundred parishioners, all devoted to a liturgical practice of a religious order’s liturgy, devoted to the love and praise of God, as well as to their fellow man. They practice a form of the liturgy from 1933, modified to align with the guidance of Traditionis custodes and Summorum Pontificum to the extent that they apply. They evangelize and engage in missionary work. They courageously adapt to a hostile world, unwilling to compromise on their witness to Christ, yet somehow still engage with it more readily than most.

Yes, the liturgy is not what was proposed by the Council, as it is that of a religious order, but it is objectively and substantially closer to the intent of the liturgical reform than the ordinary form of the Mass as celebrated in Western Europe and North America currently is. Yes, they may perhaps be perceived as an enclave, and as suspicious of outsiders, but they are objectively and substantially more welcoming than parishes bending the meaning of magisterial teaching for platitudes, subsequently jeopardizing the souls of sinners and those who err. So perhaps it is here, in the humble faithful, where the seeds sown at the Second Vatican Council are beginning to blossom.

Unfinished?

So yes, the Second Vatican Council failed to fulfil any of its objectives, especially with regard to ecumenism, as well as unity within the Church herself. Though there have been notable positive developments, such as those argued by Wood and Wicks, with an increase in dialogue, the Anglican Ordinariate, as well as theological frameworks predicating future developments. [58] But when one looks at the people whom the Second Vatican Council shaped, namely the Church Militant, and not the institutional Church, as I and many others have, perhaps the Council did shape them on a more substantial scale. More alive is Sacrosanctum Concilium, Lumen Gentium, Dei Verbum, and Gaudium et Spes in a quaint and insignificant parish than they ever appear to have been in the Eternal City. The same can be said, perhaps, for the ordinary, humdrum Catholic parishes in Mosul, the Orthodox in Moscow, the Syro-Malabar faithful in Mumbai, and the Protestants in Melbourne. These conciliar documents were intended for all movements, not merely for theologians and men of the cloth – did not the Second Vatican Council call for a wider participation of the laity? So, should we not look, therefore, at their implementations of approaches to ecumenism and internal unity and draw our conclusions from them?

The question remains, though: for unity to be achieved both internally and externally, it has to happen at a structural level. So, if ‘the most extraordinary thing in the world is an ordinary man and an ordinary woman and their ordinary children,’ and they can comprehend this seemingly ‘extraordinary’ Council, why cannot our so-called glamorous bishops, pious priests, and learned theologians? Is it pride, perhaps? Or is it willful sabotage of the Church to serve political and material ends? The Second Vatican Council failed to revitalize the Church, and yet the heart beats on, more alive and stronger than it was before the Council. The objectives have been carried out by the faithful servant whilst being scoffed at by the so-called masters. More research needs to be focused there, in the domestic Churches, rather than on the polemics of theologians, if one is ever to find a definitive answer to this question. But, as the Second Vatican Council, and other ecumenical councils, aimed to do before, for unity to happen ‘we need not a more human, but a more divine Church.’ [59] As man is flawed and prone to bickering, infighting, and conflict, the more human we make the Church, the more we accentuate the flaws of a fallen humanity. Only a return to God, and a sole focus on God, helped by a return to the sources, can rid us of this disunity. As such, in such a short span of time, and without the benefit of hindsight that only a Third Vatican Council could provide, all these conclusions on whether the Church has achieved the unity it set out to attain at the Council are subject to change.