There is a lot of talk about the "Church of
Vatican Il". And also, about the "Church of Pius X", the
"Church of Trent", or the "Church of Paul VI". There is an
abuse of language in that. It is to repudiate it in both letter and spirit on
the pretext, as is sometimes said, of "going farther".
It is a way of emphasizing discontinuities,
exaggerating them, indeed, of imagining ruptures, of making too much of
contingent, secondary traits to the detriment of the essential, which endures.
It is to forget that the councils and the popes, in the exercise of their
authority, are only the servants of the Christian tradition. I know only one
Church, the Church of all time, the Church of Jesus Christ, the Church of the
apostles, the history of which is certainly very eventful, but which is never
renewed except in order to remain herself.
Another expression that has become a catchword
nowadays is detestable in the way it is understood and in the conclusions drawn
from it. "Vatican Il", it is said, "is not a point of arrival
but a starting point." It is to be sure a starting point in the sense that
texts were written in order to be applied and to bear their sometimes unforeseen,
fruit. But, on the one hand, they are not an absolute starting point, as if
they were canceling out nineteen centuries of tradition that they continue; one
the other hand, it is a betrayal of the Council to consider it like an open
door to something else in letter and spirit and virtually to repudiate it on
the pretext, as is sometimes said, of “going further”.
They no longer trouble themselves, henceforth,
with the content of the Council; they consider it to be the transitory effect
of a compromise between an elite group, conscious of the true needs of the hour
but unable to lead the whole flock in its footsteps, and the backward members
of that flock. To it must go the credit, they say, for having “opened a breach”,
for having “begun a transformation”.
No comments:
Post a Comment