Vatican II
The Second Vatican Council (1962-5), Blessed Pope John XXIII’s “flinging open the windows to let in some fresh air”, did not for the most part teach new things. It did in one or two cases – the decrees on non-Christian religions and on religious freedom implicitly said that past practice was wrong. But principally it sought to redress the balance, especially by looking again at the Scriptures and at the whole history of the Church.
Although some of the decrees of the Council seem to have been a ‘walk-over’ (the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was passed by 2147 bishops’ votes to 4), in most cases there were painful compromises and lengthy re-draftings – the document on Divine Revelation took over three years to come to an acceptable text.
This tension between ‘ancient’ and ‘recent’ tradition is most marked in the document on the clergy. It is called Presbyterorum Ordinis – “of the order of presbyters” – but the official English title is “The Ministry and Life of Priests”. But if we go back to the early history of the Church, “Presbyters” (‘elders’ or advisers) and “Priests” (implying the sacrificing priesthood of the Temple, or of the Mass) are not exactly the same thing. In the translation, at least, what had been given by the right hand was being taken back by the left.
It would be true to say that Vatican II sought to break down barriers between “them” and “us” – notably clergy and laity. It stressed the “priesthood of all the baptised” – an ancient title, ultimately going back to the book of Exodus, where the people of Israel are called a “chosen race, a royal priesthood”. If you have been following this series, you will remember that the question of the “apartness” of the priesthood was a thorny one from the earliest, pre-Christian, times – even setting prophets against priests when the latter sought power.
It would also be true to say that the previous Holy Father in particular sought to reverse this Vatican II emphasis: in two documents (1988, 1994) Pope John Paul II taught that Christ was present in laity and in priests in an essentially different way.
Incidentally, those ‘in the know’ say that the insistence on retranslating “Et cum spiritu tuo” as “And with your spirit” (rather than “and also with you”) is to re-stress the different nature of the priest. [The only trouble is that at the Gospel – which is properly read by a deacon – we would be saying it to the deacon, yet Pope Benedict XVI has only just recently ‘tweaked’ Canon Law to make it clear that a deacon is not a priest!] This is getting very complicated!