Fr. Joseph Ratzinger at the Second Vatican Council

[Profundus]

I have heard that Cardinal Ratzinger, at the time of the Second Vatican Council, was considered a leader of the progressive wing of the clergy. In the aftermath of the Council and during his papacy, Ratzinger has been considered liturgically traditional. Have his opinions actually changed or has the context of the debate changed? A brief history of His Holiness’ outlook on the Council would be much appreciated.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I have heard that Cardinal Ratzinger, at the time of the Second Vatican Council, was considered a leader of the progressive wing of the clergy. In the aftermath of the Council and during his papacy, Ratzinger has been considered liturgically traditional. Have his opinions actually changed or has the context of the debate changed? A brief history of His Holiness’ outlook on the Council would be much appreciated.

I’ll let more knowledgeable people answer in greater detail, but I think it’s a bit of both.

On the one hand the both the Church and the secular world are different today than in the early 1960s, and so a difference in pastoral emphasis is appropriate.

On the other hand, Joseph Ratzinger was/is not one of those people whose views simply froze around the age of 30. He witnessed the aberrations of some post-Conciliar developments, such as Marxist-inspired movements and the not-so-admirable developments in the thoughts of his old friend Hans Küng, and these led to a development in his own ideas and attitudes. Also I believe he was rather dismissive of Mary in his youth compared to the likes of Bl. John Paul II, but has become progressively more Marian in his spirituality as he’s gotten older.

 

[healonzo]

I have heard that Cardinal Ratzinger, at the time of the Second Vatican Council, was considered a leader of the progressive wing of the clergy. In the aftermath of the Council and during his papacy, Ratzinger has been considered liturgically traditional. Have his opinions actually changed or has the context of the debate changed? A brief history of His Holiness’ outlook on the Council would be much appreciated.

Try reading the Ratzinger Report. That should help.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Try reading the Ratzinger Report. That should help.

Try reading the writings of the Pope himself. That will help more. He’s a prolific author and has sat for two or three book-length interviews. The interviews especially are an (relatively) easy way to learn more about him thinking and the development of his views.

He’s a very genuine person and has not been afraid to explain how and why his thoughts have developed on certain topics. Unlike US politicians, who seem to think that everyone has to have fully formed views at 30 years olf which then never change, the Pope is wise enough to know that changes in the world around us can influence our thoughts. Which isn’t the same as having relativistic morals.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Try reading the writings of the Pope himself. That will help more. He’s a prolific author and has sat for two or three book-length interviews. The interviews especially are an (relatively) easy way to learn more about him thinking and the development of his views.

He’s a very genuine person and has not been afraid to explain how and why his thoughts have developed on certain topics. Unlike US politicians, who seem to think that everyone has to have fully formed views at 30 years olf which then never change, the Pope is wise enough to know that changes in the world around us can influence our thoughts. Which isn’t the same as having relativistic morals.

Well, the Ratzinger Report is one of those book-length interviews lol.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Well, the Ratzinger Report is one of those book-length interviews lol.

Oops got my titles confused. I was thinking of the History of Benedict (is that even the right title?) that is somewhat negative in its portrayal ofthe Pope.

 

[Marchmain1987]

I remember in *Salt of the Earth *this is discussed – which is on audio from Ignatius Press; great for a long car trip. There is a direct question about this.

If I remember correctly, the Holy Father points out that it says a lot more about the person who said it than his thought.

Also, if I remember correctly, the Holy Father says that his views have not “changed.” He objected very much to that line of thinking regarding his thought and work.

That being said, I very rarely read the Holy Father’s academic work (with the exception of the interviews and the two Christology books) for pleasure unless I am looking for an answer (or his view) of a specific question that I have in mind.

And I always have a good theological dictionary by my side.

 

[Genesis315]

In an over-simplified nutshell, you had the two camps back then–the “conservatives” who wanted to maintain the scholastic dogmatic formulas, and the progressives who wanted to introduce new formulas.

However, among the progressives you had, on the one hand, those who wanted to introduce new formulas, but intended to maintain the ultimate substance and meaning of the underlying doctrines and dogmas (even if in their zeal they sometimes went a little too far and had to be corrected), and on the other hand, those who wanted to also alter the substance of the old formulas.

From what I’ve read Ratzinger was a “progressive,” but not one that intended to depart from the true substance and meaning of the dogmas of the faith, etc. That’s what his hermeneutic of continuity is all about–even if Vatican II introduced novel explanations and terminology, those ultimately must be read to mean the same as the faith that has been handed down inviolate.

 

[corsair]

Oh, yes, I remember the man Ratzinger had a very liberal reputation. In fact those of us that “fancied” ourselves as Traditionalists, considered him an enemy of the church. Then several years later my wife and I were teaching CCD classes in a small rural parish and we were looking for books to use in our classes. We found a couple by Ratzinger that previewed well and took them to our priest for his approval. I’ll never forget his response; Oh, no he’s too conservative. Go find something else".

Wow, was I blown away. But as the years past I began to learn more about him and I saw that he was changing.

A conservative? Well, not in the classic sense, but far better than what was available in 2005. Things have changed so much since then.

I have been very pleased with the happenings in the last few years.

 

[sedonaman]

FYI:

“Results since the (Vatican II) Council, seem to be in cruel contrast to the expectations of all, beginning with those of John XXIII and Paul VI. … The Popes and the Council Fathers were expecting a new Catholic unity, and instead one has encountered a dissension that – to use the words of Paul VI – seems to have gone from self-criticism to self-destruction. A new enthusiasm was expected, but too often there has been boredom and discouragement instead. A new leap forward was expected, but instead we find ourselves facing a process of progressive decadence. … It must be clearly stated that a real reform of the Church presupposes an unequivocal turning away from the erroneous paths that led to indisputably negative consequences.” – Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

 

[giuseppeTO]

I have heard that Cardinal Ratzinger, at the time of the Second Vatican Council, was considered a leader of the progressive wing of the clergy. In the aftermath of the Council and during his papacy, Ratzinger has been considered liturgically traditional. Have his opinions actually changed or has the context of the debate changed? A brief history of His Holiness’ outlook on the Council would be much appreciated.

I don’t think that we can consider the young Fr. Ratzinger a leader at the onset of the council. He was one of the periti and held close associations with Karl Rahner, Edward Schillebeecks, Hans Küng and Johann Baptist Metz, served as periti for Cardinal Joseph Frings (a progressive movement leader). Pictures of Fr. Ratzinger show him in a coat and tie, quite a statement for that time and in the heart of Rome.

I do believe he (like many of us) has matured to a more traditional/orthodox outlook concerning the faith since the 60’s and his writings certainly show that trend. Fortunately, he has not followed in the footsteps of his companions like Fr. Murray, S.J. and Henri De Lubac, S.J., and Fr. Edward Schillebeecks, O.P.

 

[Genesis315]

I do believe he (like many of us) has matured to a more traditional/orthodox outlook concerning the faith since the 60’s and his writings certainly show that trend. Fortunately, he has not followed in the footsteps of his companions like Fr. Murray, S.J. and Henri De Lubac, S.J., and Fr. Edward Schillebeecks, O.P.

De Lubac’s footsteps are much more comparable to Ratzinger’s than those other too.

 

[grandfather]

Cdl Ottavani was the leader of the conservative movement at the Council. A German cardinal whose name I can not remember led the opposition. The German and his group managed to win over the bishops to their views. Ottavani’s initiatives were defeated… Ratzinger was in the German camp. He was friends with Hans Kung who this week announced the pope should be declared schismatic if he allows a SSPX reunification with Rome.

The Council was much ado about nothing. It was called a “pastoral” council, because it was called to “update” the Church. Its purpose defined by the pope who called it was “aggiormento”, to get the Church updated, with the times, modernized. He said the Church was full of stale air and needed to open its windows an allow fresh air to blown in and blow out the old staleness.

The conservatives opposed the Council altogether. They said there was no need for one. Previous councils were held to resolve major controversies and heresies and declare new dogma. This was not the case for VII. All of the documents it produced essentially restated theological positions. In the end it was a council for the sake of having a council.

Nevertheless, so much expectation was created for “change” in the Church, that the aftermath of the Council brought chaos to the Church. It was a license to challenge and change anything traditional in the Church, music, architecture, design, vestments, art, catechetical materials, morality, anything to do with the Catholic religion.

Once it became clear that the Council lit a destructive fire in the Church, Ratzinger became a fireman. Oddly enough he found himself in this role with the same job title as Ottavani in the curia who once led the conservative opposition to the progressives in the Council who were led by the German contingent of which Ratzinger was a member.

.

 

[GWright]

I have heard that Cardinal Ratzinger, at the time of the Second Vatican Council, was considered a leader of the progressive wing of the clergy. In the aftermath of the Council and during his papacy, Ratzinger has been considered liturgically traditional. Have his opinions actually changed or has the context of the debate changed? A brief history of His Holiness’ outlook on the Council would be much appreciated.

My understanding is that when Joseph Ratzinger was a University lecturer in Germany, he was regarded as “progressive” - I dislike that word, as it is a loaded term with inherent bias, but you know what I mean - open to change.

His outlook changed to become conservative, as a result of the Marxist inspired Student riots in Germany, in 1968.

Apparently, he was shocked by both the intensity of the violence and the attitudes of the marxist students. Some of his own lecturers were invaded by sit-in demonstrations. The Marxists students considered themselves - and were seen as - “progressives”, in that the changes they advocated was seemingly better / fairer, but this, remember, was in the context of the (then still existing) USSR’s example of how Marxism (communism) worked in practice.

The USSR always had a very brutal Government, and the people of that union of nations traditionally lacked many basic freedoms that people in the west enjoyed. Also, they were oppressed by totalitarian security forces. The USSR dealt swiftly and brutally with any dissent or different opinions, for example, its suppression (via military intervention) of revolution in Hungry/Poland etc in the 50s.

I think Ratzinger felt that, weighing all this up, western “progressives” - such as the popular marxism of the time - inherently lacked credibility and so he became convinced of the value of tradition and continuity.

Also, having lived and suffered under the Nazi regime as a youth - even being conscripted to fight when he was just 14 - he was probably very wary indeed of movements which seemed to advocate a similar totalitarian regime (albeit based on different principles. Of course, despite their different views, the ways the Nazi state and the USSR acted were very similar, in terms of how they dealt with their enemies, treated people generally etc).

My understanding is very limited, but even this basic explanation fits with your question - Vatican II was 1962-1965, at a time when Ratzinger was still progressive, it was not until the riots / social unrest of 1968 - after Vatican II - that his views shifted to conservatism.

So, my understanding is that his actual views did change, in the late 1960s, thanks to the social unrest amongst youth at the time.

I actually have german friends who were youngsters at this approximate time (they are now ~50 yrs old). You can see their thinking in their youth was very much influenced by post WW2 culture, the dramatic social changes of the 60s/70s and that they were very sympathetic towards (Soviet) East Germany, deriding their own West German identity (via feeling shame through being German which meant historical association with the Nazis).

They still obviously retain an affection for the ideals of marxism and those days, but at least some of them can now openly admit they they were deluded at the time, thanks to being caught up in the fantasies of left wing ideals, the foolishness of youth and being in thrall of supposed left wing “heroes” like the Bader Meinhoff gang (german terrorists) in the 70s.

Seems our Holy Father was right to change his stance! What a guy!

 

[Aelred_Minor]

My understanding is that when Joseph Ratzinger was a University lecturer in Germany, he was regarded as “progressive” - I dislike that word, as it is a loaded term with inherent bias, but you know what I mean - open to change.

His outlook changed to become conservative, as a result of the Marxist inspired Student riots in Germany, in 1968.

Apparently, he was shocked by both the intensity of the violence and the attitudes of the marxist students. Some of his own lecturers were invaded by sit-in demonstrations. The Marxists students considered themselves - and were seen as - “progressives”, in that the changes they advocated was seemingly better / fairer, but this, remember, was in the context of the (then still existing) USSR’s example of how Marxism (communism) worked in practice.

The USSR always had a very brutal Government, and the people of that union of nations traditionally lacked many basic freedoms that people in the west enjoyed. Also, they were oppressed by totalitarian security forces. The USSR dealt swiftly and brutally with any dissent or different opinions, for example, its suppression (via military intervention) of revolution in Hungry/Poland etc in the 50s.

I think Ratzinger felt that, weighing all this up, western “progressives” - such as the popular marxism of the time - inherently lacked credibility and so he became convinced of the value of tradition and continuity.

Also, having lived and suffered under the Nazi regime as a youth - even being conscripted to fight when he was just 14 - he was probably very wary indeed of movements which seemed to advocate a similar totalitarian regime (albeit based on different principles. Of course, despite their different views, the ways the Nazi state and the USSR acted were very similar, in terms of how they dealt with their enemies, treated people generally etc).

My understanding is very limited, but even this basic explanation fits with your question - Vatican II was 1962-1965, at a time when Ratzinger was still progressive, it was not until the riots / social unrest of 1968 - after Vatican II - that his views shifted to conservatism.

So, my understanding is that his actual views did change, in the late 1960s, thanks to the social unrest amongst youth at the time.

I actually have german friends who were youngsters at this approximate time (they are now ~50 yrs old). You can see their thinking in their youth was very much influenced by post WW2 culture, the dramatic social changes of the 60s/70s and that they were very sympathetic towards (Soviet) East Germany, deriding their own West German identity (via feeling shame through being German which meant historical association with the Nazis).

They still obviously retain an affection for the ideals of marxism and those days, but at least some of them can now openly admit they they were deluded at the time, thanks to being caught up in the fantasies of left wing ideals, the foolishness of youth and being in thrall of supposed left wing “heroes” like the Bader Meinhoff gang (german terrorists) in the 70s.

Seems our Holy Father was right to change his stance! What a guy!

This is mainly consistent with my impression of the history, though like others have pointed out I think the Holy Father would insist on a greater degree of continuity between his views before and after 1968. Also, on a factual note, he was conscripted to non-combat service in the German army, not to fight.

 

[Profundus]

Looking at some of his positions before the Council and comparing them to his tenure in the Curia and as pope, one would not know that this is the same person!

For instance, I’m confused by this book, co-authored with Hans Kung advocating for the democratic election of bishops by the laity as well as bishop term limits???
institute.jesdialogue.org/ecumenical_press/democractic_bishops

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I have heard that Cardinal Ratzinger, at the time of the Second Vatican Council, was considered a leader of the progressive wing of the clergy. In the aftermath of the Council and during his papacy, Ratzinger has been considered liturgically traditional. Have his opinions actually changed or has the context of the debate changed? A brief history of His Holiness’ outlook on the Council would be much appreciated.

In my opinion, he hasn’t actually changed: rather, the goalposts have moved.

People often forget that terms like “progressive,” “conservative,” and “traditional” are subjective terms. What is “progressive” in one era is “traditional” once such changes sink in and the next generation is used to them.

It is quite correct to note that then-Father Ratzinger was an influential member of the majority progressive/liberal wing at the Second Vatican Council (though as a peritus, of course; since he wasn’t yet a bishop he didn’t get to vote).

Especially with all the hogwash about the “Spirit of Vatican II” and all that, people sometimes forget that the council documents themselves don’t support - or even address - the sort of changes 21st century liberal Catholics want.

Rather, the majority “progressive” faction at the Council was in favor of things like:

• The doctrine of episcopal collegiality
• Reconsidering the way the Church speaks of Scripture and Tradition (i.e. enshrining a more holistic, unified way of speaking of the Word of God)
• Promoting religious liberty and freedom of conscience as basic human rights
• Reforming the Mass
• Explicitly exonerating the Jews for the death of our Lord*

(*the exception being the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch, who - while solidly in the majority faction - feared Islamic reprisals against Middle Eastern Christians if the Council were to say such a thing)

etc.

The minority “traditionalist” faction, by contrast, opposed such ideas:

• They thought “collegiality” was a smokescreen for conciliarism and a threat to papal supremacy
• They didn’t want to adjust the Tridentine distinction between Scripture and Tradition
• They didn’t want to change the Mass
• They found “religious liberty” and all that to be heretical innovations
• They didn’t want the Council to offer an overt statement that the Jews are not guilty of deicide

Now, look at Pope Benedict today:

• He strongly supports religious liberty and freedom of conscience as human rights
• He principally celebrates the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite
• He doesn’t seek to blame the Jews for the death of Christ
• He believes in collegiality

See what I’m getting at? By the definitions of “progressive” and “traditional” that make sense in the context of Vatican II, he is a liberal.

That confuses people, only because they’re predisposed to thinking that being a “liberal/progressive” Catholic entails:

• favoring women’s ordination
• reversing Church teaching on contraception and homosexuality
• ending mandatory priestly celibacy in the Latin Church
  etc.

But this confusion is… well, stupid. Then-Father Ratzinger was a progressive at Vatican II, but being a “progressive” at the Council entailed none of those things. Women’s ordination wasn’t even on the radar, and contraception and celibacy were two of the three issues that Popes John XXIII and Paul VI took off the table, so to speak (the other being reform of the Curia).

If I remember correctly, the Holy Father points out that it says a lot more about the person who said it than his thought.

Also, if I remember correctly, the Holy Father says that his views have not “changed.” He objected very much to that line of thinking regarding his thought and work.

Exactly. A person who thinks the Holy Father’s views have significantly shifted toward the conservative side is quite confused. As I explained above, the context has shifted, and inherently relative words like “progressive” and “conservative” apply to Catholic life and thought differently in the early 21st century than they did in the 1960s.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

In an over-simplified nutshell, you had the two camps back then–the “conservatives” who wanted to maintain the scholastic dogmatic formulas, and the progressives who wanted to introduce new formulas.

Yes, I agree.

However, among the progressives you had, on the one hand, those who wanted to introduce new formulas, but intended to maintain the ultimate substance and meaning of the underlying doctrines and dogmas (even if in their zeal they sometimes went a little too far and had to be corrected), and on the other hand, those who wanted to also alter the substance of the old formulas.

From what I’ve read Ratzinger was a “progressive,” but not one that intended to depart from the true substance and meaning of the dogmas of the faith, etc. That’s what his hermeneutic of continuity is all about–even if Vatican II introduced novel explanations and terminology, those ultimately must be read to mean the same as the faith that has been handed down inviolate.

Well said, Genesis! I think you’re 100% correct.

It was called a “pastoral” council, because it was called to “update” the Church. Its purpose defined by the pope who called it was “aggiormento”, to get the Church updated, with the times, modernized. He said the Church was full of stale air and needed to open its windows an allow fresh air to blown in and blow out the old staleness.

Another major theme of the Council’s approach was called ressourcement. Just as aggiornamento implied reaching into the future, so too did the Council Fathers intend to reach back into the *past *via ressourcement, which essentially means that to present the Catholic faith with greater directness and purity, they would ultimately adopt terminology and positions far more ancient than those of the mainstream, scholastic, Tridentine norm that had prevailed for the last several hundred years.

Collegiality is the best example of this. While it seemed like an “updating,” like a progressive innovation, it was actually far more Traditional - yes, Traditional with a capital T - than the neo-Ultramontanist views that some had started to hold.

The Council was much ado about nothing. Previous councils were held to resolve major controversies and heresies and declare new dogma. This was not the case for VII. All of the documents it produced essentially restated theological positions. In the end it was a council for the sake of having a council.

Not really true at all. The Second Vatican Council’s teachings may not have “declared new dogma,” but they did far more than restate theological positions; indeed, the Council departed significantly from what was then the expected teaching as found in scholastic manuals and seminary textbooks. For instance:

• Dei Verbum very significantly altered the way the Catholic Church speaks of the sources of revelation
• Lumen Gentium and other documents described and promoted collegiality, which - while always the consistent teaching of the Church - had begun to be forgotten and misinterpreted due to the development of neo-Ultramontanism
• Dignitatis Humanae was huge: the Church endorsed freedom of conscience and religious liberty, and completely changed her policy on how secular states should handle religious diversity in the societies they govern
• Orientalium Ecclesiarum completely changed the way the eastern Catholic churches were looked at, and after it the papacy began its official policy of aggressively promoting the removal of all Latinizations
• Gaudium et Spes and Nostra Aetate very much changed official Catholic policy regarding the Church’s relationship with non-Catholics and even non-Christians
• I can’t back this up at the moment, but I have read that some scholars do think Vatican II did even dogmatically establish at least one thing: that the episcopate is definitely a distinct tier of Holy Orders, and that episcopal consecration is not simply a “loosing” of episcopal powers that were actually imparted at priestly ordination. To my knowledge, the latter interpretation could not have been heresy before Vatican II; now it is.

And I could go on. In short, it is absolutely untrue to say that Vatican II just restated theological positions. The Council changed a lot and reincorporated into mainstream Catholic thought core ecclesiological doctrines that were being neglected, like collegiality.

Nevertheless, so much expectation was created for “change” in the Church, that the aftermath of the Council brought chaos to the Church. It was a license to challenge and change anything traditional in the Church, music, architecture, design, vestments, art, catechetical materials, morality, anything to do with the Catholic religion.

Yes, such attempts were abuses, not licensed by the Council. We shouldn’t blame Vatican II for those who attempted to hijack it.