Modernist longing for a new Council. Long-term goal of Synodalists

Gregor Maria Hoff: Answers to the Council's open questions are needed

Context- a recent book by Christoph Theobald SJ- and here another theologian takes up the theme.

Bonn – 60 years after the Second Vatican Council, the Church is in the midst of an intensive process of reception, says Gregor Maria Hoff. In a new book, he writes about the Council's contradictory legacies. The fundamental theologian discusses open problems and possible solutions.

A Church inhibited in its leap? At the Second Vatican Council, many doors were opened, but they were not consistently followed through, says Gregor Maria Hoff. In a new book, the Salzburg-based professor of fundamental theology addresses the Council's contradictory legacy, saying that these continue in the form of open problems that are increasingly emerging in the course of the synodal transformation of the Roman Catholic Church. In an interview, Hoff explains the open questions of the Second Vatican Council and the challenges a possible next council faces.

Question: Mr. Hoff, there is a famous saying that it takes 100 years for a council to be fully absorbed. With the Second Vatican Council, we are now at 60 years. So, what is the current situation?

Hoff: While this saying sounds good, it cannot capture the complexity of such reception processes. They take a roundabout route and are constantly being re-established and in different ways. If you like, the reception of the Council of Trent in the 16th century lasted at least until the 19th century – and in fact, much longer, because open questions, for example, regarding the place of the episcopal office in the ecclesiastical power structure, not least its sacramentality, were only resolved at the Second Vatican Council.

Question: Where exactly are we today in the reception process?

Hoff: The reception of the Council already took place during the Council. These processes were taking place back then in the course of commentaries – and they are now taking place in the course of the synodal transformation of the Catholic Church, which has gained considerable momentum under Pope Francis. In this respect, 60 years later, we are in the midst of intensive reception processes. In view of pressing questions and problems, the question arises as to what is needed to adequately address and resolve these problems. Is a new Council needed? Not at this moment, because the synodal processes are just beginning – but perhaps in ten years, to make decisions?

Question: Before we discuss this: What, in your view, was revolutionary about the Second Vatican Council?

Hoff: It gave the plurality of the church a different place. It marked the globality of the church and the different church traditions and developed a new form of knowledge – namely, that of allowing oneself to be relativized by other perspectives, convictions of truth, and social realities. Relativizing means entering into a productive relationship with them. Human rights, religious freedom, ecumenism, the significance of other religions: Allowing oneself to be relativized by these without abandoning one's own convictions and claim to validity was a significant step. Many doors have opened, but one must consistently walk through them.

Question: In your book, you write about open questions from the Council that need to be addressed. What are the crucial ones?

Hoff: As a fundamental theologian, I say: The way one deals with history is crucial. The Second Vatican Council achieves a breakthrough toward historical thinking, even to the point where the Constitution on Revelation, "Dei Verbum," grants license for historical-critical exegesis. Until the Council, it was more than just under suspicion. Historical thinking is truly gaining ground. But now comes the big but: The Council failed to achieve a truly consistent self-historicization of its own form of knowledge—that is, to take a context-conscious look at the concepts with which it works. There are indications, but they were not decisively implemented.

Question: For example?

Hoff: A more precise look at how the ministry and ministries have developed in the Catholic Church. Magisterial narratives often simulate a linear process that the Holy Spirit once initiated and that formally culminates in the three-stage ministry. The re-establishment of the diaconate as an independent office, and not merely a stage on the path to the priesthood, was only achieved by the last Council. Changes are possible. Another example: How was the infallibility of the Church and the Pope constructed? In the 19th century—as Hubert Wolf convincingly demonstrated—a new teaching format was developed on the basis of tradition. What do these processes mean for the Church's self-determination?

Question: How does such historical thinking relate to truths of faith that are beyond the Church's reach?

Hoff: Excellent, in my view. Firstly, because it is precisely in the historical determination of this truth of Faith that it becomes clear that the God we believe in is a God with whom we journey. The Gospel is a message that continually reveals itself anew on Jesus' journey with us. Secondly, because this God is for us a God whom we define in history and through historical events. His significance is revealed not least in what we call the signs of the times. This means that we have a historically determined concept of God. It is therefore necessary to think historically. The Church has developed different forms of knowledge, theological concepts, and organizational patterns throughout history. What appears as "eternal" truth is determined in historical contact with the Gospel—how the creative life-giving power of God is communicated to us in Jesus Christ.

Question: You speak not only of open questions, but also of contradictory legacies of the Council. Which do you consider to be the most consequential?

Hoff: Within the Church, one of the most tense moments is how the College of Bishops relates to the authority of the Pope. Related to this is the way the Council speaks of the People of God and the rights they are entitled to. On the one hand, the Council leaves behind the figure of the Pope with absolute powers of intervention. On the other hand, the Pope is integrated into the communion. He determines the authentic interpretation of the Council, but at the same time, this interpretation must be carried out in accordance with the Council's documents. Another point: What do the moments of rupture in one's own history mean? Anyone who speaks of a Church of sinners but ignores the systemic element of a sinful Church produces a contradiction within the Church that affects the formation of tradition. The Catholic Church's abuse complex makes this clear. The matter-of-factness with which the Council claims its own tradition as authentic appears fragile against this background. In this respect, the way of thinking and the form of organization form an ecclesiastical context: a problem of contradiction arising on two interconnected levels.

"The Church has developed different forms of knowledge, theological concepts, and organizational patterns throughout history. What appears as "eternal" truth is determined by historical contact with the Gospel—how the creative life-giving power of God is communicated to us in Jesus Christ." —Quote: Gregor Maria Hoff on historical thinking in the Church

Question: Are the current debates about a synodal Church a continuation of the debates of that time?

Hoff: They are related to them because, compared to the ecclesiological teaching document of the First Vatican Council, the Catholic Church places much greater emphasis on collegiality and, above all, the importance of the entire People of God. For example, the faithful's sense of faith is given a different space. What is new is the much larger portfolio of challenges. We are dealing with a more radical form of pluralization, even within the Catholic Church, than 60 years ago. The question arises as to how the Church reflects on itself as a communion in light of global megatrends. Communion is still a fairly hierarchical concept – with a clear definition of who leads it. The synodal transformation, along with new and, in each case, locally different challenges, leads to this church achieving and must achieve a greater dynamic in the interaction between the local and universal church. For the complexity of the problems it faces and within which it must proclaim the Gospel is quite different.

Question: All this means for a possible next Council...

Hoff: ...that it must adapt more clearly to the shift in religious-cultural plausibility of recent years and decades. What do secularization processes, which are very circuitous and varied, mean for the presentation of one's own faith? This is linked to concrete questions of church life – questions that, for example, have been discussed in the synodal process of the Church in Germany in the wake of the abuse complex and that also play a role, with varying degrees of intensity, in the universal Church: the ordination of women, the image of the priest, the handling of power. These are crucial questions that are theologically determined. Last but not least, we must rethink our understanding of revelation. And we must ask ourselves how we deal with our own tense tradition.

Question: Under Pope Francis, a lot has been happening in terms of synodality. What will happen under Leo XIV?

Hoff: Since this week, it has been clear that Leo XIV is continuing the synodal transformation. Along this path, it must become clear what a synodal understanding of the Pope might look like. This requires a willingness to take risks for the church. A Synodal Pope must respect Synodal decisions. Leo XIV appears to be someone who cautiously, sensitively, and also with an awareness of differences, attempts to combine tradition and a reform-oriented awakening. It remains to be seen whether he will ultimately give synodal processes like the one in Rome the decision-making authority that Francis gave them. How Leo will organize all this remains to be seen. The paradox with Francis was that he enabled a more Synodal church through authoritarian decisions.

Source