The 60th anniversary of the closing of the Second Vatican Council is only a few months away. This great Council of the 20th century, the first truly universal one, has been a determining factor for the Church today and is a constant reference in the Magisterium of recent Popes.
Omnes discussed these issues with Cardinal Agostino Marchetto, considered one of the leading experts on the Second Vatican Council.
Agostino Marchetto, a native of Vicenza, was ordained a priest in 1964. At a very young age he entered the Vatican diplomatic career and worked in the representative offices of the Holy See in Zambia, Cuba, Algeria, Portugal and Mozambique.
He was nuncio in countries such as Madagascar and Mauritania, Tanzania o Belarus and, from 2001 to 2010, he was Secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People. He was created a cardinal by Pope Francis in 2023.
How to explain the Second Vatican Council, especially to the youngest?
- When Pope John XXIII arrives at the See of Peter, he convenes a Council after the unsuccessful attempts made by the other popes, because they thought that the opportunity was not there or that the situation was not yet sufficiently mature. It is clear that he wanted a Council that could respond to the world what the Church is and at the same time what the Church can do for the world.
These were the two great fundamental questions posed by Paul VI: "Church, what do you say about yourself and what do you say to the world today?" in a changed world, a new world in which we find ourselves, with a crisis already present.
The situation was not entirely calm when Pope John XXIII convoked Vatican II. Paul VI also had the desire to respond to the evangelization and integral human promotion of today's world.
In addition, John XXIII had a great experience between East and West, he had the capacity and historical and conciliar formation, as well as the propensity and ability to convene and guide the Second Vatican Council, as long as he could because of his age.
You were young at the time.
- I was still in the seminary. I listened and perhaps I was also surprised by the courage of the Church in this new reality and this desire to face today's world, so I followed everything with great interest.
I am from Vicenza, and in the seminary we had a professor who, when he came from Rome, brought all the publications, especially in French, concerning the Council, and he was so kind that he left them for us to consult.
I confess that at that time, through the publications, I felt all this birth that was being lived for the good of the Church and the world and to be faithful to the message of evangelization.
The Second Vatican Council did not want to be dogmatic but pastoral, what does that mean?
-Let us take "calmly" this affirmation that "he did not want to be dogmatic but pastoral", since there is no pastoral if there is no dogmatic and doctrinal reality to support it, right? This is my thought.
Evidently those who say "we want something dogmatic and not pastoral" are forgetting what we see in the constitution of the Church. Let us see how much dogma there is there, in the sense of theological truth, of what is the tradition of the Church, the word of God and all the other realities that make up the mystery of the Church.
So we cannot make these distinctions as some do, because if we do, we make a division and we no longer find ourselves.
This is the big issue: we have to think of Vatican II as a basis of dogma, in the sense of tradition and of the harmonious development of the unity of the one subject Church, as I was saying Benedict XVIThe Pope's thought is the thought of all the conciliar popes, from Pope John XXIII to our Pope Francis.
A person who claims not to believe in the last popes, nor in the current pope, no longer belongs to the Church.
– It is clear, as you rightly say.
Does the same apply to those who do not believe in the Second Vatican Council?
- In fact, I think it is the same thing, now in this situation of the latest schismatic crisis we have recently faced, there are two difficulties in recognizing the catholicity of this archbishop, namely: first, that he does not accept the present Pope; second, that he does not even accept the Vatican Council II.
Therefore, if these two dimensions are not accepted, the person who expresses himself in this way - although always with the desire to help, to welcome, to walk together, to dialogue - if these two realities are not accepted, he places himself outside the Catholic Church.
It is not the Catholic Church that expels them - there may also be a tribunal, there may be a sentence, etc., and that is another matter - but he is the person who has put himself outside the Catholic Church.
So, can there be self-exclusion even if the Church does not make a pronouncement?
– This is perfectly applicable to a person who does not accept the Pope and when he does not accept the Second Vatican Council, because they are two elements that characterize the schism with respect to the Catholic Church.
In the case of Msgr. Carlo Maria Viganó It would seem that the excommunication occurred because there are followers who may believe that he is Catholic and so the Church makes it clear that he is not. But in reality would he have self-excluded himself much earlier?
- Excuse me, a Catholic bishop who is ordained by another bishop who is excluded from Catholic communion, do you think he can still be called a Catholic?
Beyond the Viganó case, there are people who question Vatican II. To what extent can it still be said that these people are Catholics?
– If you have the disposition for a real dialogue with the Catholic Church, we can still wait for you to find the possibility to clarify your position and understand the position of the Catholic Church. But if it is a matter of principle, you must clarify your things and find your position.
Could that person be said to be a Christian but not a Catholic?
- You make a distinction that seems normal to me. Although I would add that being Catholic today is an extraordinary way to help Christian unity.
