Today, October 11, 2016, marks the 54th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council.
While regular readers of this space are well-versed in matters concerning Vatican II, the Council it remains a source of confusion for many if not most in the Church, and that includes any number of those in Catholic media.
With this in mind, I’d like to take the opportunity to provide some basic but critically important information, in an easy-to-read Q&A format, for the benefit of those who are struggling to come to grips with the reality of the Council’s place in the life of the Catholic Church.
Please consider forwarding this to those who might profit.
What is an Ecumenical Council?
Church Councils have been held in many different forms throughout Church history dating all the way back to Biblical times (e.g., see Acts 15).
Over the centuries, there have been regional councils, national councils, plenary councils, patriarchal councils, etc. The primary difference between these different types of councils concerns the authoritative and geographic scope of their teaching.
For instance, a provincial council will typically address matters relevant to a particular province within the Church, and the decrees issued by such a council might only be binding upon that particular group of the faithful.
Ecumenical Councils (aka General Councils) on the other hand, are universal in their scope – both doctrinally and geographically; they are the most solemn and far-reaching gatherings of the Church’s Magisterium.
From the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia:
Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians.
Unlike their smaller counterparts, Ecumenical Councils include the bishops of the entire Church – both the East and the West – and their decrees, once they receive papal confirmation, serve to bind all Christians throughout the entire world.
What is the purpose or intent of Ecumenical Councils; i.e., why are they typically called?
Ecumenical Councils were often convened at times of trouble in the Church, at a time when one or more heresies were beginning to spread to the endangerment of the faithful; creating a substantial challenge to Christian unity.
For example, the Council of Trent, which met from 1545 to 1563, was called in the face of the Protestant Revolt.
Its main object was the definitive determination of the doctrines of the Church in answer to the heresies of the Protestants; a further object was the execution of a thorough reform of the inner life of the Church by removing the numerous abuses that had developed in it. (1917 Catholic Encyclopedia)
The intent of the Ecumenical Councils is very simple, even though the work carried out therein is not; namely, to define the doctrine of the Faith and to bind the faithful to said definitions. This often meant condemning, not just the specific errors being addressed, but also those who were propagating them.
This understanding of an Ecumenical Council’s intent is so fundamental to its definition, in fact, that some theologians have argued that Vatican II cannot truly be counted as one; i.e., it was more akin to a pastoral Synod of Bishops.
How many Ecumenical Councils have there been in the history of the Church?
Vatican II is the twenty-first Ecumenical Council in the history of the Church, and even though this averages out to one every hundred years or so, they are far less common than one might assume.
The 12th and the 13th centuries had three Ecumenical Councils each, while four other centuries each had two. That’s fourteen, or two-thirds of the total number of Ecumenical Councils in a period of just six hundred years.
The point is simply this: Living as we do in the shadow of Vatican II, it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that Ecumenical Councils are very rare, and they are never called apart from a gravely serious doctrinal challenge besetting the Church. (We’ll have more to say on this momentarily.)
Following the Council of Trent (see above), the First Vatican Council took place more than three hundred years later, from its opening in December 8, 1869 until October 20, 1870 when it was interrupted by the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War.
The First Vatican Council was convoked to address the errors of rationalism, liberalism, and materialism; producing just two constitutions – the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith and the First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ – the latter of which is best known for defining the primacy and infallibility of the pope.
For what purpose was Vatican Council II called?
Unlike the previous twenty Ecumenical Councils, Vatican II met at a time of relative peace and calm in the Church. In other words, there were no gravely important matters of Christian doctrine in need of defining in the face of a specific error or challenge.
In his Opening Address to the Council, Pope John XXIII made this clear when he said:
The salient point of this Council is not a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church. The sacred deposit of faith has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. For this a Council was not necessary.
So what exactly did John XXIII expect from this Council?
In brief, to re-articulate the doctrine of the Faith…
…through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.
As for how the bishops convened at Vatican II were to go about their work, Pope John XXIII held up “the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council” as examples of precision and faithfulness to follow.
Even so, he also went on to say:
Often errors vanish as quickly as they arise, like fog before the sun. The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She consider that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations.
This charge to avoid condemnations factors heavily in Catholic life today, as we will see.
What makes the Second Vatican Council unique among the Ecumenical Councils of the Church?
As the above makes obvious, Vatican Council II is entirely unique among the Ecumenical Councils of the Church in a number of critically important ways:
– There was no doctrinal crisis besetting the Church as the Council met.
– It was directed by the pope not to issue condemnations of error.
– It was further made clear by the pope that the Council had no intent whatsoever to define the Faith.
– Most importantly, its teachings are not binding on the faithful.
On this latter point, to be very clear, there are many teachings to be found in the text of Vatican II that merely repeat defined doctrine. These were, of course, binding upon the faithful prior to the Council and they remain so today.
In the case of novelties or deviations from that which was taught prior to the Council, or what some might call “developments,” these are not binding.
How do we know that the novelties found in the conciliar text are not binding?
For one, there is a “Notification” found in the Appendix of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, which reads:
Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding.
Throughout the conciliar text, contained in sixteen separate documents, the Council openly declared as binding a sum total of ZERO things.
Secondly, in a recent interview, Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission, referred to this same Notification while underscoring the nonbinding nature of some of the most controversial novelties of the Council; saying:
[Concerning] difficulties with several aspects of Nostra Aetate, regarding interreligious dialogue, the Unitatis Redintegratio decree regarding Ecumenism, and the Dignitatis Humanae Declaration on Religious Freedom, or with questions regarding the relationship of Christianity to modernity … these are not doctrines regarding belief, nor are they definitive statements. Rather, they are suggestions, instructions, or orientational guidelines for pastoral practice.”
Why, after all these years, is the Church still struggling to implement Vatican II?
Prior to being made a bishop, Fr. Robert Barron attempted to address this very question in 2014:
That’s typical after a Council. Especially a Council as big as Vatican II – I mean, big in terms of the bishops who were there, but also the size of the documents. Compare Vatican II, for example, to Trent or Vatican I or Chalcedon or Nicea. The documentation is far more extensive.
It is not uncommon to hear it said that it always takes generations to implement an Ecumenical Council, as in the examples given by Fr. Barron.
However, recall that Vatican Council II is entirely unique. The other Councils mentioned defined the Faith during a time of crisis. Add to this the fact that the means of communication were not nearly as efficient even one century ago, and it is clear that this comparison is a study in apples and oranges.
Vatican II was charged with simply re-presenting the immutable truths of the faith as defined by Councils and Pontiffs past, while taking into consideration the circumstances of “modern” life such as it was when the council met.
Setting aside the relative wisdom, or lack thereof, of using a solemn instrument such as this for strictly “pastoral” purposes, the primary reason the Church is still wrestling to come to terms with the content of Vatican II lies in the fact that it failed to teach the immutable faith with precision and clarity.
Isn’t the supposed lack of precision and clarity at Vatican II just a “traditionalist” claim?
Hardly. In a speech given in 2012, Cardinal Godfried Danneels (by no means a “traditionalist”) spoke very plainly about the Council’s deliberate lack of precision, saying:
The difference between Vatican II and previous councils is also reflected in the literary genre of the documents. The previous councils were mainly a type of court that decided and eliminated some things but also legitimized other things and expressed itself in legal terms. Right from the start, this model was not adopted by the council fathers of Vatican II. Vatican II chose a different literary genre and a different language. There were no short position papers or judgments, no sharp formulations of belief and discipline, and very little normative language.
In a 2013 article published in L’Osservatore Romano, Cardinal Walter Kasper is quoted as saying:
In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction. (Cardinal Walter Kasper, L’Osservatore Romano, April 12, 2013)
Think about what you just read: The purpose of every Ecumenical Council is to teach the Faith as clearly as possible, so that those who wish to know the truth can discover it with relative ease. Not only did Vatican II fail to condemn errors; thus making it far more likely that innocent souls would be enticed by them, it used “compromise formulas” that can be interpreted in multiple ways, some of which are clearly untrue.
Ambiguities, which must be read “in continuity” with tradition are one thing, error is another. Aren’t the Ecumenical Councils infallible?
The short answer is no. In order for the protection of the Holy Ghost to render the acts of a Council infallible, the Church must have the intent of defining infallibly and thus binding the faithful, something that Vatican II – as confirmed by John XXIII and every pope to follow – did not have.
So, does Vatican II contain actual error?
Yes, it does. For example, the Decree on Ecumenism states in reference to the Protestant communities:
For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. (UR 3)
This is a grave error. Our Lord Jesus Christ established one Church as the solitary means of salvation for all of humankind; namely, that perfect society known as the Holy Catholic Church.
The Council’s caveat, “which derive their efficacy…” does nothing to mitigate the offense as the Protestant communities have no efficacy as communities.
There are other more complex examples referenced throughout the pages of this blog.
What are we who wish to know and to live the Catholic faith in its fullness to do?
While it will take tremendous effort and the aid of God’s grace, the answer is rather simple:
We must submerse ourselves in the teachings of the popes and the Councils that predate Vatican II; it is there alone where one can be assured of clarity and precision.
This is only common sense!
Vatican II has no binding authority. It was not charged with making any new definitions, but only to pass on what had already been taught and defined. Therefore, looking to the doctrines of the Faith as taught before the advent of the conciliar confusion must be safe ground; indeed, the only safe ground.
Lastly, we must pray and fast for those who lead us – especially the pope – that he will cease glorifying the Council as a gift of the Holy Spirit (God is not the Author of confusion) and will exercise his solemn authority to teach the Catholic faith with the same precision and clarity for which his pre-conciliar predecessors are known.
“Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying. That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity”. 2 Thessalonians, Chapter 2.
Since Pope Saint John Paul II’s “Catechism of the Catholic Church” came out, I have asked if it can be completely trustworthy and have received many different answers. To be on the safe side, I’m currently studying a Pius X catechism. This (your) excellent and well-researched article makes everything crystal clear, Mr. V., and I thank you for it. I would love, however, to hear your opinion on the current CCC, please.
Can someone out there list the GOOD fruits of Vatican II?
This seems to bust open all those “pastoran, non-binding” myths about Vatican II.
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/pastoral-council-vatican-ii-infallible/#.V_1jzeV96Uk
I would have a hard time refuting this. I would like to know how anyone would.
Dennis
If the council was a worthless waste of time (and it was much worse than simply that), then how can the CCC, which it is based on, not be just as worthless? If you have a fireplace use the CCC for kindling. If you dont have a fireplace than throw it in the garbage where it belongs.
pastoral
If you believe that the vat 2 council was Catholic, then yes, of course it is binding. Roncalli and whoever else said it wasnt dont get to make the rules as they go along. If they did then the Catholic Church would be a farce.
Also, kudos to you for studying the Pius x catechism.
Fantastic work, Louie.
Simple to understand.
Once again —- thank you so much.
See:
The New Catechism…Is It Catholic?
http://archives.sspx.org/New_Catechism/new_catechism__is_it_catholic_part_1.htm
You wrote, “So, does Vatican II contain actual error?
“Yes, it does. For example, the Decree on Ecumenism states in reference to the Protestant communities:
” ‘For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. (UR 3)’ ”
However, pushing through the usual Vatican II fuzziness, this could mean that the “means of salvation” is that some aspects of Protestantism, such as belief in the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the validity of some Protestant baptisms, could lead one to the Catholic Church. That was the case for me. I already was halfway through the door of the Catholic Church, something not true if I had been raised Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu or atheist. In college, I then investigated the Catholic Church and answered the Call — it was a Call — to convert, despite the objection of my family, who themselves later converted.
It’s also worth remembering that the original Vatican II schema were excellent, but were ditched by the Council fathers: http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/79-history/421-original-vatican-ii-schemas.html
In particular, they dealt with what was a real crisis: the sexual revolution that was gaining steam in the early 1960s and, by the time Vatican II ended in 1965, was completely destroying our civilization in the holocaust of contraception, divorce, abortion and genocide-level low birth rates.
Thank you! I’ve only read the introduction so far and see this is exactly what I’ve been searching for. Finally, I have my answer. Thanks, again.
Now, having read the enlightening article on the CCC that AlphonsusJr directed me to, I am ready to “throw it in the garbage where it belongs” as you suggested. I have to admit that I am deeply saddened to learn that Cardinal Ratzinger is not the great theologian I was led to believe he was. The scales just seem to continue to fall from my eyes, thanks be to God, and to His faithful servants like Mr. V.
You’re most welcome. I know what it’s like for those scales to fall from the eyes. I salute you, friend.
I recommend also reading the excellent The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church:
http://angeluspress.org/Catechism-Crisis
Indeed, I will. Thank you.
Well, Sir, if there weren’t any heresies handy and available to prompt the calling of a Council in 1962, as a result of that Council there sure are now.
In historical terms NOW is a time when a Council is desperately needed, tho I suspect we have not reached the full fruition of evil that might be required to bring complete clarity to the need. And would we want the current crop of prelates to be the ones to define the confusing doctrines?
As a convert, amidst all the heretical and simply troublesome viewpoints common among faithful and prelates alike, one seems to serve as the worst of the lot. And it is seemingly innocuous at first blush.
That, very simply, is the new direction which Pope John XXIII sought to take the Church, from the 2 millenia tradition of affirming the good and condemning the bad to a novel tradition of merely affirming the good. If you think about it, you see that this was indeed the rock that sent the avalanche rolling. It was ESSENTIAL to incorporate this new paradigm in order to get the rest of the malarkey.
Not that I believe Pope John XXIII meant it to be this way. I do no believe he did and I do not believe he wanted it so to be. He was neither prescient nor devious.
He is, however, the Pope that infallibly proclaimed himself fallible, was he not?
Nevertheless, this method has become a scourge for the propagation of the gospel. As a Protestant I and all my friends thought Catholics allowed everything. we thought they had no scruples, no morals, no values and no universals. they simply couldn’t CONDEMN ANYTHING. I learned otherwise when I studied the faith, and became a Catholic, but I realize now that in fact, our critique as Protestants wasn’t all that far off the mark, at least for many prelates and “faithful” who have been stewed in the soup of Vatican 2.
The method of affirmation and condemnation is the method used by Jesus and it is the method used by the Fathers and the Church from the beginning…until 1962.
We see this rotten {soft} paradigm in high relief today, when Bishops dance around sin and issues of sinful lifestyles, and especially in the teaching of this current Pope. Who, it might be added, only has words approaching condemnation for those who seek to truly live out the Catholic faith!
God Save the Catholic Church.
In the first paragraph where you quoted Pope John XXIII, he clearly stated that “The sacred deposit of faith has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.”
So when you said “…the primary reason the Church is still wrestling to come to terms with the content of Vatican II lies in the fact that it failed to teach the immutable faith with precision and clarity”, cannot be the reason there is still confusion with the content of Vatican II as, according to John XXIII, it was not called to teach the faith-well known and familiar to all.
I believe Kasper revealed the primary reason the Church is still wrestling to come to terms with the content of Vatican which is the documents were purposefully written to (1) admit into the record of the Church and advance the heresies of Modernism in order to set a precedent for the future, and (2) avoid the charge of both heresy and changing doctrine by including enough orthodox teaching for those who actually were familiar with the teachings of the faith. This was a successful tactic insofar as the Modernists ran with the “suggestions” within the documents while staving off the criticisms of the orthodox as “misunderstanding” those documents, or as Fr. Barron nievely claims, it will take a long time to get to the meat, so to speak, of them. In the meantime, the practices that were implemented with these “suggestions” served to destroy the understanding of those teachings of the sacred deposit of faith and caused nothing but confusion and division.
Come on Louie. You know what was going on with the Modernists for 40-50 years prior to the Council. They had spread their heresies far and wide and converted a lot of the clergy so when the Council convened, it was the perfect instrument for them to “reform” the Church into their image and they had the blessing of both John XXIII and Paul VI to do so.
Im happy to hear it Dennis. Good for you.
While only God and Pope John XXIII only know what his motivations were for calling the Council and it became as you pointed out “a novel tradition of merely affirming the good”, which you also understand was the “rock that sent the avalanche rolling”, the reality at the time was that there were three important world events that had the potential of destroying the faith of millions of Catholics that could have (should have) been addressed:
1. Communism
2. Modernism
3. The sexual revolution
That none of them seemed important is one of the most distressing and unfathomable failures of both John XXIII and Paul VI. Although Paul VI did later write his encyclical on contraception, he was a weak-minded man by not disciplining those who either ignored it or dissented from it and there were many. He had the authority to excommunicate all of them and should have.
Good point Catherine. Vatican 2 was in the works well before it was actually convened. The masonic roncalli and the homosexual montini were the perfect back-to-back tandem to implement it.
What you say here is true at least for the first two on the list. In 1962 it would have taken a man of insight to have predicted the sexual revolution as we know it today. The former two were “old hat” if I can use that term even then. It is easy to place what we know now in the minds of them that didn’t know then.
But the Catholic church was the object of communisms greatest efforts, and She was the stalwart against godless atheism.
Today?
The Catholic Church is seen by many as a pawn in the working of the Communist/Masonic effort to destroy Christendom. As a young Protestant theology student, I always associated the Catholic Church with liberation theology and godless social action, the movements that reduced salvation to association with the party of the “people”.
And now, with this Pope, I see why. HE WAS ELECTED BY A CONCLAVE, FOLKS. HE DIDN’T GRASP POWER BY THE HORNS.
I believe CCC 675 and 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 sums it up.
God Save the Catholic Church.
Rod
As soon as Christ founded His Church it was “saved”. God help those who look to destroy it is what you meant to say. The perfect Catholic Church needs no saving.
Woe to us if we presume to rest in peace and security when actually there is no true holiness in our lives.
Imitation of Christ
Rich, I think we are on the same page, but if I speak as one who fears the destruction of the Church {I don’t}, you speak as a classical Calvinist {which I don’t think you intend to do}.
We need to pray for the Church EACH day, for while the Church in its entirety is not under any threat, the Church in Her limbs and peripheries IS.
Case in point; the loss of England and much of Europe as a result of the Deformation.
Today we see the loss of vast regions of the Church to heresy and the ignoring of orthodoxy with its product, the affirmation of sinful lifestyles.
As a convert, this trikes me right in the guts, as I look out and see the people I love led astray or rather, pushed away from Holy Mother Church by those inside the Body that ignore heresy and thru their refusal to confront evil encourage godless lifestyles. I am speaking of the supposedly orthodox prelates! My family and friends want nothing to do with a “Church” that sends this message. And frankly, I don’t blame them. Not all of us are students of theology in an academic context, and that is how I came to the Church. Others watch and are utterly shocked by what they see. to them, that is the only “Church” they will ever know.
Watch our supposedly legitimate prelates and bloggers and commentators treat rubbish like the 260-page, obscenely verbose Amoris Laetitia as if it was valuable teaching document and then go on to try to make it sound orthodox. Calling up, down and black, white and no, yes!
While, naturally, the heretics simply take it for what it is and run with it! Because to their credit they “get it” and understand they have just been given a hard quirt on the flank to run like hell and to hell they are running, HARD!
Not to mention the prelates ignoring of this Pope’s blasphemy in paragraph 161 of Evangelii Gaudium and his use of a pagan term for the goddess Gaia in Laudato SI {Sister Mother Earth? In ANY conceivable Catholic context what does that even mean?}
Is there a confrontation? Of course not!
This is the post Vatican 2 Church where we no longer condemn the bad, we just affirm the good! Just like Pope John XXIII said as Loie has noted here, ditching the entire history of the Christian faith where the affirmation of truth and condemnation of Satan’s lies has ALWAYS been the method of presenting the Gospel…starting with our Blessed Lord Jesus.
So this swill swirls about in the public arena, infecting and leading all sorts of sheeple astray as it covers the Gospel in theological excrement simply because we are led by such a bunch of disingenuous fems that nobody is willing to state the obvious.
THAT, my friend, is the “Church” that my family and friends see. It is THAT which they believe they are being asked to convert to. And why would they?
Is THIS what the Catholic Church has become?
REALLY?
In my opinion, Catholic prelates, that is, especially the “orthodox ones” {the heretics at least have the guts to proclaim their heresy} have utterly lost their integrity as human beings in the treatment of this flow of heresy that has become the pontificate of the apparent liberal Lutheran Pope. Gutless, effeminate bootlickers stumping to save their retirements.
What to say, but May God Save the Catholic Church.
Rod
We are on the same page, we just have different ways of expressing our fears. Yes, most people who are members (or claim to be members) of the Church are lost. That goes without saying. My only point is that their is a perfect Church always there for them if they wish to avoid hell.
Yes, we are on the same page.
As for fears, I am more accurately described as disgusted and becoming less and less able to hold my tongue in the presence of the ordained, especially my Bishop who is, of course, “orthodox” and “working behind the scenes” to fix things. And fix things he is doing, to his credit, but where is his teaching in the face of the onslaught against the faith unleashed by this Pope?
I wouldn’t know I HAD a Bishop if it wasn’t for the knowledge of the fact that every Catholic diocese has one…
On a more positive note, and I mean this… As someone who is new to the faith {2013} and who loves the study of theology, this Pope has given ample encouragement to anyone who wants to, to chase down his theories and opinions and whatnot and compare it to what past Popes have said. Indeed, with a bible, a CCC, Catechism of the Council of Trent and a copy of Denzinger it has made for some very interesting reading.
The short answer is NO, it cannot be trusted. Nor should anything else that has been issued by the Concilior Church.
Hmmmm???? No.
Many traditionalists argue that Vatican II is not infaillable in order to preserve in their mind that it was a legitimate council. But the objective fact is that Vatican II contradicts previous magesterial teachings especially concerning religious liberty and salvation outside the Church. So the choice is left to the faithful. If Vatican taught error, how can it be Catholic? I have yet to hear an explanation how Vatican II can be interpreted through tradition. It cant. But very few in the trad circles wants to push this issue to the logical conclusion that many Bishops have fallen into heresy and thereby lost their office. See Paul IV Cum Ex Apostolatus.