The Problem of Vatican II

**Warning – controversy alert. Read at your own risk.**

Currently during lunch in the monastic refectory we are listening to What Happened at Vatican II by John W. O’Malley. Privately I am reading The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story by Roberto de Mattei. These books represent the two predominant trends in the assessment of the Council: the one sees it as the great liberation from a rigid and stifling neo-Scholasticism that dominated the Church as a result of an over-reaction to the Modernist crisis, giving power back to the bishops from the hands of a narrow curia clinging desperately to its power exercised from with an ivory tower; the other sees something disturbing in the the forces leading to the Council, the forces that prevailed during the Council, and the forces that prevailed in the subsequent implementation of the Council.

You will recall that Benedict XVI in his last days as pope expressed his understanding of the Year of Faith as an initiative to help the Church re-discover the “real Council”, and to move beyond the “virtual Council” erected by those who knew best how to manipulate the media according to their own agenda. The Australian theologian Tracy Rowland has written a fine piece on the subject, detailing particular areas in which such a rediscovery needs to be pursued – revelation, ecclesiology, liturgy, as well as a re-assessment of the weakest yet disproportionately popular conciliar document, Gaudium et Spes.

So far Pope Francis has not seemed overly concerned with the Council. His preoccupations seem to lie in structural reform of the Church and the daily Christian living of the faithful, often at is most basic level (eg the need to avoid gossip, to recognize and resist the works of the Devil). Speculation on the Council seems so far to be a luxury he has no time to indulge.

Of course, it is not a luxury. Since the modern Church is, one way or the other, the product of the Council, the trials and failings in many parts of the Church that have attended the post-conciliar reforms require that we revisit the Council in order to assess with some degree of objectivity the legacy of the Council. To a great extent this will require us to look beyond the documents of the Council, which were so readily disregarded in practice except as unexamined talismans for the reform agenda (eg the “spirit of Vatican II”). What needs greater attention is the Council as event.

The event of the Council involves not only the documents of the Council, its official legacy, but also the context in which it occurred. Consciously or otherwise this is what more recent histories of the Council are doing. Thus we find that the Modernist crisis and the neo-scholastic reaction against it initiated by St Pius X is being re-examined, as too the unease with this reaction that informs the rise of the nouvelle théologie and which gave new impetus and direction to the liturgical movement. After the announcement of the Council, the preparations made especially by northern European theologians and liturgists  – the so-called Rhine alliance – need more careful examination, as does the careful strategic planning they employed in order to push through their agenda at the Council. De Mattei especially shines a light on the sometimes almost cynical method by which the Rhine minority won over the moderate majority in the Council. This feat was only fostered by the relatively vague pretext for the calling of the Council, an un-focused, idealistic and even naive desire for breathing ‘fresh air’ into the Church rather than (as had always been the case) any pressing need to meet a doctrinal or political crisis in the life of the Church. Lastly the event of the Council continued beyond the conciliar sessions, in the process of its implementation by the very same minority that had prevailed during the conciliar sessions themselves. This process saw the conciliar documents overtaken by the “spirit” they were said to have embodied and set in motion. No less a part of the conciliar event is the global context of the 1960s, a period of fast-paced revolutionary change as man turned to himself in the wake of the horrors of the Second World War and God’s apparent failure in the face of it.

We have seen this expressed in so many ways. Liturgists focused on pleasing man rather than God. Theologians sought to write out of existence any difference between men, especially religious difference, so as to remove any pretext for future conflict – the brotherhood of man replaced the primacy of the Church as God’s chosen people. The Church was de-militarised, as it were: spiritual combat and vigorous evangelization of the world with the truth of Christ gave way to accommodation to the world, and affirming its alleged intrinsic goodness. Those who remember the 1960s American sitcom Bewitched will recognise in this process an example of baby Tabitha’s “wishcraft”: if we close our eyes and say that everyone is good and that we are all equal, then it will surely come to pass.

History, if we choose to examine it, gives the lie to this wishful thinking that lies at the heart of the event of the Council. Repression in communist countries and in nations newly freed from the “yoke” of colonialism waxed rather than waned; terrorism emerged as a new phenomenon, bringing the violence of war to the streets of nations otherwise at peace; an intolerant and repressive Islamic fundamentalism emerged as the great threat to the peace of the world, reflecting a mindset that clearly rejected the new dogma of universal equality within the brotherhood of man; and as the Church accommodated herself to the supposed desires and aspirations of the world, the world grew even less interested in her, and so too even her members who, ironically, drifted away in great numbers from a liturgy deliberately re-designed to please them.

To say all this is to open oneself up to attack from those who still see in the event of the Council their great liberation. There are still many who have pinned their colours to the standard of the Council, and for many of them there can be no going back. That would be too unsettling, too disappointing. Who, after all, likes to admit they were wrong?

Pope Francis’ failure so far to engage with the Council is, perhaps, not such a bad way to proceed. The Council as event has overtaken the Council’s own understanding of itself in its documents. So perhaps the whole thing is best left to the side. The young have very little interest in the Council, if any at all. It does not figure in their vocabulary or their conversation. They are far more interested in popes and bishops who have a message that resonates with their deepest, often unarticulated, intuition. Somehow, in the midst of all the confusion, the Church’s perennial message has got through to them and they have embraced it. Christianity is for them a way of life that makes real demands personally and socially. It informs and bolsters their identity. It gives them a cause and mission in life. Christ is seen not so much as friend as powerful saviour intimately concerned with them, yes, but also with his Church into which he calls them. Liturgy is seen less as a vehicle for self-expression and more of a privileged place in which they might lose themselves in God, who can then give power to their lives. For the younger generation, the battles and preoccupations of the conciliar generation are no longer relevant, and indeed, no longer desirable. So the Church must move on with them, not by accommodating to them as such, but by addressing their legitimate needs, needs for truth, transcendence, the experience of God and its necessary expression and validation in daily life. The Church, insofar as it offers a real alternative to the world, will attract the young from the world with relative ease.

So perhaps the Council is best left on the backburner for now,  as we rediscover that there have been other, and more important, councils than the most recent one. Reclaiming the entire treasury of doctrinal, liturgical and spiritual wealth in the Church, we can get on with the inescapable duties of being Christian: loving God and neighbour in deed as well as in word; worshipping God in spirit and in truth; fighting evil with the weapons of the Gospel; making God the foundation of our lives 24/7, and not just for an hour on Sundays. The young will look to their elders above all to model this authentic way of Christian living, and not to peddle the world-conditioned obsessions of their own, long distant, youth. In doing so some of these elders have already re-discovered the splendour of the Faith.

For all that, the event of the Council will have to be dealt with, if only so that we can embrace what is good in it, discard what is defective and reorient ourselves back on to the way of salvation. Specialists will do so, and have begun that mission already. For now, Pope Francis bids us commit ourselves to Christ who ever abides with his people, the Church. If God be for us, who can be against?

20 thoughts on “The Problem of Vatican II

  1. I think one of the main issues facing the Church is that some elders in some parishes are from a certain generation that will only embrace the ‘sitting cross legged singing kumbaya’ method of worship, and often these people are the influential people involved with many parts of the Parish ministry. As a (relatively) young and certainly very orthodox member of my Parish I feel this is putting off younger and more orthodox people not just from getting involved at parish level but also connecting with the Church. As an example we are lucky enough to have the option of a EF Mass several times a month celebrated by our excellent Curate and there are young people who attend who don’t usually attend the OF Masses (bearing in mind we only have maybe 2 EF Masses a month). There will always we an issue when the Parish Priest is an extreme opponent of the older Mass and tries to sweep it under the carpet where possible. If people are marginalised because of their preference to the EF Mass or more traditional catholic rubrics you will (and do) get a very heavily biased interpretation of The Second Vatican Council. Domine Jesu.


    1. This is precisely the problem I see as needing to be confronted: the baby-boomers imposing their view of Catholicism, crafted in the 60s when the times were a changin’ and the answers were blowing in the wind (pace Bob Dylan), on a youth that can witness with open eyes and minds the dysfunction of the Church today, and the incongruity between Conciliar theory and post-conciliar practice. The new generation of younger clergy have already started making a dent in that legacy.

      Also, it is up to you young ‘uns to make it clear to your clergy what you want, ie the Church’s teaching and liturgy as it is meant to be, not as they might want it. Be subtle, be respectful. Perhaps letting them see where you choose to go to Mass might be enough of a start! Your curate seems to know already. Pray for more of him.



      1. Rabbi Bergolio does not have to “engage the Council”; he is the quintessential man of the Council and is pushing its agenda forward every time he opens his mouth and writes a word to promote the agenda of the council–the surrender of Catholicism to its enemies–modernists, liberals, Freemasons, Jews, atheists, occultists, homosexuals, Protestants, and ironically capitalists–see Jews and Freemasons. The Council also wanted to accommodate the Reds but they did not last too long after the close of the Council–e.g., Russia an China.


  2. One of the most appealing aspects of monastic life to me has been the delightful idea of being read to over a meal….. I hadn’t actually considered that the reading matter might cause indigestion.

    I think that I do like the emphasis on the most basic aspects of “how to be a Christian” is a grand way to fertilize a Church (at least judged by the members I most usually see) which has grown so lukewarm.


    1. The reading at meals is a very positive element in our life, though our choice of books is sometimes a little, er… patchy in quality. :-/

      The “back-to-basics” method often has the advantage of providing a common framework where there is division. Conservative and liberal can both agree that we must not neglect the poor. And for the lukewarm, whom you rightly note, they may rediscover some of the excitement that should go with being with Christ in his Church.



    1. The whole issue of collegiality certainly needs revisiting. Sadly, its genesis seems not to have been aimed so much at enhancing the role of diocesan bishops but at diminishing the role of the papacy and its curia.

      Modernism’s revenge?


      Liked by 1 person

  3. Hmmm . . . interesting that Fidelis Cygnus (really ?) alights on the liturgy as the core of Vatican 2 . . . as do I and I think most lay folk. The Catholic Church is not, and really cannot be a democracy, but the variation in the quality of the liturgy spawned by the changes in Vatican 2 are quite alarming sometimes. Now, I am an Old Dowegian (64-68) who loved our liturgy then, and still manage the Kyrie from Mass Vlll in the shower from time to time. Now I live in the United States, and am desperately trying to find a Mass which will engage my 14 year old son. Wherefore art thou, Douai ? We need a more universal and continuing dialogue which will invite the youth in, and make them the foundation of the future church. Being an atlar server, for example, engages him, but I can still remember sermons preached by some of our great monks from those days (“love in the Refectory” from Father Gervase, “someone caught a crab” by Father Wilfrid, among many others . . . ) but if I ask my son what the sermon was about after he comes down from the altar, he honestly cannot rememeber, and I often can’t blame him. Thanks for this wonderful blog. It will inspire me to ensure my son receives more from me on his faith . . .


    1. Hello James!

      Thanks for a wonderful comment. It is a fine testimony to the liturgical formation we gave you that you can still happily sing chant from memory and remember homilies. Fr Wilfrid has gone home to the Lord but Fr Gervase is alive and kicking so I shall pass this on to him. He will be tickled.

      Perhaps the most stupid thing marking the 60s onwards was that for all the adoption of youth culture (as the experts thought it was) the experts failed miserably in understanding that youth culture does not explain the totality of youth experience and aspiration; and that the young, for all their defensive posture of disdain, and far more open to the supernatural and to the nobility of the Christian message. And we sold them short. Shame on us.

      Where in the States are you? I might try to see if there is a local parish known in your area, or maybe even some readers might know. I would hate for your son, and you, to miss out if the good stuff is close at hand.

      Blessings on you!

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Dear D.Hugh, dear James, thank you for your wonderful blog, Hugh, and my prayer is that truly we all, from Pope down to altar server, can remember in our hearts that the Church is DIFFERENT from the world, although right slap bang in it; then maybe we can transmit something of this to those around us, with all the love of God and neighbour, the love Jesus commanded us to love with, His love. Then perhaps we can find the peace that passes all understanding.
    My “thing” is the Chant, need I say more?? We need to bring true beauty back to the liturgy, one that reflects the DIFFERENT beauty of God and His truth.
    Oh I can’t really express what I mean. I leave that to those who can write as beautifully as you can. I just wanted to thank Hugh, and let know James that, as a Grandmother living with varying types of Catholics, and one avowed atheist, I feel in the frontline of the “battle”, having at every moment to define my way of being a Catholic, without being defensive. Quite a challenge, and one that I welcome, as it keeps me on my spiritual, theological and liturgical toes! I have pondered the Vat.II docs. over and over, especially as I became a Catholic in 1969… so I found this morning’s blog particularly liberating.
    Prayers all round


    1. Hi Jennifer,

      Thank you for the kind remarks and for your observations. Needless to say, the chant is a shared passion. Most notable about it, perhaps, is that it has stood the test of centuries. From the early middle ages (let the scholars debate exactly when) till well into the 20th century it was a staple of liturgical music in the Church. Over a millennium of constant use is eloquent testimony to the fact that in the chant there is something that endures through and beyond particular eras and their fads and fancies. I do not see that with Vatican II this is suddenly no longer the case.

      This has a role in the whole question of our Catholic identity, how to be confident without being arrogant, convinced and convincing, in the world but never of it. As James has fully realised, the young are in even greater need of such a Catholic identity as a firm foothold in their journey through the rugged landscape of adolescence. They deserve it, and our best way to help them is to be clearly, integrally and happily Catholic. If “Vat 2” helps, marvellous; if it does not, move on. Catholicism is bigger than Vatican 2.



    2. I absolutely agree with your comments on Chant. Here in the Diocese of Portsmouth we have been extremely blessed with a Bishop who is not only extolling the Clergy to include much more latin in the Liturgy, but also the use of Chant which is an excellent step to bringing our Diocese back to othodoxy. Will other Bishops follow his lead? Chance would be a fine thing! Domine Jesu.


      1. In my humble opinion, beauty is the thing. There are many beautiful liturgical compositions since Vat.II, but I suppose the problem is that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, so a question of taste… oh dear. A huge problem it is. But those of us who are passionate about Chant being THE MUSIC OF THE CHURCH PAR EXCELLENCE just have to keep doing it, singing it, promoting it, quietly and doggedly and with a smile! You are lucky in Portsmouth; your Bishop is giving the St.Bede lecture at Farnham for the Instute of Liturgical studies, on 5 July. We are fairly lucky at Ealing too (Ealing Abbey – quite a lot of Chant, and I run the Parish Schola)
        Take heart: there is a strong move within the GOOD liturgical circles to be more persuasive to the bishops!
        I hope Cygnus is not evocative of Swansongs!


  5. “The young have very little interest in the Council, if any at all.”

    As a young man who has been interested in converting to Catholicism for a while I have to strongly disagree. Vatican 2 remains the sticking point for my conversion. I think your idea that the event of Vatican 2 is more problematic than the documents is sound, but the documents do remain and their ambiguity and prima facie heterodoxy in some accounts have not been resolved. If the documents were edited so as to remove all possibilities for error and to bring them into line with Church teaching, that would be a huge step (one which few people in the magisterium seem interested in, however), but you would still have to deal with the erroneous beliefs of a huge proportion of the laity and the magisterium that have spawned from those documents. As it is today it seems that everything is up in the air, that the Church is on the edge of moving towards the new Church that many seem to have think Vatican 2 announced, and this is a huge problem that remains for me and many others. How can the eternal Church change so drastically?


  6. To add to my previous comment, Bishop Athanasius Schneider has a good grasp on the problems of Vatican 2 and suggestions for clarity.

    But who will listen to him? He is one of those few in the magisterium who seem vocal in their support for orthodoxy, everyone else, including the pope, seems to regard it as some awful yesteryear. Pope Francis said “I am Vatican 2”. What are we to make of that?

    I do not think the crisis in the Church has been acknowledged. If anything it seems the higher ups want to go deeper into error.

    It is a confusing time to be trying to discern the truth.


    1. Great post Father and hope you and the flock are well.
      I find the Church at the moment in an enormous and inescapable state of flux. On the one hand, orthodox clergymen desperately trying to disseminate Fancis’s words into a message that does not contradict the the magisterium, and on the other the ‘spirit of the council’ types have run with what Francis has been saying and doing as some kind of glorious revolution within the Church. Unfortunately there seems more and more miles between the two, ripping the Church at its seams. I can’t beleive the Francis isn’t aware of what is happening but I have to be extremely suspicious of why he has not moved to quell the disharmony and bring the Church together as his role requires. There are great forces at work it would seem, and we should pray that the Famage done does not become terminal. God bless.


  7. This is an interesting discussion to have now especially in light of the Vatican’s desire for a rapprochement with the SSPX. Abp. Pozzo’s recent statement: “The difficulties raised by the SSPX regarding Church-State relations and religious freedom,the practice of ecumenism, and the dialogue with non-Christian religions, of certain aspects of the liturgical reform, and of its concrete application, remain the object of discussion and clarification, but they are not an obstacle for the canonical and legal recognition of the SSPX.”
    So if the SSPX does not have to accept these issues to be in communion, does that not question the extent to which the rest of us must adhere to Vatican II?


    1. Indeed, that is precisely the implication of any reconciliation with the SSPX. But in logical terms that is not really that earth-shattering a revelation. Since the Council defined no dogma but merely re-affirmed the Church’s teaching there is nothing extra to adhere to. Where it does seem to branch out into areas new (religious freedom, ecumenism, collegiality) it is almost certain that the teachings in question only have binding power as they accord with established magisterial teaching. The Council did not actually propose the created-from-scratch liturgy that was imposed upon us from 1970, so it would be unfair to lay the b;are for the liturgical chaos in the wake of the Council on the Council itself, since it did not mandate the changes.

      In other words, a reconciliation with the SSPX would mean that the implementation and hitherto prevailing interpretation of the Council are not sacrosanct. Given that that the Council saw itself as a pastoral council, the pastoral crisis that followed the Council due to the interpretation and implementation that won the day is proof enough that the post-conciliar process is in too many respects a failure, and that it has dishonoured the Council rather than expressed its true intention.


      Liked by 1 person

  8. I think in England, the whole thing was also tied in with class: the times were indeed ‘a-changing’ – the grip of privilege on government. society and patronage was loosening, and most people welcomed it. I think its difficult to deny that the Church in England & Wales had associated itself the earlier regime, and many people at grass roots level resented it and associated it privilege. When I was at school, monks were drawn almost entirely from the middle class, and so were priests, and the assumption in the early 60s was that Catholic public schools existed to produce a generation of middle class catholics who would occupy positions of privilege and influence in English society. Two ‘signs of the times’ that now strike me as somehow representative were (at ) the change in atmospheres at the Catholic Chaplaincy in Cambridge, where, in the mid ’60s. and after a long tenure, Monsignor Alfred Gilbey was hung out to dry, and his ornate, hispanic chapel with its baldachino was ripped out – the chapel is now an ‘airport’ lounge, and the series of portraits of the chaplains still hanging there capture with graphical eloquence, the change in what was thought appropriate in a chaplain – and in a painter. Another telling example was the exchange of letters between Evelyn Waugh and Cardinal Heenan – most of the middle class whom I knew sympathised with Waugh,and many gave up practice because of the changes in the liturgy: when I later read Chateaubriand, I formed a dawning impression of how many of these Catholics must have seemed to those less privileged: the ceremonial, a remote liturgical language, the insistence on ‘bells and smells’ – all seems a conspiracy designed to serve the nostalgic snobbery of those who, in the view of many of their fellow Catholics, had been in positions of decisive social influence far too long. All this has made me wonder whether what we saw, certainly in England, was not a kind of Reformation – a moment where one set of social assumptions were replaced with another, and the Church adapted itself accordingly. I feel that there were a lot of people in the clergy who welcomed this at the time, because they were as aware as anyone else of new realities, and felt that they could – and should – work with them. As a schoolboy from a privileged background, I shared the prejudices of my class, and disliked and resented the change. I didn’t see myself as a snob, but very few snobs in fact recognise themselves as such. I had an instinctive dislike for homespun vestments, soppy ‘acclamations’, and the bureaucratic translations of the ‘new’ vernacular readings – and I didn’t look to hard at what lay behind the instinct, but contented myself with dismissing the intellectual justifications in favour of it (which, as I remember, were a catholic version of the protestant ‘ad fontes’). 50 years on, and after a comparatively recent attempt to understand what is and was going on, and I find myself much more conflicted. There is much to criticise about the council, but when I read O’Malley’s book, I was struck by the fact that both the ‘liberals’ and the ‘conservatives’ appeared to act in good conscience, and I ended up feeling that both, in their different ways had identified major difficulties in one the other’s positions which have been bore out by events. And when I read Austen Ivereagh on Francis, I was struck by the fact that he was actually very representative of the time of his formation, especially of Argentina, especially with its vast inequalities, and the poisonous way in which the political elites have always tried to cosy up to and corrupt the Church – a tendency which the future Pope resisted: he is, I think, and sees himself, as modelled by the Council – a man who’s turned his back on the earlier model – who hates ‘Rome’ and what it represents, and sees himself as a man of the ‘people’ – entirely removed from most of the European tradition. And unlearned man, with little in the way of formation in European thought and culture, but much influenced by the Jesuit experience of injustice and persecution in Argentina and Brazil. For me, the really important question has become the degree to which the Church continues to embody Christ, and speak to the world with his voice – which is the voice of scripture, the apostles, the fathers, the councils, and the community of the martyrs and saints. I am convinced that only by returning constantly to these can we hope that God’s will be done on Earth, as it is in Heaven. Carelessness with this legacy in the face of earthly challenges is one threat to that, but so is an inability to adapt to changing conditions – as usual, education, both in the clergy, and amor lay people, and the scrupulous examination of conscience may help us small people to avoid these extremes, and to realise that the true focus of our christian lives lies not in the world, but in the attempt to follow Christ in the small affairs of our daily lives.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.