Expert: Fr. Michael - 6/30/2005

Question
I am doing a paper on Vatican II for a history class and have found a lot of information about Vatican II, but if you have any little known or unusual information I could use I would appreciate it.

Answer
WHAT IS THE AUTHORITY OF VATICAN II?

       TRADITIO is frequently asked whether Vatican II has any dogmatic
force.  It is clear, as the following extracts confirm, that neither did
Pope John XXIII, who convoked the council, authorize the council to
treat dogma nor did Pope Paul VI, who promulgated the documents of the
council, intend them to be part of the essential Magisterium of the
Church.  Both regarded the council to be pastoral, not dogmatic, in
nature, and therefore not part of the essential Magisterium of the
Church.

       Some have noted that the titles of two of the documents, Lumen
Gentium (On the Church) and Dei Verbum (On divine revelation), are
preceded by the word "dogmatic."  Canonists have noted that the
authority of a document is determined not by its mere title.  Rather,
the authority is determined by the intent of the pope who promulgated
the document.

       What conclusion, therefore, can be drawn about the authority of
Vatican II?  That, according to the two popes of the council, it was
merely pastoral in nature and is not to be accorded the authority of the
essential Magisterium of the Church.  In holding that understanding,
Catholics are simply obeying the words of the two popes themselves.  
Vatican II, therefore, as a pastoral council, has no dogmatic force and
can be held to be imprudent or even in error, with no compromise to
one's Catholic faith.

       The canonical situation is well summarized by one modern
theologian as follows:  "Practical decisions of churchmen, even the
highest authorities, the pope, bishops, and priests, are something quite
different (from that of de fide statements of truth, to which we owe
assent of belief).

       "We do not say, for example, that a command of a pope or decision
of a pope to call a council is true or not.  We can say that it is wise
or not ... it is inopportune or not....  And we Catholics are never
obliged to believe that a given command, or given decision of anyone,
including the pope, is necessarily that of the Holy Ghost.

       "There is a kind of papolatry (attribution to the pope of divine
powers, which he does not have) going around.  It acts as if no matter
what comes out of Rome, it must have been inspired by the Holy Ghost.  
This line of thinking holds, for example, that if Vatican II was called,
it means that the Holy Ghost wanted to call it.  But this is not
necessarily the case.

       "Convoking Vatican II was a personal decision of Pope John XXIII.  
He may have thought God was telling him to call it, but who knows?  He
has no special charism that guarantees he would recognize such a
decision as coming from the Holy  with theological certitude.

       "We can say that the Pope has the power to call a council.  We can
say that the authorities in the Church can call upon the Holy spirit to
guarantee, in a very narrow set of cases, that what comes from this
council is de fide.  And nothing in Vatican II was pronounced de
fide....

       "To call a council is a practical decision of the pope.  A person
may piously believe that God inspired it.  But no one can say that this
is an object of faith."  --Fr. Gregory Hesse, "Outside the Church there
is No Salvation", Catholic Family News, February 1997 [IV:2], pp. 13 et
seqq.)


EXTRACTS FROM THE TWO POPES OF THE COUNCIL
CONCERNING THE NON-DOGMATIC QUALITY OF THE COUNCIL

POPE JOHN XXIII, WHO CONVOKED THE COUNCIL

       The Roman synod [prior to Vatican II] was planned and summoned by
John XXIII as a solemn forerunner of the larger gathering [Vatican II],
which it was meant to prefigure and anticipate.  The Pope himself said
precisely that, to the clergy and faithful of Rome in an allocution
of 29 June 1960.  Because of that intention, the synod's importance was
universally recognized as extending beyond the diocese of Rome to the
whole Catholic world....
       The texts of the Roman synod promulgated on 25, 26, and 27 January
1960 constitute a complete reversion of the Church to its proper
nature....  
       The synod in fact proposed a vigorous restoration at every level
of ecclesial life.  The discipline of the clergy was modeled on the
traditional pattern formulated at the Council of Trent....  The synod
therefore prescribed for the clergy a whole style of behavior quite
distinct from that of laymen....  The distinct character of the clergy's
cultural formation was also reaffirmed, and the outlines were given of
the system which the Pope solemnly sanctioned the year after in Veterum
Sapientia.  The Pope also ordered that the Catechism of the Council of
Trent should be republished....
       The use of Latin is solemnly confirmed, all attempts at creativity
on the part of the celebrant ... are condemned..., Gregorian
Chant is ordered, ... all appearance of worldliness is forbidden in
churches....  The ancient sacred rigor is re-established regarding
sacred spaces, forbidding women entry to the altar area....
       This massive reaffirmation of traditional discipline, which the
synod wanted, was contradicted and negated in almost every detail
by the effects of the council....  [T]he Roman synod ... was to have
been an exemplary foreshadowing of the council....  --Romano Amerio,
IOTA UNUM, pp. 54 to 60

       It should be noted that the Apostolic Constitution "Veterum
Sapientia," which was promulgated in the most solemn form before the
cardinal's in St. Peter's just before the opening of Vatican II, was openly
feared by those planning radical changes in the liturgy that it would prevent
the introduction of the vulgar tongues into the Holy Mass.

       [The Council must present] "the sacred patrimony of truth
received from the Fathers [and] transmit that doctrine pure and
integral, without any attenuation or distortion, which throughout twenty
centuries, not withstanding difficulties and constraints, has become
the common patrimony of men.  It is a patrimony not well received by
all, but always a rich treasure available to men of Good Will.  The
greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this, that the Sacred
Deposit of Christian Doctrine should be guarded and taught more
efficaciously [with a] renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all
the teachings of the Church in their entirety and preciseness, as they
still shine forth in the acts of the council of Trent and the First
Vatican Council....  The salient point of this Council is not,
therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental
doctrine of the Church.  --Pope John XXIII, Opening Speech to the
Council, October 11, 1962

       There will be no infallible definitions.  All that was done by
former Councils.  That is enough.  --Pope John XXIII (apud Fr. Yves
Congar)

       Pope John conceived the Council as an eminently pastoral event.  
--Pope John Paul II, October 27, 1985, Angelus

       When, during the rebellious first session of the Council, he [Pope
John XXIII] realized that the papacy had lost control of the process, he
attempted, as Cardinal John Heenan of Westminster later revealed, to
organize a group of bishops to try to force it to an end.  Before the
second session opened he had died.  --Anne Muggeridge, The Desolate
City (revised & expanded ed./1990), p. 72; letter from Fr. Joseph W.
Oppitz, C.S.s.R. in "America" magazine of April 15, 1972

       He used to say at the end:  "This is no longer my council."  After
the first session he knew that the antiforce had taken over....  And from
then on he knew the Council was going down.  Physically, then, the carcinoma
was eating away at his vitals, and he was already over eighty.  And he simply
physically didn't have the strength.  --Fr. Malachi B. Martin, "The Storm
Breaks," 1995.

       Stop the Council; stop the Council.  --Pope John XXIII, on his
deathbed, quoted in Kevin Haney, "The Stormy History of General
Councils," The Latin Mass, Spring 1995, attributed to Jean Guitton (ob. March
21, 1999), the only Catholic layman to serve as a peritus at Vatican II.  
Also reported by Michael Davies in Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre.

       Pope John XXIII expected the Council to end in three months, just
like the Italian Synod that preceded it, which issued, at the Pope's
direction, very traditional decrees, such as the full retention of Latin.  
The pope said:  "We will come together for three months with all the Bishops
of the entire world.  We will begin on October 13 [1962].  Then everything
will be over with between December 8 and January 25.  Everybody will go home,
and the Council will be over and done with."  Little did he predict how wrong
he would be!

       Cardinal Heenan, the Cardinal Primate of England, who knew Pope John
well, wrote in his work entitled "Crown of Thorns" in 1974:  "The bishops
were under the impression that the liturgy had been fully discussed [at the
Second Vatican Council].  In retrospect it is clear that they were given the
opportunity of discussing only general principles.  Subsequent changes were
more radical than those intended by Pope John and the bishops who passed the
decree on the liturgy.  His sermon at the end of the first session shows that
Pope John did not suspect what was being planned by the liturgical experts."  
The Cardinal Primate had already written in 1968:  "Jesus wept over
Jerusalem, and Pope John would have wept over Rome if he had foreseen what
would be done in the name of his Council."


POPE PAUL VI, WHO PROMULGATED THE DOCUMENTS OF THE COUNCIL

       In view of the conciliar practice and practical purpose of the
Council, this sacred Synod defines as binding on the Church only those
matters of faith and morals which it has expressly put forward as such.  
-- Pope Paul VI had read to the Fathers as they prepared to vote on the
Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, this declaration by the
Theological Commission of the Council, March 6, 1964 (Austin Flannery,
ed., Vatican Collection, I, p. 423).  

       The magisterium of the Church did not wish to pronounce itself
under the form of extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements....  --Pope Paul
VI, discourse closing Vatican II, December 7, 1965

       This was the same year, 1965, in which Padre Pio said to papal
representative Cardinal Bacci:  For pity's sake, end the Council quickly!"  
(Fr. Jean, O.F.M. Cap., a colleague of Padre Pio's in the Capuchin Order,
apud "Padre Pio," Catholic Family News, June 1999)

       There are those who ask what authority, what theological
qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it
avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible
teaching authority.  The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar
declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964.  In view of the
pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary
manner any dogmata carrying the mark of infallibility.  --Pope Paul VI,
General Audience of January 12, 1966

       The rite [of the New Mass] by itself is NOT a dogmatic definition.  
--Pope Paul VI, November 19, 1969, Apostolic Constitution, "Missale
Romanum

       Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic,
but disciplinary and pastoral.  --Pope Paul VI, August 6, 1975, General
Audience


EXPLANATORY NOTE OF THE THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION OF THE COUNCIL
ADDENDA TO "LUMEN GENTIUM"

       The nota previa (preliminary note) of March 6, 1964, of the
Theological Commission of the Council concerning the authority of the
Council was as follows:  "In view of the conciliar practice and the
pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines
matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod
itself openly declares so.  We have to distinguish according to the schemata
and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic
definitions in the past; AS FOR THE DECLARATIONS WHICH HAVE A NOVEL
CHARACTER, WE HAVE TO MAKE RESERVATIONS."  The Council never did openly
declare any of its teaching as binding on the Church.  Never in the history
of the Catholic Church had a Council taken pains to declare that it was NOT
teaching infallibly.


THEOLOGICAL NOTE OF THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE COUNCIL

       The Council's General Secretary, Pericle Cardinal Felici, Cardinal
Prefect of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, the Church's
highest theological tribunal, issued the "theological note" of the
council, i.e., the level of theological authority of the particular
council:  "We have to distinguish according to the schemata and the
chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic
definitions in the past; as for the declarations that have a novel
character, we have to make reservations" (November 16, 1964).

        The subsequent Cardinal Prefect of the Supreme Sacred
Congregation of the Holy Office (Doctrine of the Faith) later confirmed
this theological note:  "The truth is that this particular council
defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest
level, as a merely pastoral council" (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect
of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, El Mercurio, July 17,
1988).


CONCLUSION

       As Atila Sinke Guimaraes concluded, on the basis of a 15-year
study of the letter, spirit, and thought of Vatican II, it was only
AFTER "Vatican II is over and victory clearly won by the progressivists,
they gradually began to say that the Council was not only pastoral, but
dogmatic" (In the Murky Waters of Vatican II).

       Nevertheless, the pope who summoned the Council and the pope who
promulgated its decrees made it clear that Vatican II was a pastoral,
not a dogmatic Council.  Catholics are, therefore, within their rights
to make reservations regarding any novelties emanating from Vatican II
that are out of step with Sacred Tradition and the previous continuous
Magisterium (official teaching) of the Church.

       In fact, it is canonically possible for a future pope to annul the
outcome of the council, as it was merely a pastoral council.  The
Council of Ephesus in 449, which was regularly called and attended by
all the East and by legates from Pope St. Leo the Great, was annulled by
that pope's subsequent opposition to it and branded the "Robber's
Council" (Latrocinium).  

       "The Church united in councils, even general councils, has
sometimes been mistaken" (Dictionaire de Theologie Catholique).  The
teaching of the Council of Florence on the matter and form for the
Sacrament of Holy Orders (Sessio VIII, November 22, 1439) was set aside
by Pope Pius XII in his Apostolic Constitution "Sacramentum Ordinis"
(1947).

       In fact, Paul VI, who promulgated the documents of the Council in
1965, began just three years later to reject the fruits of that Council, even
associating it with the work of the Devil.  He issued not one, but several,
startling statements to that effect.

       (1) "The Church finds herself in an hour of anxiety, a disturbed
period of self-criticism, or what would even better be called self-
destruction  [auto-distruzione, auto-demolition, auto-destruction].  It is an
interior upheaval, acute and complicated, which nobody expected after the
Council.  It is almost as if the Church were attacking itself.  We looked
forward to a flowering, a serene expansion of conceptions which matured in
the great sessions of the council.  But ... one must notice above all the
sorrowful aspect.  It is as if the Church were destroying herself.  --Pope
Paul VI, December 7, 1968, Address to the Lombard Seminary at Rome

       (2)  We have the impression that through some cracks in the wall
the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God:  it is doubt,
uncertainty, questioning, dissatisfaction, confrontation.... We
thought that after the Council a day of sunshine would have dawned
for the history of the Church.  What dawned, instead, was a day of
clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties.  --
Pope Paul VI, June 29, 1972, Sermon during the Mass for Sts. Peter &
Paul, on the occasion of the ninth anniversary of his coronation

       (3) Don't be surprised at Our answer and don't write it off as
simplistic or even superstitious:  one of the Church's greatest needs is to
be defended against the evil we call the Devil.  --Pope Paul VI, November 15,
1972, General Audience

       (4) The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the
Catholic world.  The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the
Catholic Church even to its summit.  Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is
spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church.  
--Pope Paul VI, October 13, 1977, Address on the Sixtieth Anniversary of the
Fatima Apparitions

       More recently, when the Vatican was trying to enter into an
agreement with the Society of St. Pius X before July 1, 1988, "in the
protocol offered to Msgr. Lefebvre and accepted by the Fraternity of St.
Peter, it was not required to give an inner or even outer assent to the
innovative teachings of the Second Vatican Council.  It was required merely
to abstain from polemics and to adopt an attitude of 'study' in the matter.  
But one could never allow a person to come into or be in manifest communion
with the Catholic Church while simultaneously withholding assent from
obligatory Church teaching.  From this it follows that the innovations of the
Second Vatican Council are not absolutely obligatory.  And this is truly the
case, since the Council deliberately refrained from giving a dogmatic weight
to its teachings."  (Parochus, "A Troublesome Passage of Vatican II," The
Remnant (XXVIII:16), September 15, 1995, p. 2


AN ADDENDUM ON THE FIFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, OF CONSTANTINOPLE II (553)

       A Catholic has to be free to say of the Second Council of
Constantinople what is obvious to anyone who has ever studied it:  it did
nothing to bring back the Monophysites [heretics] into the bosom of the
Church, and in fact alienated many of them still further.  Given the
confusing nature of what the council was attempting to do, orthodox
Catholics, for their part, could not help but be perplexed and demoralized by
this council, and indeed for decades afterward whole areas of the West
refused to acknowledge it as an ecumenical council at all, convinced that it
had in some way repudiated or vitiated the teaching of [the Fourth Ecumenical
Council, of] Chalcedon.

       St. Isidore of Seville did not have a kind word to say about
Constaninople II.  Basing ourselves, therefore, on the testimony of human
reason, we are surely free to conclude that this council, although it taught
nothing certainly erroneous, was an appalling catastrophe that ought never to
have been convoked.  It is not possible to image any grounds on which even
the most hardened neo-Catholic could describe this fifth ecumenical council
as an unequivocal boon.

       The example of the Second Council of Constantinople serves to
demonstrate not only the confusion that an ecumenical council can introduce
into the Church even without teaching dogmatic error, but also that the
entire life of the Church need not be organized around the decrees of the
most recent council.

        Today we hear ceaseless exhortations to the effect that we must all
imbibe the spirit of the Second Vatican Council, that the entire life of the
Church must be reordered in conformity with its decrees, that indeed all the
Church's activity take place in light of the council.  Following
Constantinople II, on the other hand, when churchmen could see that the most
recent council had caused only division, confusion, and strife, we hear no
such exhortations.  As we have indicated, Pope St. Gregory the Great actually
counseled a bishop troubled by the council simply to remain silent on the
matter, holding fast to the Catholic faith as expounded at the [previous]
Council of Chalcedon.  Gregory and the other popes of the sixth and seventh
centuries were intelligent enough to see that an obsessive emphasis on "the
council" would have perpetuated schism and continued to demoralize the
orthodox party.  Whenever possible, then, they simply igonred it.

        Why not, then do the same with Vatican II?  If one ecumenical
council [especially with Vatican II being merely a pastoral rather than a
dogmatic council] can be acknowledged as unhelpful at best and damaging to
the Church at worst, then surely another one can.  Why not follow Pope St.
Gregory the Great's advice to the bishop of Milan:  just say nothing about
it?  (Thomas E. Woods, Jr., "An Ambiguous Council" in Catholic Family News,
March 2002 [IX:3], p. 18)