The Second Vatican Council

Vatican II

A Survey of the Second Vatican Council

Vatican Council II stands out as unique in the Catholic Church's near 2000-year history. From 1962 to 1965 the massive council met in Vatican City to update the Church's stance on liturgical and theological matters. By adopting what Popes John XXIII and Paul VI, as well as a majority of the prelates and periti involved, called a "pastoral attitude" toward the fulfillment of the needs of modern man, the Council attracted a media coverage blitz unparalleled by past councils. Press reports extended Vatican II's impact across the globe before its fourth and final session even came to a close. Anticipating such public interest, Pope John, in 1961, had told the Council's preparatory commission "that he did not wish to 'forget the journalists,' whose desire for news…he appreciated."

This openness with the public combined with Vatican II's pastoral intent not only distinguished the Council from its predecessors but also effected a rapid worldwide change within the Church itself. The consequences of this change have ranged in interpretations, from traditionally minded prelates charging Rome with liberally departing from traditional ecclesiology to Rome charging traditionalists with stubbornly resisting the Church's new direction. Church laity, non-Catholic Christians, and non-Christian sects have also observed the Council's impact and given reactions of both opprobrium and approval, making Vatican II a springboard of controversy in the modern Church. This paper will discuss the historical circumstances surrounding the Council's invocation as well as its implementation in the latter half of the 20th century.

The controversy in which the Church finds itself today would not have come into existence had it not been for the turning of many gears, which began long before the idea for the Council was conceived. By 1958 Pope John XXIII had expressed his desire to convoke another Council in Vatican City. Yet, Europe had been seeing a growing movement for liturgical reform "for several decades."

Promoted by the bishops and periti of the countries in Europe bordering the Rhine River -- France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and also nearby Belgium -- the movement for liturgical reform helped clear the air for the convocation of an ecumenical council.

The Church in the early twentieth century Western World had experienced a flood of Catholic conversions inspired by a network of authors such as G.K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc, Jacques Maritain, Romano Guardini, and Fulton Sheen.

But a recession of "theological thinking," and likewise of conversions by the mid-twentieth century, persuaded many Churchmen to question the Church's "sclerosis" as it were. Notably, new studies conducted by Church radicals like Teilhard de Chardin, whose work was censored by the Vatican, were helping to establish a liberal school of theology (which would manifest itself triumphantly through the work of priests like Gustavo Gutierrez in Latin America and his Marxist-based Liberation Theology).

These liberal studies (modernism, as defined by St. Pius X) discouraged traditional ecclesiology (primacy of sacred over temporal matter) for social activism like the kind inspired by France's Catholic Action movement. Even to the famously conservative Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (hailed as "el hombre justo" during his tour of Central America after the effects of Vatican II had all but dissipated the ranks of Church clergy) admitted to "welcoming" the Council (he even sat on the Preparatory Board to draw up the Council's schemas -- a needless activity as it turned out; the schemas were dismissed out of hand at the Council's beginning, which shall be shown later). The stumbling block, according to John Miller, was indicated as essentially twofold: a) "Christianity's basis in historical revelation," and b) the Church's liturgy in the form of the Roman rite.

Many suppositions and conclusions were drawn from this twofold stumbling block, and, as the Council would prove again and again, those conclusions were developed by the liberal element that formed and congealed within the Council.

The man in position to give tremendous sway to the movement was Pope John XXIII. As he pondered with his Secretary of State Cardinal Tardini, in 1958, over "what might be done to give the world an example of peace and concord…and an occasion for new hope," the idea for the Second Vatican Council came to the reigning Pontiff, as if, he would say later, he'd been spoken to by God.

Pope John prayed the Council would produce new ways to express the truths he held to be most essential in the Church's effort to evangelize the world. He presented his idea to the Sacred College of Cardinals in Rome in 1959. The Cardinals' lack of enthusiasm in response to the pope's idea registered a question as to the need for the convocation of a council: Cardinal Manning, in reference to Vatican I, stated that "to invoke a General Council, except when absolutely demanded by necessity is to tempt God."

The Second Vatican Council was the twenty-first ecumenical council in the Church's history, and its twenty predecessors, the first dating back to 325 a.D. In Nicea, had each met "to extinguish the chief heresy, or to correct the chief evil, of the time."

Vatican II obviously differed from its predecessors in this point; as Pope Paul VI stated in 1963 to those in attendance for the beginning of Vatican II's Second Session, the purpose of the Council had been "to open to the Church new horizons, and to tap the fresh spring water of the doctrine and grace of Christ…and let it flow over the earth."

The fact that no heresy or evil was condemned by any of the Council's four sessions was a point from which many conservatives would launch their attacks against Rome's novus ordo, though Rome would argue that the Council's lack of condemnation was proof of the its true ecumenical spirit.

Indeed, the majority of the Council, from 1962 to 1965, applauded the push for internal reform in the manner and style of Catholic teaching and practice; and, certainly, the Church saw a number of sweeping changes made in the hopes of promoting peace among all people of good will, Christian and non-Christian. Pope John XXIII led the charge in October of 1962, delivering his address in St. Peter's hall to the 2,400 Council Fathers who had gathered from Asia, Australia, Africa, Europe and the Americas for Vatican II's First Session.

The sheer immensity of the crowd of Fathers paralleled the enormity of the Council's preparatory commissions. For example, in comparison to the First Vatican Council, Vatican II's Central Preparatory Commission, of which the Pope was president, had eleven times as many members from fourteen times as many countries.

Such a large and diverse commission was more typical than not at Vatican II, and because of this heftiness and diversity, members were eager to rally behind leaders who could step forward and carry the movement of the Council. Those leaders emerged as heading two separate and distinct groups: those who favored a conservative and traditional approach to the schemas debated, and those who favored a modern and more liberal approach. It soon became clear which group had the most power. As Ralph Wiltgen reported, (then) Father Ratzinger,

The personal theologian of Cardinal Frings…mentioned that the liberals had thought they would have a free hand at the council after obtaining the majority in the Council commissions. But in the speeches and voting in the Council hall, he said, they began to notice some resistance to their proposals, and consequently commission had to take this into consideration when revising the schemas.

The conservative group, known as the Coetus Internationalis Patrum, headed by Bishop Geraldo De Proenca Sigaud, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Fr. Berto and Dom Frenaud, "was determined to organize the scattered forces that would be able to provide some opposition to the progressive 'majority' at the Council"

. However, the influence of the Coetus was severely handicapped by the overwhelming willingness on the part of the Pontiff (Paul VI who reigned over the Council after John XXIII's death) and the majority of Council members in any number of ways. For example, when Cardinal Larraona wrote to Pope Paul VI in preparation for the Third Session concerning the schema Constitutionis de Ecclesia (it "brings us…inaccurate, illogical, incoherent and encouraging -- if it were approved -- endless discussions and crises, painful aberrations and deplorable attacks on the unity, discipline and the government of the Church"), the Holy Father replied:

The 'Personal Note' concerning the Conciliar schema De Ecclesia has caused Us, as you may well imagine, surprise and concern, as much by the number and high office of the signatories as by the gravity of the objections raised on the subject of the schema's doctrine and of the fundamentally contradictory statements… (However) the 'Note' reached Us the night immediately prior to the Third Session of the Second General Vatican Council, when it was no longer possible to submit the schema to fresh examination, by reason of the very grave and harmful repercussions, easy to foresee, on the outcome of the Council and hence upon the whole Church…that the suggestions of the 'Note' itself would have had, had they been put into practice.

Of course, such hurried indifference was seen within the Council from start to finish.

The primary order of business was to set the sequence of schemas to be discussed. Complementary to this business was the matter of choosing bishops and periti to sit on commissions for the drafting of schemas. Though the proposed schemas had already been drafted, the liberal element was able to persuade John XXIII to abandon them since they did not have the support of the majority of the Council. John XXIII overturned Council regulations (which stated that the majority must be at least two-thirds -- which it was not -- for proposed schemas to be abandoned). Lefebvre, who helped draft the initial set of schemas, illustrates the haphazard manner in which the Council was begun:

I was nominated a member of the Central Preparatory Commission by the pope and I took an assiduous and enthusiastic part in its two years of work. The central commission had the responsibility of checking and examining all the preparatory schemas which came from the specialist commissions. I was in a good position therefore to know what had been done, what was to be examined, and what was to be brought before the assembly.

This work was carried out very conscientiously and meticulously. I still possess the seventy-two preparatory schemas; in them the Church's doctrine is absolutely orthodox. They were adapted in a certain manner to our times, but with great moderation and discretion.

Everything was ready for the date announced and on 11th October, 1962, the Fathers took their places in the nave of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. But then an occurrence took place which had not been foreseen by the Holy See. From the very first days, the Council was besieged by the progressive forces. We experienced it, felt it; and when I say we, I mean the majority of the Council Fathers at that moment.

…a very powerful organization showed its hand, set up by the Cardinals from those countries bordering the Rhine, complete with a well-organized secretariat. They went to find the Pope, John XXIII, and said to him: "This is inadmissible, Most Holy Father; they want us to consider schemas which do not have the majority," and their plea was accepted. The immense work that had been accomplished was scrapped and the assembly found itself empty-handed, with nothing ready. What chairman of a board meeting, however small the company, would agree to carry on without an agenda and without documents? Yet that is how the Council commenced.

Capable of generating considerable support for the leadership qualities they demonstrated, the Rhine Fathers active in the liturgical revolution in Europe were appointed to key positions in the ten Council commissions. Pope Paul VI himself selected the most influential of these Fathers, Cardinals Dopfner and Suenens, along with their supporter Cardinal Lercaro, to act as Moderators of the Council.

In this way, papal authority consented to the deviance and produced a Council dominated not by a "world-wide theological effort" but by an alliance of European views.

The pope's earlier decision to wholeheartedly include the media in the Council's affairs helped secure the position and stance of the Rhine Fathers by granting them a much larger audience for their enterprise. As the eagerness of the press for interview sessions with Council members indicated, an audience existed, which was at once partial and accepting of information. Pope John was gladdened by the active participation of the journalists whose "contribution…to the Second Vatican Council was invaluable and even indispensable for the proper dissemination of news from the Council Hall."

The inspiring spin placed by the press on the events at the Council interested the Church laity, who, responding to the pope and prelates' enthusiasm, looked forward to the Council's outcome with anticipation.

The drive of the ecumenical Council became a steady adoption of the schemas controlled by the Rhine Fathers, who were doubly able to reign over the Council because they had come to Vatican City with an initiative. Whereas the Rhine Fathers were prepared to take advantage of Pope John's wish for a pastorally focused council, "the majority of Bishops (came) with no particular proposals of their own," believing "that the Council had been convoked simply to rubber-stamp previously prepared documents."

By the time minority groups (such as the Coetus) -- whose opinions differed from those of the liberal Rhine group -- attempted to exert a force contrary to the adopted schemas, there was little hope for much success. The Rhine group often called attention to the pope's desire that the council focus on ecumenism, and used this angle to thwart the revisions of minority-prepared constitutions. Because the Council had not been convened in order to condemn any particular heresy, the council floor was open to any and all suggestions for possible revisions of former councils' decrees. However, unless these suggestions were in accord with the reforms of the Rhine group, all was done in the moderators and other Rhine Fathers' power to stifle them. When "the most powerful cardinal in the Roman Curia," Cardinal Ottaviani, was silenced by the presiding Cardinal Alfrink, from the Netherlands, for protesting the adoption of a schema which proposed a vernacular Mass over the Latin Mass early into the First Session, it became painfully clear to the conservative-labeled minority precisely how much control the Rhine group possessed over Council Fathers: Cardinal Ottaviani's silencing inspired "the Council Fathers (to clap) with glee."

The invitation by Rome to various Protestant and non-Christian representatives from countries around the world supported the claim of the Rhine Fathers that the Council's schemas should, in a pastoral and ecumenical spirit, refrain from explicitly defining matters that were still debated among theologians. The practice of this claim became so frequent that an Italian Bishop "maintained that certain Council Fathers had carried their ecumenical preoccupations to excess. It was no longer possible, he charged, to speak about Our Lady; no one might be called heretical…and it was no longer proper to call attention to the inherent powers of the Catholic Church."

From this point on the direction of the Council turned toward the promotion of Christian unity. As the number of representatives from Protestant and non-Christian sects increased in Vatican City with each Session, so, too, did the desire among many of the Council Fathers that these representatives should serve as consultants on the various commissions and sub-commissions.

The death of Pope John XXIII in 1963 during the hiatus between the First and Second Sessions, caused many Church members to wonder whether the Council would proceed at all. Like Vatican I, which had only convened for one year before being interrupted by the "(invading) victorious armies of the Italian Revolution in 1870,"

Vatican II was in danger of being broken up by the death of the pope who had convoked it. But with the election of Pope Paul VI in June of 1963 Church members no longer had any need to wonder; Pope Paul pledged "to continue the work of promoting Christian unity, so auspiciously begun, with such high hopes, by Pope John XXIII."

During the summer hiatus, the Rhine Fathers also met to continue their work, with two priorities in mind: 1) to study matters proposed at the First Session, and 2) to form an alliance of nationalities. Cardinals, archbishops, and bishops from Germany, Austria, France, Holland, Switzerland, Scandinavia, Belgium and other countries collected together in August at the Fulda Conference in Germany to discuss the twelve schemas approved by the late Pope John XXIII. The European alliance solidified its stance on the proposals that would be continued at the Second Session in a way unlike any other national or regional episcopal conference, which assembled in the intervening months. Because conferences held in Chicago, Argentina, and Rome lacked "the same intensity and purpose" as the Fulda Conference, Church members "found it necessary to accept the positions of the European alliance with…little questioning."

Pope Paul VI pledged to carry on the work begun by his predecessor, but his own interpretation of the work was something different from that of the Rhine group's, which was, in turn, different from that of the conservatives. The Rhine group's use of the term ecumenism inspired a host of revisions and reforms in liturgical and theological schemas in hopes of attracting Protestants to engage in a dialogue with the Church. To conservatives "the task of the Ecumenical Council (was) to teach the members of the Church, rather than those outside of it."

Pope Paul VI found himself delegating between two sides, though his sympathies tended toward the left. Thus it happened that the most hotly contested schema -- that on the Church's liturgy -- ultimately adopted by the Council and approved of by the pope, held provisions that stated "that 'the (liturgical) rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear and unencumbered by useless repetition.'"

The Rhine Fathers' "desire to attenuate any features of the Eucharist which might give offense to Protestants,"

whose representatives had come to play a significant role in the development of the Council's schemas, was duly satisfied when Pope Paul announced that he would establish a Committee for Implementing the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy in 1963.

Named Consilium for the sake of abbreviation, Pope Paul gave the committee the task "of carrying out the liturgical reform mandated by Vatican II."

By 1969, the pope had approved a new Order of Mass prepared by Consilium. What Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre called "time bombs in the Council"

-- ambiguously worded sections of Council documents that could lead to a variety of interpretations -- were consistently referred to in the Consilium's drafting of the new Order of Mass. This act of the Consilium, and Pope Paul's subsequent implementation and promulgation of the new Order of Mass, spurned the conservative/traditionalist minority to such an extent that more than thirty years later the controversial issue of the new Mass would still be a source of scalding division between Rome and traditionalists.

Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani and Antonio Bacci, in September of 1969 addressed a brief letter to Pope Paul, supplemented with a critical study by an anonymous group of Roman theologians. The Cardinals' fear was that "the Novus Ordo Missae…(represented), both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent."

The dispatch marked a major formal split among Church members, with both sides of the argument listing the errors of the other. The tense debate was not the first reminder of former splits within the Church; for example, Cardinal Bacci referred to the Council Moderator and Head of the Consilium, Cardinal Lercaro, as "Luther resurrected."

Archbishop Lefebvre, citing the "Joint Catholic-Lutheran Commission, officially recognized by the Vatican, (which issued) statements like this: 'Among the ideas of the Second Vatican Council, we can see gathered together much of what Luther asked for, '" questioned whether Rome was being lawful to the authority of past councils such as Trent. Later excommunicated for refusing to train his seminarians in the rite of the new Mass, Lefebvre held that it was Rome, not he, who was embarking on a heretical course.