Fifty years on, Catholics still debate the meaning of Vatican II

October 11, 2012


(A procession of Cardinals enters St. Peter’s in Rome, opening the Second Vatican Council. Painting by Franklin McMahon)

When Pope John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council half a century ago, he said he wanted to “open the windows” of his almost 2,000-year Church to the rapid changes in the modern world.
Within a few years, Roman Catholicism dropped its ancient language Latin, ended two millennia of hostility to the Jews, made room for lay men and women in the liturgy and called for more consultation between the Vatican and its worldwide flock.
Now, as the Church prepares to mark the 50th anniversary of the Council’s opening on October 11, 1962, Latin is making a comeback, female altar servers are being discouraged and inner-Church dialogue is often little more than a formality.
Views on the historic Council divide Catholics to this day. Liberals say the return to tradition betrays its spirit. For conservatives, it corrects errors made in applying its ideas.
The key to understanding this fault line lies in the thinking of Pope Benedict himself, who has gone from being a leading reformer to the main advocate of conservative renewal.
“He says the Council was a good thing, but not a big turn in the road,” said Rev John O’Malley, Jesuit author of the book “What Happened At Vatican II.”
“He defines reform as a blending of different levels of continuity and discontinuity,” O’Malley, a Church historian at Georgetown University in Washington, told Reuters.

That’s not the way it felt at the time. The Council, which combined the Renaissance pomp of the Vatican with the surging optimism of the early 1960s, was one of the first major world events covered by the newly popular medium of television.
Pope John XXIII’s founding call for aggiornamento (Italian for updating) at the Council was taken up by liberal Belgian, Dutch, French and German bishops who argued for change against opposition from the Vatican’s conservative Italian bureaucracy.
Although the formal debates were held inside St Peter’s Basilica in Latin, many of the 2,500 bishops at the sessions kept their home media informed about what was happening.
When it ended in December 1965, O’Malley said, “98% of those who participated thought it was a big deal and it was good. The rest thought it was a big deal and it was bad.”
Pope Benedict, who attended the Council as the young German  theology professor Joseph Ratzinger, was a leading light in the reform camp and agreed with most of its conclusions.
But when the student revolts of 1968 challenged traditional authority far more than the Council ever did, Ratzinger began stressing the importance of tradition and stability.
“He didn’t like all the tampering with the liturgy,” said O’Malley, referring to the way the elegant 400-year old Latin Mass was replaced by more informal rites in local languages, accompanied by guitar music and upbeat modern hymns.

The first decade or so after the Council was a turbulent time for the Church. The reforms both delighted and upset Catholics, depending on their views, and the clergy became so open to the world that a wave of priests left, many to marry.
Once a must for Catholics, Sunday Mass attendance also fell, especially after Pope Paul VI disappointed many liberals by reiterating a Church ban on artificial birth control in 1968.
That initial period left its mark. For example, there are now fewer priests around the world than back then — 412,236 in 2010 compared to 419,728 in 1970. In the same period, the number of Catholics worlwide doubled from 650 million to 1.2 billion.
When he became the Vatican’s top doctrinal official in 1981, Ratzinger could start pushing against the tide. Among his first targets were liberal theologians, especially those preaching the activist “liberation theology” in Latin American.
After his election as pope in 2005, Benedict accelerated this “reform of the reform” by promoting the use of the old Tridentine Latin Mass the Council had sidelined and bringing back older vestments and other details to the liturgy.
He has also tried very hard to reintegrate the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), an ultra-traditionalist fringe group that vehemently rejects the Council’s reforms. The rebels refuse to compromise despite several concessions from Benedict.

Benedict’s conservative line has won support in the Church, notably among young people discovering some traditions for the first time, but most Catholics attend Mass in the newer liturgy.
For the late Italian Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, the Church needs more progressive reform, not more tradition.
“The church is 200 years out of date,” Martini, a prominent  voice in the Church, said in an interview published after his death last month. “The Church’s bureaucratic apparatus is growing, and our rites and our vestments are pompous.
“The Church must admit its mistakes and begin a radical change, starting from the pope and the bishops.”
But while Benedict is slowly turning back the clock in the liturgy, where most Catholics have their closest contact with the Church, he has defended other reforms the Council made, especially the reconciliation with the Jews.
His traditionalist turn has sometimes clouded this, for example when he lifted excommunications on the four SSPX bishops in 2009 only to find out that one of them was a known Holocaust denier and the Vatican had not known that embarrassing fact.
Benedict has also continued the Council’s outreach to other religions, although with less fervour than his predecessor John Paul. Undiplomatic comments about Islam led to violent protests in the Middle East in 2006 but relations have since improved.

O’Malley said the Council was now “slipping from living memory into history” and most Catholics under retirement age did not know how different its tone was from the Church they see today.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, a fellow German with more moderate views who served Benedict as his top official for relations with other Christian churches, drew a mixed picture of where the Council stands in present Vatican policy.
“Many impulses from the Council … have only been realised halfway,” he wrote in late September.
What he called a “horizontal schism” has emerged in some fields between the official doctrine and the way many Catholics actually live in the modern world, leading to calls for women priests, a married clergy or more rights for divorced Catholics.
“The post-conciliar popes have called the Council a sure compass for the Church’s path in the 21st century,” Kasper said. “But the compass needle is still swinging nervously.”

**** In his comments at his weekly general audience on Oct 10, Pope Benedict said in English:

“Today marks the eve of the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council. I remember well the enthusiasm, the hope and the joy, not only of the bishops, but of the whole Church during that period. As we begin tomorrow the Year of Faith, it is more necessary than ever to return to the documents of this great Council, which was convoked, in the words of Blessed John the twenty-third, to proclaim the truths of the faith in a “renewed” way, all the while keeping intact their perennial content. Our own era, which has forgotten God, needs to be reminded of the profound message of the Council, that Christianity consists of faith in the triune God and in a personal and communal encounter with Christ who orients and gives meaning to life. Everything else flows from this. As in the time of the Council, may we in our time recognize with clarity that God is present, he is watching over us, he responds to us, and that when man forgets God, he forgets what is essential to his own human dignity. The fiftieth anniversary of the Council thus reminds us that the Church, in all its members, has the task of transmitting the message of God’s love which saves and which leads us to eternal beatitude.”
Follow RTRFaithWorld via Twitter Follow all posts on Twitter @ RTRFaithWorld

rss button Follow all posts via RSS


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

I have trouble with parts of Vatican II. One is changing the Mass from Latin to local languages. It used to be you could go ANYWHERE in the world to ANY Catholic Church and hear Mass, and fully participate. Now, if you don’t happen to speak the language where you are, you cannot FULLY participate in the Mass. The Latin Mass is a beautiful thing to experience. I was young when I last heard a Latin Mass, I still remember the beauty of it. Way too many people,and way too many Priests and Religious left the Church because of Vatican II. Too many changes to the Liturgy. Threw out traditional songs/music, brought in “hippy songs/music”, guitars, etc. Basically “Threw out the baby with the bathwater” as is often said! I don’t go to Mass to be entertained, to see who’s there, to watch laity compete with the Priest, to see altar girls, to hear music, or sing songs that have nothing to do with the Catholic faith, that sound more like they belong in a new age non-denominational evangelical “church”. I go to spend time with, and worship God, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit.
What has made me quit attending Mass for now is the encroachment of the CHARISMATICS! They are ruining The Church for me! If I desired the kind of nonsense they promote, I would be in one of the new age, non-denominational, evangelical “churches”. It seems that you cannot find a Catholic Church that hasn’t been polluted by the charismatics. You cannot find a Traditional Mass anywhere, except maybe some Cathedrals or a Monastery. I’m glad to hear that Pope Benedict is turning back some of these changes, and is promoting the Tridentine Mass. I hope this continues.

Posted by daddyd01 | Report as abusive

Bull, Not Papal …; The Mass should be in the vernacular of the people. Reincorporating Latin is like speaking in tongues in the trenches where we ordinaries worship. Like the newly instituted changes, Advent 2011. Archaic=s “consubstantial” and other such changes, AGAIN!

The hierarchy wonders why Mass attendance has dropped. It’s because the faithful seldom know what’s going on. Just watch them on EWTN. Or, your home parish! Is it the Confetitors prayer or Kyrie Elyison, Lord/Christ/Lord have mercy? Shall the Gloria be set to music, OR NOT?? What is the music, THIS TIME? Which Eucharistic Prayer of 5??

And, “with your spirit”, as if the Lord needs to hear things spoken the way the schizophrenic hierarchy demands?!

At least we understood pedophilia, sort of … eh Benedict/Ratzinger “in WI” and the Bishopry not held responsible?!

Posted by Russtoo | Report as abusive

Vatican II’s Constitution on the Church says this in chapter three:
“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.”
( cils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii _const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html)

The 20 ecumenical councils before it are still infallible, like the ecumenical council of Trent that declared that Catholics with faith can lose salvation from unrepented mortal (grave) sin. And that baptism or the implicit desire of baptism is necessary for salvation. And Jesus is physically the consecrated bread wafers we receive at mass.

Posted by MinA23456781 | Report as abusive