Anyone here reject Vatican II?


I should add, I’m usually the guy defending the orthodoxy of Vatican II–including the fact that docile obedience to its letter would have likely yielded different fruit. But the same Pope and bishops that passed the acts, were the same people tasked with implementing it. They failed to achieve their objectives. The renewal simply didn’t happen, as Pope Paul himself spoke about multiple times.

I wish it would have succeeded in its aims.


Speaking for my own diocese, I think that the renewal was ultimately successful. The current OF liturgy is reverently celebrated and parishes do have a lot more lay participation than prior to Vatican II. It’s just that most places had to endure a lot of weirdness in the process of getting here. But historically, the weirdness was only a blip. Of course, when you’re living through it, it seems interminable.


That’s right. The weirdness is beginning to lift. That’s why people need to know there were those inside the Church - and some that still are - that were actively against doing things the right way.


Is this the case? From all the stats I have seen, Mass attendance is way down and belief in the Real Presence is way down, and understanding of Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice is way down. Liturgical abuse seems to be a real problem (the Vatican has had to issue various docs on the topic)–why would someone who understood what Mass was abuse the liturgy so? Why would people who understood it better stay away more?

Quicker reaction to a changing world, especially in bioethics.

Honestly, I’m not seeing how its any quicker–I guess this is hard to measure. Which document of Vatican II provided for this? Gaudium et Spes maybe? Gaudium et Spes was supposed to provide for the Church’s engagement of and shaping of the modern world–despite a sterling doctrine with regard to bioethics, I’m not seeing it having influence in the world (this goes along with the laity’s role)–bioethics in the modern world have gotten worse and worse. In fact, the laity seem to not be impacted much by it (check the polls re IVF or abortion).

Increase of Scripture reading in the vernacular.

As a result, do Catholics know their faith better? The biggest complaint on CA since I’ve been here is poor catechesis. Without it, reading the Bible in the vernacular will not bear the intended fruit. With looser translations and footnotes that undermine the supernatural character, it gets worse. I don’t know how many priests I’ve heard undermine Jesus’ miracles or say He couldn’t tell the difference between demons and epilepsy, or the OT conception of God was erroneous in some way or another, etc. The vernacular doesn’t seem to have helped them understand better…

Better ecumenical relationships

The goal is unity in the Catholic faith and Church. Groups which were much closer, like the Lutherans and Anglicans, have now moved farther and farther by ordaining women and blessing certain immoral relationships, despite being friendlier. Cardinal Kasper had a good speech about this to the Anglicans a while back, about their departure from diachronic unity and how it pretty much ended any hope of real reunion. I guess the ordinariate was a decent fruit from this (of course, it was carried out without engaging the curial office for ecumenism…)

Better understanding of religious freedom and its relationship to human free will.

There seems to be the most confusion about this, rather than clarity–when a contradiction is alleged, this is the most apparent example–it is not explained well how it reconciles with past, definitive judgments from the Church (no explanation is really provided) (I think it can be reconciled, especially in light of the clarifications in the catechism and have defended it many times–but the sheer amount of conferences and theological articles on the subject trying various ways to show how the two work together show that it is not obvious.)



continued from above

Courageous bishops.

Vatican II was to supplement Vatican I (which was cut short) on the role of the bishop in his particular Church, especially in relationship to the Roman Pontiff, re-affirming the bishop’s direct and ordinary responsibility over his flock. Again, all the crazy stuff done in the name of Vatican II was almost never even addressed by the bishops, as far as I can tell (with a few notable exceptions)–I don’t see much disciplinary action at all taken to correct these things (not to mention in light of the scandals too) when Vatican II re-affirmed their responsibility to do so. The Council’s objective simply did not pan out. There were courageous bishops before and after and less-than-courageous bishops before and after. But I don’t see an increased sense of responsibility overall (other than as a pretext to promote erroneous novelties, rather than for rooting out error and guarding the liturgy, among other things).


I do not doubt, from what you have seen, this may be this case.


I think it is to blame for breaking with tradition. Note in the next quote that the differences are “fundamental differences” ie:the Great Deposit

“…This manifests itself in the fact that some ecclesial documents today do not have any connection to the positions held by the Magisterium prior to the Second Vatican Council. For example, in the document of Vatican II on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, there is not a single mention of the two previous documents that deal with the ecumenical movement and other religions: Leo XIII’s Satis Cognitum and Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos. The approach to ecumenism and other religions in these documents is fundamentally different from the approach of the Vatican II document or Ut Unum Sint by Pope John Paul II. While the current Magisterium can change a teaching that falls under non-infallible ordinary magisterial teaching, nevertheless, when the Magisterium makes a judgment in these cases, it has an obligation due to the requirements of the moral virtue of prudence to show how the previous teaching was wrong or is now to be understood differently by discussing the two different teachings. However, this is not what has happened. The Magisterium since Vatican II often ignores previous documents which may appear to be in opposition to the current teaching, leaving the faithful to figure out how the two are compatible,(bold mine) such…”


Do you have a magisterial source for the part of your quote I cited? I mean, in terms of the “obligation”. Who created that obligation and who would be in a position to evaluate whether the Magisterium “passed” or “failed”? The internet?

I occasionally visit the TLM, but who benefits from writing or reading articles like the one in the Latin Mass Magazine? It is 2018. Do they really believe they can undermine the last six popes without undermining all the earlier popes too? By now they would in effect be trying to eliminate 55 years of tradition.

I am tempted to join our local Latin Mass group, until I went to a day of recollection. The speaker went out of his way to claim there are only 15 “official” decades in the rosary. But all the earlier 15 decades are “official” only because some earlier pope, with no more authority than the saint pope. This kind of nonsense leads to loss of confidence not only in the recent pope, but all popes.


Fr. made the observation. However the obligation to practice prudence is a virtue that all Catholics need to hone, and a special caution we would assume is practiced by the Magisterium who’s gifted commission is to pass on Divine teaching.

who would be in a position to evaluate whether the Magisterium “passed” or “failed”?
Fr’s excellent reputation as exorcist, renowned psychology prof. and member for hundreds of seminarians are credentials enough for me. If he voiced a concern, then I assume it is not in jest.

I pray the Franciscan crown with added decades for my Fraternity, one for the Confraternity of St. Peter, and also for prayer intentions requests on this forum.


I don’t reject Vatican II and I don’t praise it either.

I can see better the truths taught by the Church before it.


I think if you were to ask Father if he thinks priests should evaluate popes and bishops - or - if popes and bishops should evaluate priests - I bet he would say the latter, not the former.

Keep in mind there are lots of priests with “excellent reputation” as per the Media. Most are liberal.

Protestants don’t have popes, or a Magisterium. Most of them follow clergy who (in their personal opinion) have excellent reputation and “renown”. If Joel Osteen has books in the airport bookstore, you follow him rather than some minister you never heard of.

“Renown” may be one way to choose between one priest’s advice and another. “Renown” is not, in my opinion, a good substitute for the Magisterium or a way of evaluating it.


I think it is the document that is being addressed, not people. He is offering his opinion. True, he is one of 400,000+ priest, and his opinion is kind of take it or leave it. Personally, I do not see this fundamental difference he thinks he sees. Remember that this thread is asking for opinions. We shouldn’t judge people for contrary opinions when presented charitably.


I apologize if my statements come out as uncharitable at times. I also have a high regard for this priest, and mean no discouragement towards the earlier poster. Just offering a caution, due to the path other posters have taken.


That was my thought as well. I was not thinking of you, but of how many take their opinions into the more personal and sinister direction of slander against the Holy Father, the Council, bishops today, etc. It is good to here opposing view presented properly.


A Catholic in good conscience may not reject Vatican II, as doing so would be a rejection of the Holy Ghost.

One could, I suppose, reject the interpretation of Vatican II and remain and good conscience, but I know not.

We should just follow what Bp. Athanasius said and promulgate a Syllabus of Errors for the interpretation.


You comment is 100% correct with the exception of your part on the Rosary.

No earlier Pope formed the Mysteries of the Rosary. It was Mary through the Dominican Order. To disregard these ‘official’ Mysteries would be to disregard the 15 promises of the Rosary. Further, St. John Paul said the Luminous Mysteries were an encouragement, not an imperative.


THIS. :+1::+1::+1:


WHAT IF the Holy Ghost was not behind Vatican II?
How can we look at the fruit of Vatican II and see the work of the Holy Spirit?


That’s not an option. :no_good_woman:


As in, charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, and chastity?

I see these.

Unfortunately, I also see the fruits of the Holy Spirit belittled as being part of the “Church of Nice.”

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit