Anyone here reject Vatican II?


Chastity? You see more chastity now than in 1960? Yup, that’s us. :grinning: (I could also have zeroed in on Self Control, for Catholics or all persons. )
I am just teasing, your post is a good response.

Someone else could, accurately, point out the rampant disobedience, attacks on doctrine, liturgical abuses, and appalling passivity Catholics show on many issues, especially abortion. But those bad things happened after Vatican II, not necessarily as a result of it. Bad things happened to non Catholic religious groups and secular society in the West, also.

A fair criticism of VII is that it helped the Church adapt to some things that were already obvious, but not to other things that would happen soon after. It did not adequately predict the internal assault on doctrine, or the external secularization of society, especially the power of the media.

It was imperfect, like all other councils, in that it did not predict the future.
The bad stuff after the council was the implementation. Too often it was heard, “If you don’t support my agenda, that means you are against Vatican II”.

I am sure sometimes bad people misused the Council of Trent. That does not mean the Council itself was bad.


I knew that was coming. The last three of the twelve sure are an issue. My only answer to that would be that the Church has held the line a heck of a lot better than society. Sexual sin is something of festering disease that is very hard to cure with salt. I do not see abortion as a doctrinal issue, but as an extension of this very disease. The only reason to want abortion, and want it available, is to have sex without consequences.

I really believe all the liturgical issues are overblown, with the abuses being few and over-represented. I am seeing fewer examples now, and the issues that are debated are extraordinarily minor and insignificant.


I think abortion is a doctrinal issue that goes beyond the “consequences” issue. There is a whole movement within society that accepts the consequences for other kinds of actions, but demands abortion as a SACRED RIGHT.

Organizations that promoted legal abortion also promoted ordination of women, and those that promoted ordination also promoted legal abortion. Those who said women have right to say “This is My Body”, also want the right to say “This is my body”. There is a ferocity, a fanaticism here that goes down deep, to the dogma level. I have met people, including nuns, who have essentially reconstructed their belief system to take the Right to Abortion into account.

I won’t blame Vatican II too much for failing to predict this. I do hold accountable those in Church leadership who see this now, and fail to adequately respond, now.


Of course it is a doctrine, but I still really believe the reason for its acceptance is more lust and less feminism. I think it is only a symptom of a much deeper problem.

Might I ask what response you would deem adequate to stop abortion?


First, let me say some Church leaders have been very solid on prolife. The answer to your question is complicated, and varies from place to place. Here is the problem with my diocese.

For 45 years we have had bishops who come frequently to gatherings of prolifers, and tell the prolifers that prolife is important. Our current bishop meets with prolifers almost every month(!) and always gives a solid message. To us.

But proabortion speakers sometimes get invited to local “Catholic” institutions, to promote agendas other than abortion. Sometimes they even get free advance publicity through the diocesan newspaper, and the diocese even puts the event in “announcements for parish bulletins” email, so parishes may promote this speaker.

One speaker especially hostile to prolife was invited by a “Catholic” peace and justice group, hosted by a “Catholic” high school, and the nun in charge of diocesan Catholic education even used the event as an occasion to give awards to parochial students.

Pretty much the same thing happened at my former parish, which had an isolated prolife group. The message, “if you people feel the need for prolife activity, by all means, we will meet your need”. But prolife had no influence on anything else. If prolifers lost interest in abortion and got interested in playing Bridge tournaments next year, the parish would gladly set aside rooms, tables, cards and snacks.

Sorry for describing the problem rather than the solution.


Of the 7 sins, Pride is the one we always tend to underestimate. The others, including Lust, are also a factor but less. I also think we tend to overestimate the power of “The Flesh” and underestimate the dangers of “The World”. The media reminds us, every hour or so, of the dangers or potential evils of “The Flesh”. How often do they remind us of the dangers of “The World”, or “The Devil”?


No, I do not reject the Vatican II. And yes, I do think the Holy Spirit moved in that council.

However, like @Genesis315, I think it is possibly a failed council. I don’t think that means that the Holy Spirit was not behind it. It just means that the implementation did not pan out as it should have.

This is nothing new. There have been other councils like that. For example, The Council of Basel, Ferrara and Florence attempted reunion with the Eastern Orthodox, but ultimately that didn’t work out. Also, that council as well as Lateran V attempted to reform the Church. If they had succeeded, maybe we would not have had the Protestant Reformation. I accept both of these councils as divinely inspired even though they clearly failed at their stated objectives. I think these two councils are very clear examples how even ecumenical councils can be stalled by human sin.

I guess that is the mystery of how we have free will and at the same time divine providence is operating and guiding History.


Oh, he’s just trying to ruin the thread. :rage:



I would like to add to my previous post, Vatican II does not have to remain unimplemented (aka reform of the reform). The council of Trent for example took almost twenty years to finish, including several interruptions. There was surely times when some thought it was a failure. That was until Pope St. Pius V got onto the scene.


Ideally the pope and bishops could

  • build on the strengths of VII,
  • point out where implementation was faulty, and fix it;
  • point out where implementation was really someone pushing some private agenda not intended by VII, and fix it;
  • try to implement those parts of VII that were implemented incompletely, or not at all.

Well, mostly this won’t happen.

The problem is that popes and bishops have far less power than they had in the 1960s. The main opposition is from the Left, but in recent years the Right has also helped contribute to a climate of suspicion towards Catholic authority. This makes it much harder to “repair” anything.

I predict the next pope will be a younger Pope Benedict. He will let certain problem areas drive themselves into extinction (think liberal religious orders). He will support new initiatives to teach doctrine, and newer religious orders. He won’t re-fight the battles of the past and will ignore any abuses that are merely annoying. He has to pick his battles.

The world has changed more since Vatican II than it did between Trent and Vatican II. Do you think even 1% of Catholics under 60 could give a coherent comment on any of the documents? Do you think even 5% could name what decade Vatican II was in?


English does not equal not proper.

This is why people get annoyed with traditionalists - because the traditionalists say that things like using english hymns = improper liturgical music.


What a prediction! How do you think so?

The world has changed more since Vatican II than it did between Trent and Vatican II. Do you think even 1% of Catholics under 60 could give a coherent comment on any of the documents? Do you think even 5% could name what decade Vatican II was in?

You are probably correct. A lot has happened in the past 50 years


I am just an ordinary layman, no special expertise. The part about the next pope being a “young Pope Benedict” is perhaps wishful thinking. The rest is observation. There is no doubt that the pope and bishops have to “pick their battles”. They will be too busy dealing with contemporary problems than dealing with what happened, or should have happened at VII. They will probably ignore annoying mild abuses, especially if they involve radical religious orders that have 20 deaths for every recruit.

Sometimes I wonder if those who strenuously “defend” Vatican II against every criticism, or those fixated on the “errors” of Vatican II, are both less and less relevant to the great majority of Catholics under 50 or so.


I reject the sanitized, sugar-coated teachings of the church, most of which largely originated with VII – especially the platitudes and ignorance that infest Catholic schools.


When I read the documents nowadays, I don’t find them to be sanitized or sugar coated. When I used to read my kids’ religion texts a few decades ago, I did find them to be worthless in many cases. I tried my best to communicate to my kids the doctrinal content that was systematically eliminated after VII, not a result of VII. The same could be said about my diocesan newspaper, or many sermons taken from the daily newspaper editorials.

Other than the document on liturgy, most of the documents simply described changes already in progress in the 1960s. The decree on Laity reflects the more active role some laity had been playing in the decades leading up to the council. The decrees on Religious Life, Social Communications, Education, reflect where the Church, and/or society, was already moving.

One might complain that the documents focused too much on “here’s where we have come since WWI” and failed to predict what was coming soon after. But then hardly anyone else predicted the massive impact of the Internet, pornography, breakdown of marriage, gay “marriage”, abortion, and the astonishing passivity of Catholics in the face of those evils.

The Documents never predicted the attack on Reason in secular society, or the attack on doctrine from many inside the Church. The documents never predicted the extreme concentration of power in the media, almost all of which is anti-Christian. But nobody else predicted it either.

So it is a waste of time to criticize the Council for what happened afterwards. The Council documents are mildly useful today as an outline. But our attention should be on addressing the issues of 2018. Every minute spent attacking Vatican II is a minute taken away from finding solutions to 2018.


It’s a little known fact, but the council Fathers actually did predict all of these things:

Corruption of the media:

“…today the scandal is growing and spreading all the more since because of radio, film and television what before could be seen in only one place now is seen everywhere.”

Culture of divorce:

“Would that your country knew by the experience of others rather than by your own usages the pile of evils to which the license of divorce gives birth! May reverence for religion, may piety persuade the noble American race to cure and remove this dreadfully growing sickness…”

Legitimization of homosexuality:

“Today the vice of homosexuality is also quite widespread. Not only is simple horror at this most foul vice missing, but the claim is being made that it should be praised and presented as the mark of a loftier love and higher culture.”

Threats of secularism, relativism:

“Concerned to guard and spread the divine truth and law under present-day conditions, this Holy Synod is grievously afflicted to see that there is a certain crisis of authority in the world that arises both from erroneous doctrines and lack of discipline and also at times from misunderstanding and incorrect exercise of power. This crisis is even threatening to affect some of the Church’s children. In accord with its duty to teach, the Council, to correct all this, wishes that the following principles, derived from the evangelical law and the Catholic tradition, be maintained and be put into practice…”

Attacks on doctrine:

“It is has not escaped the Holy Synod that the minds of people today are being disturbed by various pernicious teachings…the same Holy Synod also knows that many other seeds of error are being strewn with the result that the faithful are sometimes being burdened by anxiety and that many no longer maintaining sound doctrine but are turning away from listening to the truth…for this reason, the conciliar Fathers…consider it their duty to bring forward certain truths from the deposit God entrusted to Holy Church, especially those that concern the foundations of religion itself, and in the chapters that follow to present those truths concisely and to defend them from errors, for the benefit of all the faithful…”

Attacks on Scripture:

“The Church rightly condemns utterly any attempt to attenuate the nature of Inspiration, and especially the attempt to reduce to a merely natural impulse or movement of mind this supernatural way of writing which unites both God and man.”

As we can see, many of the council Fathers were cognizant of the challenges the Church would have to go up against. Unfortunately, their prescience was not sufficiently taken into account. Everything I have quoted comes from the original documents of Vatican II, which were discarded mere days after the opening of the council. But it’s interesting to look back and imagine the “Vatican II that might have been”. More available here:


The fake “blame it on Vatican II” comments will continue while ignoring what was planned and the organized attacks from inside and outside the Church by radicals, dissidents and Anarchists after Vatican II ended in 1965. I watched it unfold. I heard the strangers as they appeared in our neighborhoods. Their message was clear: abandon the Church, abandon what your parents taught you and live like we do because for a long time, faithful Catholics made them uncomfortable about doing wrong. It made them think twice. They didn’t like that.


That makes you a sede, just saying


Rather than putting labels on people, better to let them express their ideas and feelings on CAF. A lot of people have been stereotyped, as if “traditionalists are all alike”. I would rather let people air their disagreements, and be open to new ideas or explanations here.


There are 2 mistakes we can make about history.

One mistake is to ignore it; to be oblivious of the trends before, during and after the Council, and the effect the Council might have had, and effect it actually did have.

The other mistake is to overemphasize it. Liberals make it the turning point in history, second only to the Nativity. They claim before the Council laity were not permitted to read and write, etc but now it is a totally new dawn. Conservatives blame the Council for causing everything bad since 1960. Certain religious organizations use “secrets” about the Council, and for that matter secrets and coverups about Fatima, to boost donations and website hits.

The problem with the fixation with the Council is that some who should be fighting the Church’s struggles against the evils of 2018 are instead remaining apart, still obsessing about that Council (and Fatima) coverups, censorship, secrets, conspiracies, agendas of the 1960s. Easier than fighting the dragons of 2018.

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