Rejection of Second Vatican Council = schism?

Hello there, if a person does not accept (reject) the Second Vatican Council, is that person in schism and a schismatic?

Thanks

I would say the person has willfully chosen to put themselves outside of the Church. It would take someone with a higher paygrade to determine if the person you are speaking of were schismatic, but if they aren’t faithful and following the Magisterium, then who are they following?

It may be schism or merely heresy.

Schism is refusal to submit to the Pope, which is common for those who reject Vatican II.

But if one accepts the authority of the current Pope, but denies certain doctrines/teachings, then it is heresy.

Either is a serious problem of course - just noting the different meanings of these terms.

You could read more here, including discussion of the dangers of ultra-traditionalist movements:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm

What does it mean to reject the Second Vatican Council? This council produced 16 very comprehensive documents covering many topics.

Does the person reject that the council happened? That it has authority? Do they think that is was not a legitimate council? Or do they merely hold that it has been implemented or interpreted poorly? There is a huge difference. What specifically do they reject about the council?

There are certain groups that rejects the Second Vatican Council.

Their reason is that the Tridentine Latin Mass is more reverent and quiet without any female lay server. Also the songs were gregorian chants, now in the church songbook in my country even has martin Luther song. Sometimes they play protestant praise and worship song after mass.

There is also work of mercy such as burying the dead which now after the second Vatican council can be replaced by cremation (burning the dead body and burying the ashes, instead of burying the body)

Burning with fire is considered work of mercy, sometimes this makes me wonder as well.

Their reason is quite legitimate and I fear that I might agree.

There are people in traditional catholic section in this forum who share the same traditional views but in communion with the catholic church though. I wonder if I can be such kind of person, because I do not want to fall into schism or heresy, I do not want to hurt the Lord, but at the same time I want to be a good traditional catholic. Can that be done? What makes a good traditional catholic then?

Perhaps you are confused. Vatican II did not address any of the above that I am aware of. Do you have the documents that you are referring to? What you may be noticing is the oft referred to “spirit of the council” that has been misunderstood by both traditional and liberal Catholics. Certainly turmoil after a council (there is a period of turmoil after every council) provides opportunity for many to advance an agenda. And the implementation of the council has been rocky. But I would imagine that the implementation of any council would have confusing effects on something as large of an institution as the Church. Pope Benedict XVI addressed the issue saying that there are different interpretations and levels of dogma within the council documents. I say this as a Traditional minded Catholic. You are free to interpret or disagree with some things but on matters of binding dogma you are not free to reject them. It would serve you well to read the actual documents. It is not as daunting as it sounds. It was quite easy…

There is nothing at all wrong with preferring the traditional Latin Mass, nor with preferring burial to cremation.

What is dangerous would be to say that the Church did not have the authority to change the liturgy, or the rules on burial/cremation. That kind of attitude is what can lead you away from the Church. And there’s nothing “traditional” about denying the authority of the Church.

Regarding where you mentioned above that …‘You are free to interpret or disagree with some things but on matters of binding dogma you are not free to reject them,’ my understanding, which is limited, is that the Second Vatican Council was a pastoral council, and non-dogmatic.

Also, (I’m addressing the OP here) some traditionalists have issues with only specific parts of the Council, which they believe do not conform to previous teachings of the Church. Others believe that these sections are written in an ambiguous manner, and need to be clarified by the Pope and/or the Church. Certainly Bishop Athanasius Schneider falls into the second camp, in that he believes that that these ambiguous parts need to be clarified so as to be properly interpreted, and I agree.

I don’t think that we should worry too much about it, though, or let it disturb our peace.

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