1

Vatican II is one of the most controversial councils (perhaps falling behind Trent) and has been criticized widely by Catholics due to the stance it takes on how the church should interact with society.

To keep in line with the teachings of the Church, to what extent can a faithful Catholic criticize what the Church defined as doctrine/discipline at Vatican II?

Related: For Catholics who object to Vatican II, what are the key issues? and What is the status of Catholics who reject Vatican II? Are they considered heretics?

Luke Hill
  • 5,023
  • 3
  • 15
  • 67

1 Answers1

2

Faithful Catholics are not permitted to disagree with the documents of an ecumenical council. That's just a plain fact. However, it should be noted that there are many misconceptions about Vatican 2.

Vatican 2 did not give the faithful the right to receive communion in the hand.

Vatican 2 did not say that Mass should be said in the vernacular, in fact it said that Latin should be preserved in the rites and that Gregorian chant should have pride of place in the liturgy. Sacrosanctum Concilium

Vatican 2 did not codify the rubrics of the Novus Ordo.

These are probably the three biggest issues traditionalists take with "Vatican 2," and Vatican 2 did none of these things. Traditionalists who "disagree with Vatican 2" on these or similar grounds are simply confused. They are not actually disagreeing with Vatican 2. They should be encouraged to actually read the V2 documents and understand them so that they can come to realize that Vatican 2 did not call for the innovations which they (rightly) despise in the (common, and illicit celebrations of the) Novus Ordo.

Those who actually object to the teachings of Vatican 2 are heretics.

That being said, Catholics are permitted to object to matters of prudence as they relate to the conduction of the council. For example, allowing Protestant ministers to sit in and have their voices heard in the council seems imprudent, for, while the Holy Spirit will protect the council from error, it is fully possible that the authors of the council documents will be given to choosing vague language that does not clearly contradict Protestant viewpoints, especially if those authors are biased in favor of Protestant doctrine.

jaredad7
  • 3,692
  • 1
  • 14
  • 41
  • So as a Catholic, I cannot criticize any council? Then why have people like Bishop Robert Barron or Trent Horn criticized V2? – Luke Hill Jan 28 '22 at 19:12
  • you can criticize a council, in the manner it was conducted, whether it was necessary to call, etc. You can also criticize those who read into a council's documents an understanding of the faith that is not plainly there. What you can't do is object to the official documents which came out of a council. You cannot, for instance, claim that Latin should not have pride of place in the liturgy, since Vatican 2 has said that it should have pride of place. – jaredad7 Jan 28 '22 at 19:18
  • 1
    ah gotcha. So I can criticize some of the downsides of Vatican II, but not the actual disciplines or doctrines – Luke Hill Jan 28 '22 at 19:23
  • I think this answer would benefit if it had links to official documents backing up what it is saying. – Only True God Jan 28 '22 at 21:22
  • 2What document are you referring to, any link to substantiate your claimed 1.Vatican 2 did not give the faithful the right to receive communion in the hand. 2.Vatican 2 did not say that Mass should be said in the vernacular, in fact it said that Latin should have pride of place in the liturgy. 3.Vatican 2 did not codify the rubrics of the Novus Ordo.". This can be change as CCC83 teaches. – jong ricafort Jan 28 '22 at 22:28
  • My criticism with this whole subject matter is not the Council in itself, but how it was implemented after it was concluded. Your answer tends to show this. +1 – Ken Graham Jan 30 '22 at 03:17
  • 1
    @jongricafort Vatican II did not give the faithful the right to receive communion in the hand. If you believe the opposite to be true could find a reference? – Ken Graham Jan 30 '22 at 20:04
  • @KenGraham Communion in the hand originated from Jesus Christ at the Last Supper, and the Apostles esp. St.Paul the Apostle was celebrating the Eucharist by the hand as evident in his letter to Corinthians. But, yes, communion in the tongue was seen in the Last Supper, and it was Judas who first received it. – jong ricafort Jan 30 '22 at 23:17
  • 1
    @jongricafort That is not the point. You disagree with the fact that Vatican II did not give the faithful the right to receive communion in the hand. Do you have a source for that? – Ken Graham Jan 31 '22 at 01:46
  • @KenGraham the Holy See have the canonical powers to approve communion in the hand, post Vat2, it doesnt need to be approved by a Council. sacramental discipline and Canon Laws are govern by the Holy See and you know this, right? https://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2018/02/28/documentation-the-approval-of-communion-in-the-hand-under-pope-paul-vi/ – jong ricafort Jan 31 '22 at 11:36
  • @jongricafort sure, the history of modern day communion in the hand has, as an important component, the document Memoriale Domini. Simply reading that document shows that communion in the hand was permitted by a separate act, and only to some jurisdictions, after the conclusion of Vatican 2. Hence, it could not have been permitted by Vatican 2. – jaredad7 Jan 31 '22 at 16:27
  • @jongricafort the Vatican 2 document Sacrosanctum Concilium states that Latin is " to be preserved in the Latin rites." (paragraph 36) and that in those rites, Gregorian chant is to be given "pride of place" (paragraph 116). I apologize, I thought the pride of place phrase referred to Latin when it in fact refers to chant. – jaredad7 Jan 31 '22 at 16:29
  • 2
    @OneGodtheFather Catholics, as a general rule, can always object to the prudential judgements of clergy. This is so well known as to be essentially common knowledge. The Magisterium as a body and the Pope acting in his official teaching capacity (ex cathedra) cannot err in matters of teaching faith or morals. They can err in any other way. So, a faithful Catholic, naturally, can hold the opinion that the calling of a particular council was imprudent or that the invitation of some individuals was imprudent. Faithful Catholics cannot hold that the Holy Spirit is not present at such councils. – jaredad7 Jan 31 '22 at 21:01
  • @jaredad Sacrosanctum Concilium must be interpreted only by the Magisterium, if the Magisterium saw a need for changes, then, if the changes were approved by the Holy See, then the changes is binding to all the faithful to follow. Are you following the Living Magisterium or a parallel magisterium by schismatics? – jong ricafort Jan 31 '22 at 23:29
  • 1
    @jongricafort Sacrosanctum Concilium is a document of the Magisterium. Particular bishops have not implemented the document correctly. This is apparent when you see that many bishops do not require that chant be given pride of place at liturgies nor that Latin be preserved in the rites in their diocese. I would ask a similar question of you and these bishops. Are you following the true teachings of the Church (Vatican 2 and other ecumenical councils), or are you following some nebulous "spirit" of "Vatican 2" which indeed makes the true and Catholic teachings of Vatican 2 its enemy? – jaredad7 Feb 01 '22 at 16:02
  • @jaredad7 i am following the teachings and interpretation of the Living Magisterium under Pope Francis and not you and not even the parallel magisterium of the schismatic priest & bishops and the dubia cardinals. -Cum Petro et sub Petro.! – jong ricafort Feb 02 '22 at 22:06
  • @jongricafort if you are telling me that Pope Francis contradicts Vatican 2 in his formal magisterial teaching, then I would need to conclude he is he is a formal heretic and thus not the Pope. Now, I don't believe that's the case, and I also don't believe that you believe that's the case, so why do you seem to be so set against the council's teachings on Latin and Gregorian Chant? – jaredad7 Feb 02 '22 at 22:09
  • @jaredad7 Obviously, the TLM are being use by Rad Trads to attack the Novus Ordo. The Novus Ordo is the work of the Holy Spirit, and attacking it is the "unforgivable sin" in Matthew12:32. TLM is sacred and beautiful but if offered in disobedience, definitely this offering will be rejected by God because it is devoid of divine content. 1Samuel15:22 – jong ricafort Feb 03 '22 at 22:42