On 7 Dec 1965 Paul VI declared Vatican II to be closed. If he only knew.
Sixty years ago today the bishops of the world gathered in St Peter’s Basilica to close the Second Vatican Council. The day was meant to signal continuity with the Church’s long doctrinal tradition. Instead, many quickly treated it as a rupture, a “new beginning.” As Joseph Ratzinger later warned, a “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture” created an “artificial split” between a pre-conciliar and post-conciliar Church, distorting both history and doctrine (Address to the Roman Curia, 22 Dec 2005).
Karl Rahner, S.J. famously described Vatican II as the beginning of a “Weltkirche,” a truly “world Church,” marking what he called “the beginning of a new epoch.” He considered the Council the moment when the Church moved irreversibly beyond its historically European form. Although he insisted that doctrine had not been overturned, Rahner nevertheless tended to frame the Council as a major shift in self-understanding. In The Shape of the Church to Come he wrote that Vatican II “will perhaps be seen as the most important event in the Church since the Reformation,” language that encouraged the view of the Council as epoch-making rather than as one link in a continuous chain. Rahner also argued that the Council’s pastoral style opened space for what he called “future dogmatic decisions,” which some critics took as implying that the Council had relativized previous doctrinal formulations. His vision of a Church entering an unprecedented pluralistic future strengthened the idea that Vatican II launched a new phase rather than consolidated tradition.
Hans Küng went further. For him, Vatican II was not only a new beginning but a corrective. In The Council, Reform, and Reunion he declared that Vatican II “ended the Counter-Reformation Church.” He suggested that the Council marked the transition from a “static, authoritarian” model to a more open, dialogical one. Küng believed the Council initiated a necessary theological reorientation that should continue, particularly in issues of authority, infallibility, ecclesial structure, and ecumenism. In On Being a Christian and later writings he argued that post-conciliar reforms had not gone far enough, and he famously claimed that the Church must continue the unfinished “aggiornamento” of Vatican II. This interpretation directly fed the so-called “spirit of the Council,” often detached from the texts themselves.
John W. O’Malley, S.J., in What Happened at Vatican II, argues that the shift in “tone” was the most thing the Council produced, a dramatic shift from the juridical and condemnatory style of many previous councils. This becomes a meta-text for the reading of… pretty much everything and fuels the “new beginning” idea.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Society of Saint Pius X, was a critic of Vatican II and its aftermath. His assessments, especially from the mid-1970s onward, argued that the Council introduced ambiguities, doctrinal shifts, and pastoral approaches that produced devastating consequences for the Church. Despite his critiques, Lefebvre maintained a distinction between rejecting the errors connected with the Council and denying its legitimacy. “We do not reject the authority of the Pope or of the Council. We refuse the destructive tendencies that have come from the Council.”
Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgen, S.V.D., in his account The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber said that several periti from the progressive theological bloc intentionally inserted formulations that could be read in a strictly traditional way at the Council, but which could also “explode” later, enabling doctrinal or pastoral changes the bishops would not have explicitly approved. Cardinal Léon-Joseph Suenens, one of the leading progressive voices in the Council, was reported by Henri de Lubac and others to have joked that certain passages were “bombs” that would go off after the Council, making deeper reform possible in the future. Once-peritus Ratzinger/Benedict XVI noted that parts of the Council texts were crafted as compromise formulas reflecting opposing theological positions. These ambiguous formulations created “room for a pluralism” that was exploited by the hermeneutic of rupture (Address to Roman Curia, 22 Dec 2005). In practice, this made them function like time bombs.
Most of the famous liberal leaning Popes and writers claim that Vatican was like a “new” or “second Pentecost”.
This justifies all manner of rupture with the past including, especially a surrender of philosophy and metaphysics in favor of politics (i.e., “lived experience”).
Card. “Tucho” Fernandez of the DDF says that the Church must “read everything again in the light of Vatican II,” especially the teachings of Dignitatis humanae, Lumen gentium, and Gaudium et spes. [In effect, everything before Vatican II and then then everything before the time of Francis beginning with his ] He argues that the Council represents a major shift in ecclesiology, religious liberty, ecumenism, and the Church’s relationship with the modern world. “The pre-conciliar formulations can no longer be repeated without rereading them in the light of the Second Vatican Council.” This is precisely the tendency Rahner, Küng, and Suenens helped embed: Vatican II as epochal break rather than one council among councils. In his 2023 interview with L’Osservatore Romano, he stated: “The Council is the great event of the twentieth century. Everything must be reread starting from it.” This elevates Vatican II as a hermeneutical norm, implying a priority over earlier magisterial expressions. He further invokes the “contemporary magisterium”, a phrase he uses to emphasize that the living teaching authority of the Church today has interpretive priority over older magisterial formulations. Fernández argues that doctrine remains true but must be “expressed in new ways” for new cultural situations.
Because of the “new beginning” of Vatican II the Church’s pre-Conciliar (and now Pre-Francis) teachings (and practices) must bend to “reality”. Truth can vary from place to place and time to time. What might have once been true doesn’t necessary need to be true now. The German/Kasperite/Rahnerian approach replaces the philosophical grounding of theology with politics (majorities can determine truth, and that might diverge from what people thought in the past). Truth changes according to shifting mores, values, etc. To hell with reason (e.g., syllogisms). Now, it’s lived experience. After all, Vatican II true underlying message, meta-text, was its change in tone. Cf. Thomas Heinrich Stark in Catholic World Report: German Idealism and Cardinal Kasper’s Theological Project. HERE
The actual reception of the Council has not borne the fruits widely promised. Cardinal Giacomo Biffi noted that “from the moment the Council ended, an interpretation both forced and unilateral took over,” unleashing experiments that weakened Catholic identity. Romano Amerio observed that the post-conciliar period saw “a decline of doctrinal certainty and liturgical coherence,” not because of the Council’s texts, but because of a “para-council” that operated in its name. Cardinal Müller similarly reminds us that Vatican II “cannot be understood as a super-council that re-founded the Church,” and that earlier councils such as Nicaea, Trent, and Vatican I had far more decisive doctrinal weight.
Vatican II was, by design, pastoral rather than dogmatic. Its documents sought to present perennial truths, not redefine them. Its significance is real, but it is not unique or foundational in the way some have insisted.
Treating 7 December 1965 as “year zero” has obscured the Council’s proper place and contributed to decades of confusion.
The way forward is the clarity articulated by Benedict XVI: authentic renewal only occurs in continuity. Vatican II must be received as one council among councils, part of the Church’s unbroken tradition, not the moment the Church began anew.
Vatican II must be recognized as less important than many other ecumenical councils, particularly the great doctrinal councils that defined the faith. This is not a rejection of Vatican II, but a call to place it in correct historical proportion.
This is the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicea, vastly more important than Vatican II. Moreover, Chalcedon, Trent, and Vatican I were manifestly more consequential.
Vatican II was significant, mostly because it is closest to us in our time line, but it is not uniquely or supremely significant. Its pastoral character means it ranks below the great doctrinal councils in authority and doctrinal impact. The attempt to elevate it above all other councils has produced confusion and rupture. Restoring Vatican II to its proper place, as one council among many, not as the Council, allows the Church to receive it as the Fathers intended: in continuity, not as a new beginning.
Today is the feast of St. Ambrose. I have a 1st class relic in the Two Trinities Chapel, so he is, in a sense, a homie.
Loading ...
