Vatican II is settled teaching

If you read any national Catholic publications like National Catholic Reporter, Our Sunday Visitor or America Magazine, you may have seen that Pope Francis reimposed restrictions on the use of the Latin Mass that was celebrated prior to Vatican II.  This surprised many because Pope Benedict XVI had relaxed these restrictions in 2007 before he retired.  He did so in hope of coaxing back into the Catholic Church some who had left because they did not accept parts of Vatican II’s Constitution on the Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium).

The schism of those who left the church was never a question simply of the council allowing Mass to be celebrated in the native languages of the world’s nations.  Latin remained the mother tongue of the Roman Catholic Church.  The new liturgical texts for the Mass and sacraments were written in Latin, and from them the council provided for officially approved translations into native languages. 

However, the Constitution on the Liturgy went further and provided a greatly expanded selection of scriptural readings, wider use of new music, more emphasis on homilies centered on the Scriptures of the Mass and the option of Communion with both the consecrated bread and the consecrated wine, which presented the full “sign” of the sacrament of the real presence of Christ: “His body and blood, soul and divinity.”  The risen Christ is fully present, of course, under each consecrated species, the consecrated bread or the consecrated wine. This was the teaching of the Council of Trent in 1695 and remained so in Vatican I in 1890 and Vatican II in 1965.  

Unfortunately, some people just can’t accept change, even when the change, in this case a new expanded rite for the Mass, is in complete harmony with the four major documents of the council—the Constitutions on the Church, Sacred Scripture, Liturgy and the Church in the Modern World.  The reason why Pope Francis felt compelled to restore the restrictions of the use of the Latin Rite for Mass in force prior to Vatican II was the use of that rite by some of its proponents to deny the validity of any of the teachings of Vatican II they didn’t like.

To be Catholic is to accept the church that Jesus instituted and built on the structure of his apostles under the leadership of St. Peter, its first pope.  During the past 21 centuries, this church has paused 21 times to consider through ecumenical (world-wide) councils what it must do to best meet the needs of the time.  There is no greater authority in the Catholic Church than the teaching of an ecumenical council approved by the pope. 
As Bishop Robert Barron said, during a talk on why Vatican II is settled teaching,  a Catholic can’t say, “I accept 90% of Vatican I” or 75% of the Council of Trent, or 65% of the Council of Chalcedon.”  Nor can he or she say “I accept some of Vatican II.”  The teaching of this most recent ecumenical council is our church’s official teaching just as much as the Nicene Creed, which we profess at every Sunday Mass.  In fact, that came from the first ecumenical council, The Council of Nicea in 325.  

The documents of Vatican II were approved by St. Paul VI when he closed the council in the fall of 1965.  He and his successors have overseen the implementation of the council’s documents.  Now, Pope Francis must continue the work of Vatican II.  He is a child of the council, entering the Jesuit order shortly before Vatican II began.  His regard for the importance of the council can be seen in his making saints of three great popes who played significant rolls in it — St. John XXIII, who called it; St. Paul VI, who closed it and approved its documents; and St. John Paul II, who was a bishop at the council and as pope did much to implement it.  

In many instances the implementation of ecumenical councils has been difficult.  Catholics can question aspects of the implementation of an ecumenical council but not the teachings of a legitimate council approved by a pope.  I was a seminarian in Rome for four years, beginning in 1960, when then-Pope John XXIII announced his intention to call a council. We were taught ecclesiology (theology of the church) by Father Frank Sullivan SJ at the Jesuit University, the Gregorian.  

I remember him saying there were three occasions when we could expect to see the grace of God’s Holy Spirit at work.  First, when a pope declared formally (“ex Cathedra,” from his chair, or office as pope) a dogma of faith, such as the assumption of the Blessed Virgin into heaven; second, when Catholics throughout the world believe a doctrine of faith, such as the resurrection of Christ; and third, when a council of the world’s bishops under the pope and with his approval teach a doctrine on faith or morals.  

The Second Vatican Council was intended by St. John XXIII to  be a pastoral council, one that would not defend the faith by condemning errors but rather clarify its doctrines in such a way that the “people of God,” we Catholics, could spread Jesus’ teachings through the world.  We were, the council said, all called by our baptism to spread the Christian Gospel in our individual situations in life.  We were called to “Christify” our world.  The council taught that the Eucharist was “the source and summit of our faith.”  It provided a new, Scripture centered, rite of the Mass in which priests and people actively participate and join themselves to Christ’s sacrifice so that they may fulfill this charge and bring his message out into the world.  

Pope Francis is not willing to let this Mass of Vatican II be thrown aside by recidivists who can only think backwards.  Some have written books and articles accusing “para-council theologians” and other religious commentators of distorting the council’s teachings by pushing their own ideas of how it should be implemented according to their vision of the “spirit of the council.” 

This strikes me as strange because I was in Rome during the first two sessions of the council with one of its American bishops.  In fact, he was the only American bishop to write a book, a first-hand account, of the council in action.  He was my bishop, and for some of you old enough to remember, your bishop, the first bishop of the newly created Diocese of Baton Rouge, Bishop Robert E. Tracy.  In my next column I will tell you what he thought of the teachings of Vatican II and its true spirit.

Father Carville is a retired priest in the Diocese of Baton Rouge and writes on current topics for The Catholic Commentator. He can be reached at johnny carville@gmail.com.