A beginner’s guide to problems with the Second Vatican Council

One of the most damning critiques of the Second Vatican Council is that it deviates so significantly from established doctrine and practice that it cannot, in good conscience, be accepted as Catholic.

Second Vatican Council. (Image: Wikimedia Commons)

Few things tell me more clearly someone’s Catholic faith doesn’t run very deep, than a person who wants to defend errors in the Church by citing only the Second Vatican Council as if it trumps all prior councils, Scripture, and Tradition.

And then, to boot, ends up citing it incorrectly

An example of this springs to mind when someone in my orbit claimed Vatican II “banned veiling for women”. (At this point I actually wish I could insert one of those face-palm emojis!).

One of my subscribers recently commented (I am paraphrasing), that the problems in the Church will not go away until we recognize Vatican II for the disaster that it was and scrape it as a bad idea. (OK, I was quite liberal with my paraphrasing but true to the essence of what my valued reader said!).

The Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) marks one of the most transformative—and controversial—events in the history of the Catholic Church. Unlike earlier ecumenical councils, which addressed heresies or clarified dogmatic truths, Vatican II’s purpose was largely pastoral, aimed at updating the Church to address the challenges of the modern world. Its stated intention of "aggiornamento" has been lauded by some as a renewal (basically Modernists, liberals, and other enemies of Christ and His Church), but today we know and recognize that it opened the door to doctrinal ambiguity, liturgical upheaval and abuse, and a rupture with Catholic Tradition.

I will make the same disclaimer as usual: there are many works on this matter by men far brighter than myself but hopefully this piece will serve as a basic starting point for the diligent traditional Catholic to do his or her own research. I will post a short list of other possible works to consult at the end of this piece.

Let us take a broad overview of some of the main overarching problems with this council.

Collegiality and the weakening of Papal authority

One of the less-discussed but significant problems stemming from Vatican II is its treatment of collegiality in Lumen Gentium. While reaffirming papal primacy, the Council also emphasized the collective authority of the bishops in union with the pope. The relevant passage reads:

"The order of bishops is the successor to the college of the apostles in teaching and pastoral government, in fact, too, in priestly ministry" (Lumen Gentium, 22).

Though collegiality, understood in proper context, is consistent with Catholic teaching, its overemphasis post-Vatican II led to a diminished understanding of papal supremacy. This shift undermines the singular authority of the pope, as previously defined in Pastor Aeternus at the First Vatican Council (1870):

"If anyone says that the Roman Pontiff... has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church... let him be anathema."

The implementation of collegiality has encouraged an almost “democratized” governance in the Church, where local bishops’ conferences exercise disproportionate power. This decentralization has fostered disunity, as seen in issues like differing pastoral approaches to divorce and remarriage, contraception, and liturgical practices. Pope Benedict XVI himself lamented this dynamic, noting in 1985 that the post-conciliar Church had fallen prey to a “de facto pluralism” inconsistent with Catholic unity.

Universalism and the undermining of missionary zeal

A not-so-subtle and serious problem with Vatican II is its implicit tendency toward universalism—the belief that all people, regardless of their faith, are saved. This attitude is evident in Gaudium et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World), which states:

“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners... in the paschal mystery” (Gaudium et Spes, 22).

While the Church has always taught that Christ’s redemption is universal in potential, Vatican II’s emphasis appears to downplay the necessity of conversion and baptism. This contradicts the Council of Trent, which declared:

"If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, Canon 5 on Baptism).

The Council’s optimism about salvation outside the visible Church is further reflected in the ecumenical outreach and overreach of Unitatis Redintegratio. This has weakened the Church’s missionary zeal. Missionary activity today often focuses on dialogue rather than the clear proclamation of the Gospel (a hallmark of Pope Francis’ papacy and the post-concilliar synodal church), leading to a decline in conversions and an erosion of the Church’s identity as the one true means of salvation.

The revolution of liturgical reform as opposed to its development

The liturgical reforms that followed Vatican II are among the most visible and controversial aspects of the Council’s legacy. Though Sacrosanctum Concilium called for careful reform, emphasizing the preservation of Latin and the sacred nature of the liturgy, the resulting Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of Mass) represents a radical departure from the traditional Roman Rite.

Loss of the Sacred

The traditional Latin Mass (TLM) was characterized by its solemnity, its vertical orientation toward God, and its clear expression of Catholic theology, particularly the sacrificial nature of the Mass. In contrast, the Novus Ordo Mass often prioritizes the community and horizontal aspects of worship. For example, the priest now faces the congregation (versus populum), a practice with no precedent in Catholic liturgical history. This change detracts from the focus on Christ’s sacrificial offering and leads to what Cardinal Robert Sarah has called a "crisis of faith."

Communion Practices

The post-conciliar liturgical changes also introduced the practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand, a practice condemned by Pope St. Pius X. In Dominus Est, Bishop Athanasius Schneider critiques this innovation as fostering a lack of reverence for the Eucharist and contributing to a widespread loss of belief in the Real Presence.

Suppression of Tradition

The reforms have effectively suppressed the traditional liturgy, despite Sacrosanctum Concilium stating:

"There must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them" (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 23).

The prohibition of the TLM in many dioceses contrasts with Pope Benedict XVI’s declaration in Summorum Pontificum (2007) that the TLM was never abrogated and should remain available to the faithful.

Theological ambiguities on non-Christian religions

Nostra Aetate (Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions) has been particularly contentious due to its optimistic tone toward non-Christian faiths. It states:

"The Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions" (Nostra Aetate, 2).

While the Church has always recognized elements of truth in other religions, Nostra Aetate seems to be placing non-Christian religions on an equal footing with Catholicism. This contradicts the teaching of Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos (1928):

"The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. Let no man deceive himself with vain hope that they can be saved, even though they live honestly, unless they receive the faith."

The post-conciliar emphasis on interreligious dialogue has led to controversial actions, such as the 1986 interfaith prayer meeting in Assisi, where Pope John Paul II invited leaders of various religions—including pagans—to pray for peace. This has been a tacit endorsement of religious indifferentism.

Modernism and the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’

Many of the issues arising from Vatican II are not necessarily rooted in the Council’s texts but in the so-called “spirit of Vatican II.” This phrase has been used to justify numerous innovations and abuses in the Church that go far beyond the Council’s actual teachings. Examples include:

- The widespread denial of traditional doctrines, such as Original Sin, hell, and the necessity of the sacraments.

- The promotion of feminist theology, including calls for female ordination, despite clear teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994) that the Church has no authority to ordain women.

- The abandonment of clerical discipline, as seen in the relaxation of rules on priestly celibacy and the proliferation of dissenting theologians.

The so-called “spirit of Vatican II” is nothing else but a euphemism for the infiltration of modernism, condemned by Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907):

“Modernists pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true nature of the Church.”

The fruits of Vatican II

Christ teaches us to judge a tree by its fruits (Matthew 7:16). The fruits of Vatican II have been largely negative:

- Decline in Vocations: Seminaries and religious orders have experienced a dramatic drop in vocations since the Council.

- Loss of Faith: Surveys reveal that many Catholics no longer believe in key doctrines, such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

- Liturgical Abuse: The reverence and sacredness of the liturgy have been undermined by irreverent practices, such as “clown Masses” and banal music.

- Empty Churches: Mass attendance in traditionally Catholic countries has plummeted.

Pope Paul VI’s acknowledgment of abuses

Pope Paul VI himself, who presided over the Second Vatican Council from 1962 until 1965, expressed deep concern about the negative fruits that followed Vatican II. Just a few years after the Council, he admitted that it had opened the door to widespread confusion and abuse in the Church. In a particularly candid homily on June 29, 1972, he famously lamented:

“The smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God through some crack.”

This haunting statement reflects his awareness of the profound crisis that had engulfed the Church in the wake of Vatican II. Liturgical abuses, doctrinal dissent, and a general loss of reverence for tradition were spreading rapidly, leading many faithful to question the fruits of the Council.

Pope Paul VI also recognized that Vatican II had been exploited by those with modernist and liberal tendencies to push their own agendas. In a general audience on January 12, 1966, just one month after the Council’s conclusion, he stated:

“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the Council's pastoral character, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.”

By explicitly emphasizing the pastoral nature of Vatican II, Paul VI distanced it from the definitive, dogmatic authority of prior councils, such as Trent or Vatican I. This admission is crucial in understanding the Council’s limitations, as it refrained from definitively resolving theological disputes or defining new doctrines. Yet this pastoral nature did not prevent the post-conciliar period from being rife with misinterpretations and abuses.

Paul VI’s regret over liturgical abuses

While Pope Paul VI initially supported the liturgical changes, he later recognized that the reforms were being implemented in ways that undermined the sacredness of the Mass. In his address to a general audience on November 26, 1969, he acknowledged the concerns of Catholics distressed by the changes, saying:

“We may notice that pious persons are disturbed because certain rites, dear to them, have been changed or shortened.”

However, his acknowledgment of the problem went beyond mere pastoral sensitivity. Paul VI expressed his anguish over the erosion of reverence and the widespread abuses that accompanied the liturgical reforms. In a private letter to French philosopher Jean Guitton, Paul VI reportedly admitted:

“The reform has deprived the Church of her cultural patrimony. It has diminished the poetry of the liturgy. It has alienated the faithful.”

These admissions highlight Paul VI’s growing awareness that the liturgical reforms, though undertaken with good intentions, had led to unintended consequences that were harmful to the faith of many Catholics. The traditional rites, with their emphasis on the sacrificial nature of the Mass and their connection to centuries of Catholic worship, were replaced by practices that often felt banal or desacralized.

Acknowledgment of doctrinal confusion

In addition to liturgical problems, Paul VI also recognized the doctrinal confusion that had arisen after the Council. In his discourse at the close of the Synod of Bishops in 1974, he expressed grave concern about the state of the Church:

“We believed that after the Council there would be a day of sunshine for the history of the Church. But instead, we have found new storms. How did this come about? A Council should not be a cause of confusion.”

Paul VI’s lament underscores the failure of Vatican II to provide the clear guidance needed to counteract the growing tide of modernism and liberal theology. The ambiguities in the Council’s documents, which left room for conflicting interpretations, contributed to the doctrinal disarray. This was particularly evident in debates over religious liberty (Dignitatis Humanae), ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio), and the nature of the Church (Lumen Gentium).

The Council’s pastoral nature and Its limitations

Pope Paul VI repeatedly emphasized that Vatican II was a pastoral, not a dogmatic, council. This distinction is vital in understanding its authority—or lack thereof—when compared to earlier councils. Unlike the Council of Trent, which issued dogmatic definitions and anathemas to combat the Protestant Reformation, Vatican II deliberately avoided such definitive statements. In his closing address on December 7, 1965, Paul VI stated:

“The Council has been concerned with man, with man as he really is today, living man, man wholly taken up with himself, man who makes himself not only the center of his interests but dares to claim that he is the principle and final cause of all reality. Secular humanism has revealed itself in its terrible anticlerical reality... The religion of God who became man has met the religion (for there is such a one) of man who makes himself God.”

While Paul VI presented the Council as an effort to engage with the modern world, it instead led to a dangerous anthropocentrism—a focus on man rather than God. The Council’s pastoral nature left it open to misinterpretation and manipulation by those who sought to align the Church with secular ideologies.

Unintended consequences - a Church in crisis

Even though Vatican II was intended to renew the Church and make it more effective in evangelizing the modern world, the unintended consequences of the Council have been devastating by many measures. Pope Paul VI himself admitted this in his famous address on December 7, 1968, during the ninth anniversary of his pontificate:

“The Church finds herself in a period of anxiety, self-criticism, one might say even of self-destruction. It is like an internal upheaval, acute and complicated, which nobody expected after the Council.”

These words serve as a striking acknowledgment of the crisis that Vatican II inadvertently unleashed. Far from achieving a "new Pentecost," the post-conciliar period has been marked by:

- Liturgical abuses: The desacralization of the Mass, the abandonment of Latin, and widespread irreverence.

- Doctrinal dissent: A loss of clarity on key teachings, such as the necessity of conversion to the Catholic faith and the nature of the Church.

- Vocational collapse: A sharp decline in priestly and religious vocations, as seminaries and convents emptied at an alarming rate.

- Mass exodus of the faithful: Declining Mass attendance and widespread

Is Vatican II Un-Catholic? A Case for Rejection

One of, if not the most damning critiques of the Second Vatican Council is that it deviates so significantly from established doctrine and practice that it cannot, in good conscience, be accepted as truly Catholic. While proponents of Vatican II emphasize continuity with Tradition by being extremely selective in which parts they use to argue continuity, the Council clearly represents a rupture with the Church’s historical teachings, introducing ideas that align more closely with modernist ideologies and neo-Protestantism than with the timeless truths of Catholicism.

A Council Rooted in Modernism

Modernism, condemned by Pope St. Pius X as the “synthesis of all heresies” in Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907), aimed to reconcile Catholic doctrine with modern philosophical and scientific thought. While Vatican II avoided explicit heretical proclamations, its documents often adopt modernist language, leaving room for interpretations that undermine Catholic Tradition.

For example, the Council’s embrace of religious liberty in Dignitatis Humanae contradicts the teaching of Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura (1864), which condemned the notion that:

“Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.”

Instead, Dignitatis Humanae claims:

“The human person has a right to religious freedom” (Dignitatis Humanae, 2).

This shift from the Church’s traditional teaching—that error has no rights—reflects a modernist tendency to prioritize human autonomy over the objective demands of truth. Such a position is uncatholic, as it departs from the Church’s mission to proclaim the Kingship of Christ over all nations and individuals.

Vatican II’s Contradictions of Previous Councils

Ecumenical councils must align with the Church’s prior magisterial teachings to be valid. Vatican II, however, contains numerous points of tension, or even outright contradiction, with previous authoritative teachings:

- On Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio)

Vatican II promotes ecumenical dialogue with non-Catholic Christians, stating:

“The separated Churches and communities as such... have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation” (Unitatis Redintegratio, 3).

Compare this with the Council of Florence (1438-1445), which declared:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church... can have eternal life.”

Unitatis Redintegratio undermines the Church’s exclusive claim to be the one true Ark of Salvation, introducing confusion about the necessity of conversion.

- On the Nature of the Church (Lumen Gentium)

Lumen Gentium introduces the ambiguous phrase that the Church of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church:

“This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church” (Lumen Gentium, 8).

Traditionally, the Church taught that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. The distinction introduced by Lumen Gentium suggests that the Church of Christ might extend beyond Catholicism, creating theological confusion. Pope Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis Christi (1943) had previously affirmed:

“The Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same.”

The Fruits of Vatican II as Evidence of Its Un-Catholic Nature

As I have pointed out earlier, Christ teaches in the Gospel, a tree is known by its fruits (Matthew 7:16). The negative fruits of Vatican II—liturgical irreverence, doctrinal confusion, declining vocations, and widespread apostasy—raise serious doubts about the Council’s authenticity as a work of the Holy Spirit. Pope Paul VI himself lamented the “self-destruction” of the Church and recognized that the Council opened the door to many abuses.

For example, the Novus Ordo Missae, implemented after the Council, has led to a decline in belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. A 2019 Pew Research Center study found that only 31% of U.S. Catholics believe in the doctrine of Transubstantiation—a shocking erosion of faith that critics trace back to the desacralization of the liturgy after Vatican II.

Additionally, the Council’s emphasis on dialogue with other religions has often been interpreted as endorsing religious indifferentism, undermining the Church’s missionary mandate. As Pope St. Pius X warned in Pascendi Dominici Gregis:

“The first step in the direction of apostasy is religious indifferentism.”

The Question of Validity

Some Traditionalist Catholics (including myself), argue that Vatican II should be rejected in its entirety. While they acknowledge the Council’s ecumenical status, they maintain that its pastoral nature and lack of dogmatic authority make its teachings non-binding on the faithful. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the SSPX, stated:

“This Council represents, both in the minds of the Popes who convoked it and in the documents it produced, a new type of Council. It is a modernist Council.”

Others, such as sedevacantists, go further, arguing that the modernist tendencies of Vatican II render it invalid and that its implementation has led to a counterfeit Church.

The Duty to Reject Error

Wel have a duty to reject teachings that contradict the perennial doctrine of the Church. St. Paul writes in Galatians 1:8:

“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”

This principle applies to Vatican II insofar as its teachings conflict with Sacred Tradition. The Church’s indefectibility ensures that her core dogmas cannot change, but this does not mean that every pastoral council or document is free from error. Vatican II, with its ambiguities and innovations, must be evaluated in light of Tradition and, where it departs from it, rejected.

A Call to faithful resistance

Vatican II represents a rupture with the Church’s past, introducing ambiguities and innovations that have led to a crisis of faith and identity. Pope Paul VI’s acknowledgment of the Council’s pastoral nature, as well as his own regret over the abuses it enabled, underscores its limitations and the legitimacy of questioning its authority.

Ultimately, fidelity to the Catholic faith requires adherence to Sacred Tradition and the clear teachings of prior councils and popes. Vatican II’s modernist tendencies, doctrinal ambiguities, and disastrous fruits suggest that it is not in harmony with the Church’s perennial magisterium. As Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre declared:

“We are not the schismatics; we are not the heretics. We are the faithful transmitters of what the Church has always taught.”

In this light, the rejection of Vatican II is not an act of rebellion but of fidelity to the Catholic faith handed down from the Apostles. By returning to Tradition, the Church can restore her identity, renew her mission, and fulfill her divine mandate to proclaim Christ as the one true Savior of the world.

Additional sources that explore the problems and adjacent problems of Vatican II:

· "Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the Twentieth Century" by Romano Amerio

· "The Rhine Flows into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II" by Ralph M. Wiltgen

· "The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story" by Roberto de Mattei

· "The Desolate City: Revolution in the Catholic Church" by Anne Roche Muggeridge

· "The Great Facade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church" by Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods Jr.

· "Vatican II Revisited: Reflections by One Who Was There" by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

· "Animus Delendi I & II" by Atila Sinke Guimarães

· "The Problems with the New Mass" by Rev. Anthony Cekada

· "The Liturgical Time Bombs of Vatican II" by Michael Davies

· "The Changes in the Mass and the Problem of Obedience" by Rev. Franz Schmidberger

· "Open Letter to Confused Catholics" by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

· "Vatican II: Homage or Disobedience?" by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

· "Trojan Horse in the City of God: The Catholic Crisis Explained" by Dietrich von Hildebrand

· "The Second Vatican Council and the Message of Fatima" by Christopher A. Ferrara

· "Revolution and Counter-Revolution" by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

Ave Christus Rex!

Recognise and Resist!

ALSO READ:

Playing Church Destruction Bingo with a mythical Masonic document

A bunch of ‘mentally imbalanced’ Popes, Saints, and Theologians begs to differ with Pope Francis

To obey, or not to obey – that is the question

Pope Francis’ latest attempts to dismantle Catholicism and the Night Adorer devotion

Souls are lost due to Vatican II’s dilution of this dogma

Go ahead… treat yourself… reject the heretics and their heresy!