Editing Second Vatican Council (section)

== Controversies ==
[[File:Missale Romanum Pustet.jpg|thumb|An illustrated 1911 [[Roman Missal]] reprint from its 1884 edition]]

=== Validity of the Council ===
{{See also|Traditionalist Catholicism|Sedevacantism|Sedeprivationism}}
Some Traditionalist Catholics claim that several council statements conflict with established teaching regarding faith, morals and doctrine, and are therefore in error.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Twenty-five explicit errors of Vatican Council II |url=http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/vatican2.htm |access-date= |website=  |language=en}}</ref> As a result, they say, Vatican II is invalid.

The largest of the traditionalist groups rejecting the validity of Vatican II is the [[Society of Saint Pius X]] (SSPX), which recognizes the authority of the Pope but rejects the validity of the Second Vatican Council. In 1988, the SSPX faced a conflict with [[Pope John Paul II]] over the consecration of bishops ([[Écône consecrations]]), which led to disputed canonical sanctions. This event has been a subject of ongoing debate within the Catholic community regarding the validity of any purported excommunications.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Marcel Lefebvre |url=https://www.britannica.com/biography/Marcel-Francois-Lefebvre |access-date= |website=[[Encyclopædia Britannica]] |date=25 November 2023 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Esteves |first=Junno Arocho |date=4 April 2017 |title=Pope approves provisions to recognize marriages of SSPX faithful |url=https://www.ncronline.org/pope-approves-provisions-recognize-marriages-sspx-faithful |access-date= |website=[[National Catholic Register]] |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Casey |first=Paul M.D |date=28 April 2023 |title=SSPX Masses and Fulfilling the Sunday Obligation |url=https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2023/04/28/sspx-masses-and-fulfilling-the-sunday-obligation/ |access-date= |website=[[Catholic Family News]] |language=en}}</ref>

Other groups have gone further than the SSPX and have declared that the Holy See has been vacant since the death of [[Pope Pius XII]] ([[sedevacantism]]) or that all the Pontiffs since Pope John XXIII are popes [[Hylomorphism|materially but not formally]] ([[sedeprivationism]]). The most notable of these groups are the [[Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen]] and the [[Istituto Mater Boni Consilii|Institute Mater Boni Consilii]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Chryssides |first=George D. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LgvvaMgTsZ0C&q=sedevacantists&pg=PT75 |title=Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements |publisher=[[Scarecrow Press]] |year=2011 |isbn=978-0-8108-7967-6 |pages=310 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Pasulka |first=Diana Walsh |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0fqKBAAAQBAJ |title=Heaven Can Wait: Purgatory in Catholic Devotional and Popular Culture |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |year=2015 |isbn=978-0-19-538202-0 |pages=180 |language=en}}</ref>

=== Authority of the council's teaching ===
Since Vatican II issued no dogmatic definitions or anathemas, in accordance with the wishes of Pope John XXIII expressed particularly in his opening address to the Council,<ref name="vatican2voice.org"/> it would be easy to conclude that, apart from where it repeats  teaching that was already infallible before the Council, the Council's teaching is not binding, and that a Catholic is free to accept it or reject it.

This issue was addressed by Pope Paul VI five weeks after the end of the council in the talk he gave at his general audience of 12 January 1966:<ref>Translation of the Italian text at https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/audiences/1966/documents/hf_p-vi_aud_19660112.html.</ref>

<blockquote>There are those who ask what is the authority, the theological qualification, that the Council wished to attribute to its teachings, knowing that it avoided giving solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical [[magisterium]]. And the answer is known to those who recall the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary way dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility; but it nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, and this ordinary{{snd}}and obviously authentic{{snd}}magisterium must be accepted docilely and sincerely by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and purposes of the individual documents.</blockquote>

The issue is also addressed by the Code of Canon Law. While the [[1917 Code of Canon Law|1917 ''Code of Canon Law'']], in force in the [[Latin Church]] at the time of the council, simply stated "An Ecumenical Council enjoys supreme power over the universal Church,"<ref>Canon 228 § 1</ref> the [[1983 Code of Canon Law|1983 ''Code of Canon Law'']] states that Catholics may not disregard the teaching of an ecumenical council even if it does not propose its teaching as definitive:<ref>Canon 752: https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib3-cann747-755_en.html#BOOK_III.</ref> 
<blockquote>Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a Doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.</blockquote>

=== {{Anchor|Spirit of Vatican II}}"The Spirit of Vatican II" ===
By "the spirit of Vatican II" is often meant promoting teachings and intentions attributed to the Second Vatican Council in ways not limited to literal readings of its documents, spoken of as the "letter" of the council<ref>{{cite web |url=http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c02206.htm |title=James Hitchcock, The History of Vatican II, Lecture 6: The Effects of Council Part II |publisher=Home.comcast.net |access-date=1 July 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120719064228/http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c02206.htm |archive-date=19 July 2012 }}</ref><ref>[[Avery Dulles]], [http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2810 Vatican II: The Myth and the Reality]</ref> (cf. [[Paul the Apostle|Saint Paul's]] phrase, "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life"<ref>{{Bibleverse|2|Corinthians|3:6|NIV}}</ref>). However, Cardinal [[Joseph Zen]] has pushed back, that "it is nonsense to talk about the spirit of the Council, if you ignore the Documents of the Council."<ref>{{cite web |last1=Zen |first1=Joseph |title=Comments on Dr. Taylor Marshall's: "Viganò vs. Barron on Vatican II and Benedict XVI" |url=https://oldyosef.hkdavc.com/?p=2033 |website=平安抵岸全靠祂 |access-date=31 May 2024 |language=zh-TW |date=28 May 2024 |archive-date=31 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240531021551/https://oldyosef.hkdavc.com/?p=2033 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

Academic [[Michael Novak]] who had covered Vatican II as a journalist<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aei.org/basicPages/20031124161414312 |title=Introduction to The Open Church |edition=Millennium |date=24 November 2003 |access-date=1 July 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110610203034/https://www.aei.org/basicPages/20031124161414312 |archive-date=10 June 2011}}</ref> described it as a spirit that
<blockquote>sometimes soared far beyond the actual, hard-won documents and decisions of Vatican II. ...It was as though the world (or at least the history of the Church) were now to be divided into only two periods, pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II. Everything "pre" was then pretty much dismissed, so far as its ''authority'' mattered. For the most extreme, to be a Catholic now meant to believe more or less anything one wished to believe, or at least in the sense in which one personally interpreted it. One could be a Catholic "in spirit". One could take ''Catholic'' to mean the 'culture' in which one was born, rather than to mean a creed making objective and rigorous demands. One could imagine Rome as a distant and irrelevant anachronism, embarrassment, even adversary. Rome as "them".</blockquote> 
From another perspective, Church historian [[John W. O'Malley]] wrote:{{sfn|O'Malley|2008}}  
<blockquote>For the new churches it recommended [[inculturation|adaptation to local cultures]], including philosophical and theological adaptation. It also recommended that Catholic missionaries seek ways of cooperating with missionaries of other faiths and of fostering harmonious relations with them. It asserted that art from every race and country be given scope in the liturgy of the church. More generally, it made clear that the church was sympathetic to the way of life of different peoples and races and was ready to appropriate aspects of different cultural traditions. Though obvious-sounding, these provisions were portentous. Where would they lead?</blockquote>