Editing Second Vatican Council (section)

=== {{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>