The Second Vatican Council still dominates the life of the Catholic Church today. Many Church leaders argue that “acceptance of Vatican II” is the primary litmus test of Catholic faithfulness, while some Catholics argue Vatican II was terrible for the Church. Was Vatican II good or bad for the Church, or something in-between?
Watch on Odysee:
Watch on YouTube:
Transcript:
Eric Sammons:
The Second Vatican Council still dominates the life of the Catholic Church today. Many church leaders argue that the acceptance of Vatican II is the primary litmus test of Catholic faithfulness, while some Catholics argue that Vatican II was terrible for the church. So, was Vatican II good or bad for the church or something in between? We’re going to talk about that today on Crisis Point. Hello, I’m Eric Sammons, your host and the editor in chief of Crisis Magazine. As always, I encourage people to like and subscribe to this channel and let other people know about it. I really appreciate when you can do that. Also follow us at Crisis Magazine on your various social media channels at Crisis Mag. Okay. So, our guest today is John Monaco. He is a writer for Crisis Magazine. I’ll put that one first. And he’s a doctoral student in theology at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He’s a visiting scholar at the Veritas Center for Ethics in Public Life at Franciscan University of Steubenville as well. Welcome to the program, John.
John Monaco:
Thank you, Eric. Good to be here.
Eric Sammons:
As I mentioned in the introduction, Vatican II, it’s the subject that still dominates the church. It’s considered the super council by a lot of people, particularly leaders in the church. It’s considered the nexus of all evil by some Catholics. Why are we bringing up Vatican II again? And I’m doing it because I feel it’s becoming a litmus test. Do you accept Vatican II by some of our hierarchy? And so, we need to really talk about it. So, I want to first just start off with the question of simply, when you hear Vatican II, what’s the first thing that comes to your mind? What’s the first thing you think about?
John Monaco:
I’ll say, first thing that pops in my mind is change. Just the word change and let that one speak for itself.
Eric Sammons:
Yeah. That’s a good one. Change is definitely, I should have thought of that for myself. If I asked myself the same question, what would I say? Change is a good answer. And I would just say, honestly, I’ll give away my feelings at the beginning here. Failed experiment might be the first thing that I think of.
John Monaco:
Sure. Yeah.
Eric Sammons:
Okay. So, why do you think, you studied back into it yourself, why do you think it was called in the first place? Let’s go back to before Vatican II. Obviously John XXIII called it and a lot of the bishops were behind it, even though it was shocking at first. Why do you think it was called in the first place? Do you think it should have been called, but I think more importantly, why do you think John XXIII thought it should be called?
John Monaco:
So, I definitely think that, it being called was, a lot of the newspapers would say it took the world by storm, it shocked people. There’s an interesting line, I forgot where it is, it’s somewhere in, I think it was True and False Reform by Yves Congar. And apparently John XXIII was reading it and maybe this was around 1958 or 1959. And he says reform in the church, is that possible? And he was inspired by Yves Congar’s book, True and False Reform. And at the time there were already things like the liturgical movement, everyone knows the liturgical movement preceded the council. Everyone knows that a lot of the ecumenical movement preceded the council. But to have such a central event be announced, I think the first question is, for what?
Didn’t Vatican I essentially nullify the need for any future councils, some would argue. But then other people were probably thinking, finally this is our time. But I think that it was called as many commentators will point out, they’ll quote John XXIII, who said something along the lines of, you had to open the windows so that the Holy Spirit can come in into the church. That was assumed to be musty, lacking vitality, et cetera. And so, I think it was called for that reason just to respond to the needs and challenges of the modern world.
Eric Sammons:
Yeah. I think that the, one of the terms you used there caught my ear, it was the idea of reform and can there actually be reform in the church. I think because of the Protestant Reformation, which of course that’s the word reformation, the first thing everybody thinks of course is the Protestant Reformation. Which as Catholics we know was a disaster for everybody involved. And so, it tainted the word reform. And I know there are even Catholics today who are, the church can’t actually ever be reformed, but that’s not really historically true because look at the middle ages, particularly for example the 11th century, you have the great reforms of Pope Gregory VII and things like that. So, this idea of reform being something that can’t be done or is always a bad thing isn’t really a Catholic understanding, is it?
John Monaco:
No. And I think Martin Mosebach, he has that line where reform in its fullest sense is a return to form. I always liked that. And so, in the classic idea of matter and form, matter is the substance and the form is the vivifying principle of that, in the same way I think that any reform in the church, which is certainly possible, you mentioned the middle ages. I think of Clooney. I think of those monastic reforms. I think of the Catholic, the Counter-Reformation, you could even just call it the Catholic Reformation. You see all these movements. St. Teresa of Ávila, you have St. John of the Cross, Ignatius Loyola, later on St. Margaret Mary, and there’s certainly reformers in a certain way, insofar as the church when it returns to form, usually adopts things that are more true to the church’s mission.
For example, when I think of Catholic reformation, I’m thinking of the Carmelites. So, you had the order of Carmel and you had the Discalced Carmelites, those who went around without shoes, that’s why they’re called discalced. And you had St. Teresa of Ávila and John of the Cross. In that sense, the reform wasn’t making things more lax. It was actually responding to the wild secularization of the religious and returning to a more austere, some would say strict, but I would say more authentic living of the gospel of the statutes of the rule of St. Albert, et cetera. So, in that sense, any Catholic reform would always take the form, no pun intended, but it would always take the form of being a movement where the church is getting back to its core, its roots.
Eric Sammons:
Okay. So, in one sense, because the church is made up of sinful people, it’s always in need of reform. It’s never perfect. It’s never what it’s called to be. Yet obviously there are certain times in history where a more massive, a more significant reformation is needed. The Counter-Reformation, the Catholic Reformation, obviously an example, 11th century, if you know anything about the 10th century you know the 11th century, there was a need for reform. Do you think there was a need for reform in 1960, for example, before Vatican II, he called it in ’59, so right around then. Do you think there was a need for a significant reform in the church? Or do you think it really was more just let’s tidy up some loose ends, like sometimes needs to be done?
John Monaco:
I think that’s really the question that later on when we talk about Vatican II and its spirit, that’s what people return to. So, I’ll save the narrative stuff for later, but I’ll say in my personal opinion, from my own research into the Vatican council and the preparatory periods et cetera, it seemed to me that, and I think Crisis Magazine had an article of something about how I don’t want to go back to the 1950s, it wasn’t an ideal time. In that same way I would definitely say there was a need for serious reform. And the reason being was because, it depends who you ask, but you’ll hear people say the Latin mass, how it’s celebrated today isn’t how it was celebrated, those quick low masses and they were, you could do them in 15, 20 minutes.
And people are just going there and not really… And then come out and from a separate tabernacle, they’ll bring consecrated hosts and distribute to the faithful which had no connection to what was going on. The priest could just be starting the Eucharistic prayer when another priest comes out of the sacristy coming out with consecrated host. So, I think there was serious reform needed. However, that being said, I think that a lot of the movement that was being done in the liturgical movement, in the theological or resource amount, did that need a council or could it have existed essentially on its own. I think that’s my main question when I’m thinking of, because you have the different figures associated with the Neo-scholastic movement, and then you have the new theology, new Val theology and you have all this going on.
I wonder if there wasn’t a council, could these movements have just blossomed and different directives from Rome, from the Vatican to guide them to where they needed to be. Unfortunately, because there was a council, what ends up happening is that certain movements are then canonized. And so, then you’ll hear people say, Vatican II throughout Neotomism, now we have to return to those sources. That itself is a movement that predated the council. And so, reform was needed. Sure, it’s great to read the fathers and we should be returning to them, but how it essentially gets canonized and baptized even by the council in a way that enshrines it as the way. I think that’s where the reform spirals out of control. That’s a good question though.
Eric Sammons:
Yeah. Have you read Steve Bullivant’s book, Mass Exodus?
John Monaco:
I have. I think about it actually quite often.
Eric Sammons:
It’s excellent, it’s so good because he doesn’t try to, he tries to focus on the data. And one of the things I think is real eyeopening about his book is he talks about how the church leaders were recognizing in the early sixties, before Vatican II, there were some cracks forming for this beautiful image we like to make of the 1950s in the church. The fact is particularly as he mentions World War II had a great impact on the West, on how people were living, the move to the suburbs, these various factors. He focused on the United States, United Kingdom, but basically the idea though is that the church was definitely weakening and you can see it in some of the numbers. So, there was a need to at least address that. I would argue, and I don’t want to jump ahead either, but I argue with you perhaps a council isn’t what was necessary, but also I think one of the problems was, did they really have a grasp of what the real problem was.
One of the things that I had, probably my biggest criticism of Vatican II is that it’s very dated. It just comes across as a very 1960s type of thing. And so, they weren’t necessarily able to get a view of what’s really going on and what really do we need to address. What’s the real problem. It’s like the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Historically you might say it may have took too long before finally Trent was called and everything like that. But at the very least you could say that when Trent was called and when Trent ended and when everything happened, they knew everything that was wrong at that point, because it had been going on for quite some time. And this is just like starting the form and they immediately jumped to a council and maybe then they didn’t quite have a grasp of the real situation, why people were leaving and things like that.
John Monaco:
Yeah. I definitely would say that, I think Steven’s book, Mass Exodus, definitely shows in the data where the church was slipping through the cracks. You mentioned the move to the suburbs. And I think a lot of it was tied to the culture. So, I’m of Italian American descent. And so, we always had big feasts for St. Joseph, St. Rocco, San Gennaro. I didn’t even know who he was until later. I just saw these old Italian ladies pinning dollar bills to the statue of Prasassi. But the cultural, in these little ghettos, in the cities, I think like Detroit you have the Irish church, the French church, the German church, Chicago, Waterbury, Connecticut where I’m from, or New Haven, Connecticut, New York, you had the little enclaves.
And once those started breaking, there’s the question of what was left. But I definitely think there was a rush to the council. I’m not really sure why. It didn’t follow that same trajectory as did Trent which some people criticize, it responded too late. But the question about Vatican II is, what exactly is it responding to. In the same way that you may have Paul VI Humanae Vitae responding to the whole birth control question and this sexual liberate. That’s a clear, here’s the issue, here’s the response.
Eric Sammons:
Right.
John Monaco:
With Vatican II, there’s so much talk about it and there was so much discussion. It was like everyone’s excited to say something. And then we end up with a council that covers every topic under the sun from Revelation Dei Verbum to the church in Lumen Gentium to the church in the modern world. And it’s religious life priesthood. There was not a single stone that was not turned. And I think not all of those topics needed the treatment that they got.
Eric Sammons:
Right. That’s a great point actually, because if you look at most councils, they have very specific purpose in mind. Nicaea is Arianism or something like that. And Trent obviously is against the Protestant Reformation. Even Vatican I had a reason that was very clear cut going into it, but Vatican II, we think there’s problems. So, we probably need to do something about it, but there wasn’t a clear cut case of what is the actual problem. It’s not saying that there wasn’t problems, but what is the problem? Do we have a deep understanding problem because only then can you actually fix something is if you know what the problem is. And like you said, it almost seems like a grab bag of let’s just talk about how we’re going to do things from now on without any specifics.
So, let’s talk about the council. It’s leading up to the council. Let’s talk about the council a little bit. And I want to, like I told you before we got on, that let’s wait to talk about the implementation, the spirit of Vatican II, and talk about the council stuff. Because one of the big criticisms that you hear from people when anybody criticizes Vatican II is, they probably haven’t read the documents. They don’t know what actually was said. And I like to show my, this is my old copy from my days, 30 years ago and you can’t maybe see it on camera, but it’s basically falling apart. Okay, there we go. Whoops. Because I’ve gone through it a lot.
And so, what I want to ask you first is considering that what we’re saying about the environment that Vatican II was called in, what would you say about the actual documents of Vatican II? What it proclaimed. What would you say were probably the best things about it? What were the best proclamations, probably the most fitting, the most lasting. Now we have 60 years in hindsight, since it’s been called, what in hindsight would we say were probably the best things that came out of Vatican II itself?
John Monaco:
So, I would definitely say the best things that came out would include a more broad understanding of a church, not just as a perfect society or not just in external forms, rather as a Trinitarian mystery that draws in all the faithful, given their respective roles and duties and callings, but rather the inner life of the church as reflective of the Trinitarian communion. And then following this is part of where my research focuses on is, following the council. Then you have all this communion ecclesiology, but I think it was definitely if Vatican I really just focused on the figure of the Pope, Vatican II complimented that with a more focused study of the episcopacy in relation to the people of God in general. But I think that is one of the shining points of Vatican II, is the understanding of the church, which then branches out into the relationship of the Catholic church, especially with the separated churches, like the Eastern Orthodox church and et cetera.
I would definitely say the appreciation of the Eastern churches from, there were some documents, I believe of Pius XI and Benedict XV I believe, who had some documents dedicated, like for example, to the Armenians or whoever where it showed the treasures of the east are manifold. But I think within the ecumenical council, the way that they mentioned how all the rights of the church are of equal nobility and dignity, I think that opening the church is understanding and saying the Eastern churches aren’t just these units that we tolerate, but rather full vital members of the church and have something to offer to the world as to the Catholic witness. So, definitely those are some of my favorite documents. Lumen Gentium, Unitatis Redintegratio, you have Orientalium Ecclesiarum.
And so, you have those that deal with the Eastern church. And then actually I think Dei Verbum too, is a very, very strong document. It’s criticized by some because they don’t like the idea of the modes of revelation, how they divvied them up in the document. But Dei Verbum makes it very clear. Things like the historical critical method and other forms can be tolerated insofar as they respect the mystery of revelation. And so, I think not so much because of the historical critical method, its allowance, but I think Dei Verbum gave a very proper understanding of the church and the revelation bit. There’s that part in Dei Verbum where it says something that the magisterium does not essentially create revelation, but rather serves it. And I think that ordering thing, especially today, I think that’s very important. So, I’d say the document on revelation, the documents on the church and the Eastern churches are very strong, I would say too.
Eric Sammons:
Yeah. It’s funny as you were answering, I was trying to think of myself and I think we have very similar views here because I’m an unapologetic fan of Dei Verbum. I know the whole debate about the forms of revelation and scripture traditionally like that. I love Dei Verbum. I think it does a great job of explaining the three pillars of Catholic. The faith, the scripture tradition, magisterium. I think Dei Verbum is wonderful. I’m sure I could nitpick if I really wanted to in certain ways. But really, I think Dei Verbum is great. Also, I think I was going to say that I do really appreciate how the Eastern churches came more into their own through Vatican II.
I still think there’s a long ways to go with that. I think it’s ridiculous that the Vatican actually has an office in charge of the Eastern churches. That’s just not the way it should be. That’s just not the way it should be and things like that. But at the same time, a lot of good progress has been made in treating the Eastern churches as what they should be, which is full churches within the unity of the Catholic church. Talking about the Eastern Catholic churches of course for people listening. Orthodox churches are obviously a little bit different for obvious reasons. And also I think that the point about the church, I feel like I’m not quite enthusiastic. I do like the idea of if you look at Catholic teaching from the first millennium and even going on, making it not just a company that’s the pope in charge of which is essentially what it started to become by the early 20th century that there was nobody else.
The bishops are just middle managers. And when you start to realize that a bishop is a full successor to the apostle and truly somebody who got a divine mandate in his job, and he’s not simply just answering to the pope and everything. I think that can too really help with that. It’s funny because today under JP II, all the big Spirit of Vatican II people are, it’s great bishops are on their own they don’t need the pope. And now of course the roles are reversed and people like me are saying the bishops don’t have to always answer to Rome. So, I get the irony here, and I think honestly that’s actually connected to the Eastern understanding.
Obviously I’m not promoting the Eastern Orthodox view of the pope’s role, but a more full role for the bishops in the community, the church, am I going to say the word synodality, no. But a more full role I do think is good. And I think that’s part of it. You mentioned Lumen Gentium and I can’t get over some of the howlers I think in Lumen Gentium. Howler is probably not the best word, but the whole idea of the Catholic church, the church of Jesus Christ subsist in, which obviously is a big controversy. But that’s not to say the whole document, I don’t want to write off the whole document, but I do think there are some issues with lines like that, that make me a little bit less praiseworthy of something like Lumen Gentium than I am with Dei Verbum.
John Monaco:
Yeah, I definitely think each of the documents has a particular strong point and not everything said in the documents of course has the same weight et cetera, if you want to talk about it’s a value to the magisterium. Gaudium et Spes is talking about various initiatives that countries can pursue together, is not of the same value as the idea of the Eastern churches being true particular churches et cetera. But I do think though that where the documents… The documents are beautiful, in many ways they’re poetic. In other ways, I feel if you read the text of the early ecumenical councils, they’re not nearly as elaborate in terms of their wording. You read Nicaea, you read Constantinople, et cetera and they’re not these long essays on the church.
In fact, they zero down or narrow down and pinpoint to the minute detail of what it is for Christian orthodoxy to be exactly that. And it’s opposite what it is to be heterodox and heretical. And I think that part of the issues with Vatican II is, first of all, major huge council, people from all over, major documents, constantly going through revisions and being floated on, et cetera. And then we end up with these massive texts and they’re great reflections, but at the same point, it’s entirely possible for a person to point to one part of the document and say this, and then another person on the other side of the ecclesiological spectrum to say that, whereas if you had an anathema that said whoever says that marriage and virginity are of the same dignity so to speak, let them be anathema.
Clearly you have a position that is doctrinal and you have a position that is being stated in the condemnation way of saying whoever says this, you’re wrong. You don’t really get that in Vatican II. You have that big document, long paragraphs. And so, it becomes harder to pinpoint what exactly is being said. If that makes sense.
Eric Sammons:
I think actually that’s an excellent point and it crystallized in my own head while you’re talking, you see this as a very modern church way of doing things. There’s lots and lots of words. And so, the catechism, the modern catechism Catholic church, there’s a lot that’s great in the catechism, but it does use a lot of poetic language and a lot of words for something that really a catechism, the Baltimore catechism said just as much as the important stuff, and it’s a lot shorter and a lot simpler. And so, it opens up vectors of interpretation and Vatican II is the same way. Those documents, if they’re written by, let’s say some theologian or even a bishop or something as a pastoral letter, you’d be, okay great.
Because nobody would take a pastoral letter by, let’s say the bishop of Paris wrote a pastoral letter and it was Lumen Gentium, people would wow, this is great. Lots of good stuff in here, but if there’s some things that were a little bit funny, nobody would be like whatever, it’s just a bishop in Paris given pastoral letter. But because it’s an economic council, it’s oh my goodness we really have to nitpick now and parse every single word. And what does this mean? How does this mean that? And maybe one person says this, one person says that. And it just really, whereas something like Nicaea where we have a creed, you just say it or you don’t.
And you see that with Trent. So, I do think that’s a very good point. And I think that’s the modern way because you look at people and cyclicals modern ones, oh my gosh they are so long. And they just keep getting longer. JP II really, he started… And the thing is, I say it as somebody who’d read those and they come out and I just loved them. It’s not that I don’t love them, but there’s lots of words. And now, Francis, he goes even to a new level. I even thought when Cordileone, when he announced that he was banning Nancy Pelosi from holy communion, he took a lot of words to say that.
And it’s just the modern way they do it. Just say she can’t go, you don’t need to have all these words. But I know that’s just the way we do things. So, I think that, like you said, I think it opens it up to, the term I just coined, vectors of interpretation that can be problematic, that’s for sure. So, we said what’s good. Of the documents themselves of what Vatican II produces of, not the implementation like that. What would you probably say are probably the most problematic elements to be found? Not beyond just the fact that there’s a lot of things that are said that probably didn’t need to be said in a council, but actually that you’d say, the document itself, the way it’s worded, I think this is at least problematic for bad interpretations, if nothing else.
John Monaco:
Yeah. The line that gets me I think the most, I’m pulling it up right now. And I think about it quite often. And I think it’s something that Peter Kosminsky mentioned is… So, in Sacrosanctum Concilium, which I think every trad Catholic worth his salt has read it a dozen times. There’s a line, it’s number 34, where it’s talking about the norms based on the didactic and pastoral nature of liturgy, which itself is of course a point of contention, but it says the right should be distinguished by a noble simplicity. They should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions. They should be within the people’s powers of comprehension and normally should not require much explanation. And that’s the red flag for me, in terms of where you see those, because as all documents are, they’re composed by people.
Even if we believe that the holy spirit is guiding in the church, sometimes biases can creep through. And that as someone who now exclusively attends the Eastern rights, I’m just blown away at what is a useless repetition. Who determines that? What do you mean to be understood in terms of the liturgy? That’s one where it’s not a doctrinal, it’s a prudential statement, but it’s clearly rooted in something that is their vision of the liturgy, which of course will then lead to liturgy wars and all that. And I think that in terms of Sacrosanctum Concilium that’s a lightning rod, because you could read it to the letter and end up with a mass celebrated by Robert Vasa or Cordileone. And you could see they’re doing, let’s say the Novus Ordo Mass.
Wow. They’re following the letter of Sacrosanctum Concilium, there’s Gregorian chant, there’s this, there’s even doing Orientalium et cetera. And then you could have, and as we saw in the responses to tradiciones gustodes, there’s people who then say, active participation Sacrosanctum Concilium and then are pointing the same document, but completely different liturgies that look like completely different religions at some point. So, I think one of the bad parts about Vatican II, is not so much the documents themselves, but the weaponized ambiguity that there’s ambiguous statements, or even just bias statements that are prudential, which are then clung to, and they end up meaning more than what they would be. I also think, and this was Archbishop Marcel’s biggest complaint was Jimitatis Sumane and I know Thomas Spink and others have tried to read that in a way that’s fully in continuity with past teaching on religious liberty.
But as Bishop Athanasius Schneider would point out that there’s no positive to error and to religious freedom insofar as it’s choosing the wrong. And so, I think that those documents, for example, I think it’s in Gaudium et Spes where they say that we want a world authority that’s even in Benedict XVI Davis Caritas I believe that he talks about there needs to be a world authority which is pointing towards the modern day UN. I think, again we were talking about before how the Vatican instead of just responding to certain things, they just threw stuff at the wall and said what’s stuck and what’s sliding down. So, I think definitely the document, our religious liberty, especially with the traditional communities that are going to be more hostile to the council.
That’s one of the ones that we just need as Bishop Schneider would say maybe a future syllabus of errors and say, this is the one authoritative way to interpret the stock and all else. So, I think that, Sacrosanctum Concilium, the optimism of Gaudium et Spes and that’s pretty much it, a lot of the smaller documents like Ad Gentes and you have even the document, I think Archbishop Marcel actually loved the document on the priesthood. He thought it was very noble and edifying. I remember reading in his writing that he walked away from Vatican II saying that’s probably his favorite one. So again, with accounts like this, there’s something for everybody that could be the problem.
Eric Sammons:
Yeah, right. I want to read that 34 from Sacrosanctum Concilium again. The right should be distinguished by a noble simplicity. They should be short, clear, and free from useless repetitions. They should be within the people’s powers of comprehension and normally should not require much explanation. And I want to reread that again, because we were just talking earlier about how great it was that Vatican II opened us up to the Eastern churches and the fullness of them being true particular churches. There is no more antithetical conception of the liturgy than that paragraph right there. For anybody who has not gone to an Eastern liturgy, just trust me, this is completely antithetical to that. Now that being said, I do think it’s true that the Roman liturgy has always been marked by a greater simplicity than the Eastern liturgies.
It definitely does have that. It always has had that more than the Eastern liturgy does, but the fact that they would put an ecumenical council, this very generic way, like you said, could be interpreted in so many ways, like you said, what’s a useless repetition. How many times do you say Lord have mercy in an Eastern liturgy? Like 4,000. For me it seems like every… You’re saying it over and over and over again. Is that a useless repetition? Some people might honestly think it is, but what determines that, who determines that? If all of a sudden maybe the patriarch of the Melkite church said we got too many Lord have mercies in our liturgy, some of them are useless. Is he allowed to then cut some out? It really does open ourselves up to a lot of issues with that.
And so, I think what you’re saying though is a great point. That’s more a matter of it’s saying things a council should not say, it’s okay if bishops maybe have these opinions and even promote them and say, let’s start thinking about this, but a council saying this generic thing that could be interpreted so many different ways. We see what happens. So, you don’t have… Okay, I’m just going to put you on the spot here because it’s one of my bugaboos I admit, which is Lumen Gentium saying that the church of Christ exist in the Catholic church. I wrote about this in my book, Deadly Indifference, a lot because, I made clear that the churches had clarification after clarification of what that means in an Orthodox way. Ratzinger spent half his career trying to clarify that one phrase.
John Monaco:
Yes.
Eric Sammons:
And so, I get that there are Orthodox ways to read that, but in my mind, practically speaking, it was a disaster because what it did was it opened up for so many people the ability to say, basically the Catholic church is just one manifestation of the church of Christ. And then you also have other, the Protestant churches and Protestant denominations, and ecclesial communities, whatever you want to call them, that the church of Christ also subsist in there. And that’s explicitly what somebody were saying. And if they had just stuck to the language of the church of Christ is the Catholic church, or just not had the line in there. I think a lot of these problems wouldn’t have happened. So, are you okay with the language like it is or do you think it’s also had some problems? I just throw you right on the spot.
John Monaco:
I remember in seminary, I think we had an entire class in our ecclesiology class where we just read the Lumen Gentium. And then we looked at that part in light of Ratzinger and his understanding. So, traditionally of course this would be the breaking point for many people who say no, church of Christ is the Catholic church, not subsist. And I think they had ecumenical concerns, of course the council fathers where they would say, subsistent but as Ratzinger, as you know, would say, subsisting in is a kind of being, it’s like the church is subject, it stands on its own in terms of this idea that there’s a unique singularity or oneness that is the church in which it exists on its own. The church of Christ in the Catholic church with those fragments maybe found elsewhere.
Do I like it? It somehow makes sense insofar as, I think it is Robert Bellarmine, his definition of the church when he says the heretics and apostates are not part of it. Of course the line in the sand is drawn. The same time I look at the Eastern Orthodox who we’re not in communion with and I looked that they do have a valid Eucharist. And I think if you wanted to be very militantly neo-scholasticism, you’d say they are valid because it’s apostolic succession, but completely illicit because they’re not in union with Rome. And I think that’s, if I were a council father, that would be really the only reason I would choose subsist, because I would acknowledge that there’s some churchiness going on there. They’re not to be equated with Jehovah Witnesses or even Methodists who are creating their own baptismal formula.
There’s clearly something there and historical studies about the great schism and then what followed. There’s Eucharistic sharing to use a postulator term, but Eucharistic hospitality between the two. So, in Venice if Orthodox people came they could attend the Catholic church and there’s been some historical studies done on that. There’s clearly an acknowledgement that they are part of the church, but certainly separated. Then again, as you mentioned, it opens a floodgate because then it will just lead to indifferentism, because what do you gain being if the church of Christ subsist in the Catholic church and the implications that the church of Christ is also existing outside of the Catholic church, then existence is existence. Why not go to that one? So, if they said the church of Christ is the Catholic church, I don’t know if that would have as many negative consequences as what we saw following. I really don’t know.
Eric Sammons:
Yeah. It’s interesting because I actually years ago wrote a high school textbook on humanism, religious dialogue, and the way we structured it was that we started with the Catholic church. And then we went out to based on how attached they are to the Catholic church. So, Orthodox first then Protestant, then you have Jewish, Muslim and everybody else. And I really have come to, in my own view, it’s not just that the Orthodox churches are closer to us, that’s true, but they’re fundamentally of a different kind than all the others. In fact, we have that in the official language we use, we call them churches and we call the Protestant ecclesial communities. And then of course the Jews and Muslims and the rest of them aren’t even part of anything Christian.
So, I do think that, and so wording it such that it would include the Orthodox the problem though of course is that it then, like you said, everybody else jumps in on that. Everybody else can be part of that. Once you say that the church of Christ is outside the Catholic church in some way, or at least imply it, then it’s who couldn’t be part of the church. Because nice pagan who follows his conscience, now he’s part of the church of Christ. It just gets very difficult at that point when you do that. Now one of the things I’ve started doing in the past few years is I like to talk about the Vatican to event.
By that I mean, there’s always the stuff you got to read the documents, the documents say this, but then what actually happened is that. That’s the main conservative Catholic critique is that there’s a fundamental difference between Vatican II documents and then what happened afterwards. And so, I call it the event because I feel you can’t truly completely separate those two things, because for one reason it’s literally the same people who are approving the documents that are implementing it later. And also the fact is that, how can you say that the bishops and the pope who implemented it, that they were wrong but there, but they’re okay in the council. Seems odd to me, but at the same time there’s clearly a separation in the minds of a lot of liberals. So, how would you marry all that together between the documents, the implementation, the spirit of Vatican II and all that?
John Monaco:
As you mentioned, I think it’s a Bologna school of thought that the historians that examined the council that would talk about Vatican II as an event. And there is the hermeneutic of rupture where it’s new Pentecost, the old one wasn’t good enough apparently. Complete break with the past. This is new. Church did change teachings et cetera. And then you have the hermeneutic of reform and continuity or normally called hermeneutic of continuity where it’s, we just read the council documents and then see how it is just a continuation of past teaching. The traditionalist, depending on which side of the spectrum they’re on. The traditionalist argument that this is completely unacceptable. There are errors or that the errors are prudential in nature, or that we may need a future syllabus itself.
I would definitely say though, that I’ve moved away from being a Vatican II apologist who just thinks everything’s great about the council and says, just read the documents. The documents are fine. That was the party line when I was in seminary, there was never any criticism of Vatican II itself. All criticism was directed towards its spirit. And there was this, I would say a naive optimism that if we just read the council documents and read them as a conservative would, then we will see that they were great and that they didn’t contradict past teaching. To which I would say that if you do read the documents and read them carefully, or even more is if you read the schēmas from the schēma, I think in Latin would be. But if you read the drafts of what was supposed to be the council documents, and then you see the documents themselves, no amount of reading the documents can satisfy the idea that there’s no criticism to be found.
Because I definitely think that the event can’t be separated. There were clearly those who, and I’ve written about in the past, that lament right after Vatican II, the council didn’t go far enough. We had to negotiate and agree upon this word. I would say the equivalent is and I think of the line in scripture where Jesus says, you’ll know them by their fruits. I think you could also judge counsels based on that, privately of course, you can’t publicly judge that, but in your own reflection. And what I think of is the same bishops, depending on where they were, if you’re Ottaviani and voted on the documents, but had very strong reservations. Then it tended to be that in whatever diocese or ministry that bishop or priest would find himself in the councils implemented conservatively. But if you were one of the bishops who were there, who said it didn’t go far enough. Then you get the spirit of Vatican II, at the same point it’s the same council and a council that leaves itself.
I think of it too when people say the hermeneutics of Vatican II, I’m thinking a hermeneutic, a tool for interpreting something, what kind of council needs one to begin with. In terms of you don’t really need a hermeneutic to read in Nicaea that Christ shares is of the same substance as the father. You don’t need a hermeneutic to understand that Trent is responding to completely faulty understandings of the mass as a sacrifice. A true and proper sacrifice. Even Vatican I, I’ll skip Pastor Aeternus, and just go to the other document in which they’re talking about how the knowledge of God and the society Romans, but how one can come to knowledge of that God exists using human reason. So, you don’t really need a hermeneutic, it’s right there clear. The fact that we have this council where there’s different schools of interpretation. It is an event. The council truly is an event, whether it was a good event or a bad event, or a mixing of the two is I think where the debate comes in.
Eric Sammons:
Yeah. I think it’s interesting. I’ve had a similar evolution as you. For a long time I just stuck with the conservative party line I guess you call it, for lack of a better term, the documents itself can’t be criticized, it’s only the implementation and I think we’ve already talked about the documents, we don’t have to rehash that, but I do think there was obviously it left open for a lot of these implementations that I think all faithful Catholics acknowledge, did not help. A lot of the things that happened after Vatican II, I don’t think there’s very many serious Catholics who would defend clown masses or whatever the case may be. Some of the craziness going on. And then you see, of course, all the stuff that happened after Vatican II that wasn’t called for in the liturgy with ultra girls communion in hand, turning the versus populum, all the various things that there was nothing in Vatican II explicitly that called for any of that.
But somehow it was all part of this renewal effort which ended up having disastrous results. But the fact is that today we jumped to today, Vatican II has become in a lot of ways the litmus test, tradiciones gustodes which you mentioned earlier, which of course has to do with the liturgy, but really it doesn’t just have to do with the liturgy because Pope Francis made it very clear that his concern is, that there’s a rejection of Vatican II going on. And you see that in a lot of the bishops when they’ve implemented it, they’ve talked a lot about this idea of rejecting Vatican II. In fact, some bishops who have banned Ad Orientem, they have made that a test of whether or not you accept Vatican II, that if you celebrate Ad Orientem, somehow you’ve rejected Vatican II. Which is intellectually just dumb. I don’t know what’s the right word, but it’s ridiculous. So, how do we get out of this idea of the proper way to look at the council in a Catholic way that is, and places it in the context of church history and in our own times?
John Monaco:
Yeah. It is a litmus test. And I think if everyone’s just going to be honest, they have to admit that Vatican II is the occasion of which they can push through whatever they want. So, if conservatives want Gregorian chant in the liturgy, they’ll go to Vatican II. If people say, we should have ecumenical prayer services, they’ll point to Vatican II, et cetera. I think first of all, the question is when you hear people like Pope Francis, for example, saying it’s a rejection of Vatican II. My first question is whose Vatican II? Is this the Vatican II as understood by JP II and Ratzinger? Or is this the Vatican II understood by, I don’t know, Cardinal-
Eric Sammons:
Cardinal Cupich.
John Monaco:
Yeah, exactly. I was thinking Cardinal Roche, Cardinal Cupich. And in that same way, the fact that there’s two very different interpretations means that there is no unified consensus on it. And then a second point I would add is that there’s, I would call it the Vatican II reduction, this idea you’ll see all these different letters, et cetera. And you’ll see bishops say, as Vatican II taught, and I get it. It’s the most recent ecumenical council. But at the same point, why do you need to keep going back to that council? You never hear them say, as council of Nicaea said, Christ…
Eric Sammons:
Or Lateran III said or something like that.
John Monaco:
Yeah, exactly. Or even something like that, or as the council of Trent taught everything is filtered. You mentioned at the beginning, I think of a super council. Everything is filtered through this one unquestionable council. And for a council that didn’t issue any anathemas for a council that is pastoral, which doesn’t mean it’s completely irrelevant, but that it’s not offering new doctrinal definitions or anathematizing anything. It becomes the question of, then it can mean anything to anyone. And therefore it’s not so much about, will you reject Vatican II. I think Francis would say, no, you reject me and my vision of what the church should be of which I’m scooping out of Vatican II what I’d like. And so, in that same way it does become this weird litmus test that it’s, do you accept Vatican II?
And it’s like, which parts? First of all, the documents are this long. That’s why the translations of Vatican II are here, the commentators are there. Which part am I supposed to like? This idea of a one unified world government from Gaudium et Spes or the question of revelation and what is in Vatican II that wasn’t found elsewhere, even implicitly. So, it just becomes this one big litmus test that judges whether you’re on the right side or the wrong side. But depending on who spoke or who’s in power or who you’re talking to, it’ll read different things, which I think is a major issue.
Eric Sammons:
Yeah. Somebody pointed out to me a few years ago that if you look at, especially papal documents, that if you look at the references, they’re almost exclusively from the Bible, but also then from Vatican II on. And so, I started, it’s almost like a game I play now when a new papal document comes out, I’m like how many references to something pre Vatican II that’s not the scriptures. And it’s unbelievable if there’s a hundred references and a hundred non-biblical references, 95 of them usually are from Vatican II, or later. There’s a weird habit of Francis of quoting himself a lot. Half his references are to his own saying, which is a bit odd, but it just shows a certain understanding of the church. That just seems to be not in keeping with the Catholic idea of tradition.
Everyone talks about this. The idea of tradition that we have this 2000 years to take from, and to build upon and really to look back to, and we’re only looking at these 60 years as the only thing that really matters for today. And that just seems to be a poor way of looking at. And I think your point was good also about that when a bishop says, you have to accept Vatican II, what they’re really saying is you have to accept me and my way of doing things, not just Pope Francis, but Cupich when he says it or any of these bishops. And they say, don’t do Ad Orientem, it’s almost like a power play. It’s like I’m going to make you submit to this, which I know, I hope they know isn’t part of Vatican II, but I’m going to call it part of Vatican II. Although I don’t know, maybe they don’t know.
Honestly, I’ve been a little bit surprised at times that bishops don’t always know details like that. So, how do we deal then with Vatican II today in the sense of the narrative surrounding it? The problem is it’s such a toxic topic at this point, it just simply cannot be brought up. One of the reasons for this podcast was to try to bring it up in a way that it doesn’t just become, it’s either completely evil or it’s completely the only thing that matters. How should we as Catholics look at Vatican II and implement it in our own spiritual lives and our own Catholic understanding of revelation and tradition and everything?
John Monaco:
I would say that to their credit in the papacys of John Paul II and Benedict XVI who I try to tell people, just because you think they’re a traditionalist they’re not traditionalist. I would say they sift through the documents, which is not the same as picking and choosing what to believe in, but rather seeing which things are necessarily most pertinent. Gaudium et Spes in the church and the modern world, that modern world no longer exist. That’s not the world we live in. You can’t search Vatican II to find something in which it talks about these postmodern ideas of what it means to be male, female, trans, et cetera. Or proper use of social media or whatever. Now, please, that’s not me begging for a new ecumenical counselor to deal with these issues.
I think we could take a little break for a while, but what I would say is that how to manage these narratives is first of all. So, from my personal experience, if I were teaching a class and using the catechism, the catechism would cite many doctors of the church would cite them, would cite like you see Augustine’s sermons or Aquinas or St. Bernard of Clairvaux et cetera. And it could be some beautiful stuff. And I think insofar as you view Vatican II, as handing on of the same faith in new language, I would feel very free, so to speak, to cite it. Some of the more thorny issues on religious liberty or the relationship of the Catholic church to non Catholic communions and ecclesial communities, that could be a little thornier, the liturgy.
You could read Sacrosanctum Concilium in a way that you gain so much edification through its doc channel teaching about what the liturgy is. And I think Ratzinger said the most important part of Vatican II was the reorienting of the church in light of the paschal mystery. You could argue that. I don’t think the church forgot about the paschal mystery until 1962, but I do get what they’re talking about. What he’s talking about there. But I would say definitely the utilization of the documents to proclaim the same true old faith. But once it’s viewed as the updating the adjournomento, or the latest software update. So, we’re in version of the church 10.2, if you’re using anything that’s 10.1 or 10.0, you’re wrong. You need to check for updates and hit the update button. I think that’s… Use the technology analogy that’s terrible. And that does represent the break with the past.
Eric Sammons:
We see that with the teaching on the death penalty, is the perfect example of that, where it’s which version of the catechism. The catechism I have sitting back here was the original one. So, it says the death penalty is obviously admissible. And then if you have the latest version, I didn’t get the download yet. And so, it’s…
John Monaco:
Don’t connect to the internet.
Eric Sammons:
I know, I don’t want to connect to the internet because my brain’s going to update what I’m supposed to believe. And so, it really is. I think that software analogy is great. I’m a former computer programmer, that’s probably why I like it so much. But this idea that we’re supposed to update and you see that with the death penalty stuff where they’ll say, you just can’t believe that the death penalty is admissible ever as a Catholic. You just condemned millions of Catholics, every pope until this one, because even JP II and Benedict accepted that was acceptable. How can you do that? But like you said, we’re on 10.2 now. Don’t be talking about 10.1, that’s old. We need to update that.
John Monaco:
One last thing I’ll mention about the narrative or just how it would work with the updating is I’ve asked people in the past if a Catholic in 1958 was just living their Catholic life, going to mass, doing their devotions, believing the same content of faith that was taught to them. If we just discovered them in, let’s say the Amazon rainforest and they’re still whatever age they are, let’s say they’re in good health and they’re practicing the faith like it was in 1958. Is there anything of Vatican II, that they need to now ascent to that wasn’t substantially already part of the faith that was taught to them. If the answer is yes, then I think we have a few issues. If the answer is no, then Vatican II is then seen as a reformulation essentially of when you have patterns in the ocean where you have in the bubbling up and it’s the same water, but it’s going through different motions.
If the answer is then no, there is nothing. Then I think we can move on without this narrative, do you accept Vatican II or not. Because it would be the same question as saying, do you accept the faith as it was taught to you? I think that if we found that person in that time capsule who just is doing the 1958 thing, not saying 1958 was perfect, but at the same point I think the question then becomes what did Vatican II teach that would then be added to this person’s software. The software update. Can this person using version 1958 still function as a Catholic in good standing believing all the same stuff, or are there now new things that Catholics need to accept? If it’s a latter, then I don’t really know what people can then expect, because then that means that something has been added that’s new and that’s not the Orthodox understanding of tradition or really development of doctrine even.
Eric Sammons:
Yeah. It becomes very much an Anglicanism where, and I mentioned this the other day on social media, what that devolves into is always a rejection of the past. And so, the person who was hip and cool and a reformer 20 years ago is now a retrograde because he doesn’t accept the, let’s say he was all pushing for women priests 20 years ago, now he’s not hip because he’s not on board with transgendered priests or whatever. And so, when father James Martin or whoever is pushing for we need to change, we need to change, we need to change. If we really go along with that in 50 years, his people are going to look back at him as he’s this terrible dinosaur who should be rejected. And by rejecting the 1958 hypothetical Catholic, that’s what we end up becoming is an Anglicanism that’s constantly evolving, not reforming, not developing, but actually evolving into something different overall.
And that’s not Catholicism. That’s for sure. Now I want to return real quick. The one thing I said at the beginning was when I said my first thought were failed experiment. I just want to make sure I explain that there, by what I mean is that I think that, and I want to hear your thoughts on this too, is when I look back into, and I tend to do this. I tend to think that most of the people involved with it had good intentions, John XXIII, most of the bishops who showed up, I’m not completely sold in the infiltration aspect of it. I don’t completely deny it either. I definitely think there were some involved, it’s hard to look at Bugnini and not say something was going on there. At the same time I think the vast majority of the bishops there and John XXIII definitely had good intentions. And they had an idea that there maybe was something that needed to be updated because something was wrong at least needed to be reformed.
And so, all that was fine. And I just think, ultimately what I think is that it was a fire was starting to burn and they threw some gasoline on it though, instead of throwing water on it to get rid of it. It wasn’t that big of a fire yet. It was there, but it wasn’t that big and they threw gasoline on it. And that’s why I would say it was a failure ultimately in achieving what it, so it wasn’t the intentions that were bad, but just the implementation and when I say implementation I mean the actual documents themselves at times. And then of course, what came after that. So, what would you say to that thesis? Are you along with that, or would you say that’s a little bit of a bridge too far?
John Monaco:
No, I would agree insofar as I would say, what was John XXIII’s goal? His true goal, not the conspiracy theorists understanding that he wanted to destroy the church from within. What was his true goal? And if you ever read his diary you could see he’s a man of deep, deep spirituality and deep prayer. And I don’t think he was the devil in carnet like some ultra uber trads might… But what was his goal? And if it was for the church to respond to the modern world, a response in and of itself is neutral. You could respond to something positively though or negatively. And I wonder how wise it was to have the documents and the council itself focus on so many topics, because if it was to focus on, let’s say the Catholic church role in education, or the Catholic church’s role in navigating let’s say peace across the world. So, it’s a focus topic, it’s a narrow topic, but by talking about essentially everything in the church, even Vatican I didn’t do that. Vatican I did not talk about why it had also ended early due to…
Eric Sammons:
Or Trent.
John Monaco:
Yeah. Or Trent.
Eric Sammons:
Which was a pretty comprehensive council Trent was. In general it was, but it wasn’t anything like Vatican II in that regard.
John Monaco:
Exactly. And so, I think that to go back, I think a failed experiment’s a good way to describe it. If you’re saying Vatican II was an attempt to re Christianize the world. I think it was one of the early documents of John XXIII, or prior to the council where he says one of the biggest evils in the world is ignorance of the truth. And so, if Vatican II then was the church’s attempt to re evangelize the world and to awaken devotion to Christ and Christs church, then it was certainly a failed experiment because both in its prudential decisions or language in the documents as to how the church should even regulate worship within herself and the church’s relationship to civil society, et cetera. That was just a massive failure. But I would say Vatican II then would best be understood, not just as a failed experiment, but as a, I don’t know how to say it.
Augustine in his city of God talks about how even in today’s world the city of God and the city of man you could distinguish, but essentially there’s a co-mingling until the end when things are separated. In the same way I would view Vatican II as a co-mingling. There’s much, much, much that is good in the documents. There’s also things that are certainly questionable. And that could certainly use a little clarification, doctrinal clear clarification of what does religious liberty mean and how are we supposed to interpret this in light of past papal condemnations, et cetera until that judgment day, so to speak, where the wheat and the chaff are separated. I think we’re going to be living within attention. So, failed experiment, yes. But also if it helped us, I think of the work of Scott Hahn, Matthew Levering, who certainly we talked about accept Vatican II. They certainly accept Vatican II. I see their work as really being the fruit of the council. But only because their work is complimenting that which came before the council. It didn’t create a new church. If that’s your vision of the council, you got it wrong.
Eric Sammons:
Yeah. I think that’s a great example. I know Scott Hahn’s work is a great example because it clearly is in line with Vatican II in so many ways, but it always reaches back to the tradition. And I think though Vatican II gave it a different, if Vatican II had never happened and Scott Hahn still converted somehow everything he’d done would be very different than it ended up being. But I think the way he did it was very good for our world and the modern world. And I think Vatican II helped him. Dei Verbum particularly helped him to clarify that. And he’s just one example. There’s obviously others like that, but I think that’s a good example of a good fruit, as you would say of Vatican II.
Okay, let’s wrap it up here. Just my final question, I think you’ve already answered for us. Do you think we should have a Vatican III anytime soon?
John Monaco:
In God’s time. If Pope Francis announced a Vatican III, I would be filled with a lot of anxiety for many reasons, but I think it would actually be nice, because the church, I forgot who wrote about it, but said the church doesn’t exist from ecumenical, from council to council. It’s not like the church is gasping for air until a new council comes and gives it life. Councils arise for different reasons, but many times to respond to crisis within the church or outside of the church. So, I would be excited for a Vatican III, if it were a focused council responding to certain issues especially from within the church.
If there were a Vatican III that was enacted to interpret Vatican II authoritatively, I just trust the Providence of God if there is an announcement that we’re going to have Vatican III just to talk about everything under the sun, I would just try to hunker down and stay in my local church and just unplug and say I don’t need to know. First of all, I don’t have the time to read all the documents that are going to come out. So, whatever happens, happens but please God make it a good council.
Eric Sammons:
Yeah, exactly. Okay, let’s wrap it up there. Hey, John I really appreciate you coming on. This was great. I could have gone a lot longer. This is probably one of my longer podcasts because it’s such a great topic and you were great, but we’ll stop here. We’ll stop the bleeding so to speak. But I appreciate you being on and looking forward to having you write again for Crisis soon.
John Monaco:
Absolutely. Thanks Eric.
Eric Sammons:
Okay, everybody else until next time. God love you.
Recent Comments