Listen to this note instead: https://morefrmoore.podbean.com/e/2026-08-06-pastors-note/
Accepting Vatican II
Context and the SSPX
On July 01, two bishops in imperfect communion with Rome (meaning they claimed communion but did not actually obey the juridical decisions of the Vatican) consecrated four new bishops without a papal mandate. Shortly afterwards, these two bishops plus the four that were consecrated plus any priests or lay people who assented to the illicit consecration were excommunicated by the Vatican. This whole group is often referred to as the “Society of St. Pius X” or “SSPX”, though it is awkward for the Vatican to talk about them as a cohesive group, rather than a loose association of individuals, because the Vatican itself does not recognize their status as a religious association.
There is so much coverage on this topic that I am not going to jump into any more details. As per usual, I recommend coverage by the Pillar (here and here).
As I have spoken to parishioners about this event, I have emphasized a key point: this is not about the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (sometimes also called the “Traditional Latin Mass” or “Pre-Vatican II Mass”). When the SSPX founder, Archbishop Lefebvre, did the same type of illicit consecrations in 1988, which met with the same excommunications, a group of SSPX priests split off to create the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) which is in full communion with Rome. We have two FSSP parishes here in the Archdiocese of Seattle (North American Martyrs in Edmonds and St. Joseph in Tacoma), and these churches exclusively use the pre-Vatican II liturgical books. While we in Whatcom County might be a little outside of their service area, in general the people of the Archdiocese of Seattle who want access to the Extraordinary Form continue to have access.
Instead, this is about accepting the Second Vatican Council (1962 – 1965) as the 21st Ecumenical Council of the Church and an authentic expression of the Papal magisterium. The SSPX believes that Vatican II is irredeemably corrupted by the heresy of Modernism, especially in its teachings on religious liberty, ecumenism and interfaith dialogue, collegiality, and liturgy.
Some Difficulties in “Accepting the Council”
It is not as easy as we might think to classify people into those who “accept” the Council and those who do not. Three reasons come to mind.
- Every word of Vatican II is not dogmatic. I own a two-volume set of books with the original text and English translation of all 21 ecumenical councils. The second volume contains only the last three councils – Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II – and Vatican II takes up at least half of that second volume. This council wrote so much more than every council before it. As such, not every word or every sentence is intended to be a strict dogmatic formula.
The beginning of this article (by Gavin Ashenden, a converted Anglican bishop) does a good job of laying out the different levels of belief demanded by Vatican II. https://drgavinashenden.substack.com/p/squaring-the-circle-vatican-ii-fidelity
The Church herself has never defined the minimum necessary requirements to “accept” Vatican II (i.e. which specific formulations one must profess), and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) admitted as much in its communication with the SSPX earlier this year. (Unfortunately, I cannot find the text of that communication, but there is an excellent summary by a different schismatic group here.) - A “Pastoral” Council? There is a quote by Pope St. Paul VI that has, unfortunately, been militarized against Vatican II. I will reprint here its treatment by Word on Fire:
On January 12, 1966, Pope St. Paul VI said in an audience: “Given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.” This quote has often been used to suggest the Council’s teachings and decrees are not binding on Catholics. However, as Dr. Jeff Mirus has explained, all this is really saying is what is described in the previous three questions: that Vatican II, while largely pastoral in nature, did not in an extraordinary way (i.e., invoking infallibility) define any new dogmas. Pope Paul VI was not saying that Vatican II is merely pastoral, subject to doctrinal error, or not binding. On the contrary, in the very next sentence he adds, “But it [the Council] has invested its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, which ordinary magisterium is so obviously authentic that it must be accepted with docility and sincerity by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council as expressed in the nature and aims of the individual documents.”
Unfortunately, many people who do not like the effects of the Council believe the first part of this quote means they are free to completely ignore the Council. I would recommend reading the entire Word on Fire FAQ about Vatican II, as it is supremely helpful: https://www.wordonfire.org/vatican-ii-faq/ - A Failed Council? As I myself have pondered (here), Vatican II seems to be a failure at achieving its own goals. We might accept everything that it said as doctrinally valid, while still holding that its formulations were unhelpful and its implementation ineffective.
My Take on Accepting the Council
As I continue to dialogue with people about the SSPX and Vatican II, I have found that my own standard for assent is whether we take the concerns of the Council Fathers seriously.
With liturgy specifically, I would personally be comfortable rolling back a lot of the changes introduced with the Novus Ordo in 1969. These were decisions made by an implementation committee following the Council, not by the Council itself, and I am very happy to revisit those decisions 60-years on to see if they were effective. However, I am uncomfortable with the idea of going back fully to the 1962 Missal. Sacrosanctum Concilium, the liturgical document of Vatican II, was approved by 2,147 bishops and disapproved by only 4. When 99.8% of the bishops of the world vote for reform, then reform was probably necessary. Instead, I think it is most appropriate to start with the documents of Vatican II, look at what the bishops said and were trying to achieve, and ask whether we have properly and effectively carried out their decisions. Did we go too far? Have we not gone far enough?
In other words, for me, accepting Vatican II means not ignoring the Council or accusing it of heresy. Instead, it means taking every word of the Council and (1) interpreting it in continuity with the Tradition of the Church and (2) implementing it as best as we can, given our current cultural context, even if that means a change from the immediate implementation in the 1960s and 1970s.
Fr. Moore 