Sifting Wheat from the Weeds
Vatican II, A Generation Later

Leon J. Suprenant, Jr.
From the Nov/Dec 2003 Issue of Lay Witness Magazine

This is a response from CUF president Leon Suprenant to a letter to CUF posing a series of questions pertaining to Vatican II. The CUF staff daily addresses these sorts of issues from members and nonmembers who seek to know the truth about what the Church really teaches. For answers to your questions on the faith, call our information specialists at (800) MY-FAITH or email leon@cuf.org.

What was the purpose of Vatican II?

I think the most cogent response to this question is found in the opening sentence of the first official document promulgated by Vatican II (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 1963):

This sacred Council has several aims in view: It desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church.

What problems existed or what reforms were needed in 1962?
Of all the questions you pose, this is the most difficult to answer objectively, as we’re talking here about matters of interpretation and opinion. Plus, having been born in 1959 myself, I’m dependent upon the writings of conciliar historians, participants, and commentators for my assessment. I think at least the following can be safely said:

1. There was already before Vatican II a significant push for liturgical reform, though in fairness most probably would not have envisioned the degree of change that the liturgy would undergo after the promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concilium.
2. The Council fathers were acutely, if not prophetically, aware of the drastic changes that were taking place in the world in the 20th century and saw an increasing disconnect between faith and life when, on the contrary, our faith actually provides the key for effectively addressing contemporary issues. So, addressing the needs of our age was very important.
3. The premature closing of Vatican I arguably contributed to a distorted ecclesiology that benefited from a more comprehensive treatment of the Church in Lumen Gentium.
4. It’s hard to fathom what things would have been like in the absence of Vatican II, but I think it’s naïve and unrealistic to romanticize the preconciliar era. At least in my own (very large) family’s experience, the “exterior” may still have been Catholic in 1962, but interior decay was present long before that. And it’s certainly true that in every age the Church is at once holy yet always in need of reform.
5. other issues aside, ecumenical councils have the guidance and the authority of the Holy Spirit, so it’s somewhat irrelevant as to whether our own human assessment of the situation would have led us to take the same action taken by Pope John XXIII.

If a “springtime” is expected after 40 years, what is it expected to be?
Pope John Paul II saw the time leading up to the Jubilee as a time of preparation for a “new springtime”:

The Second Vatican Council is often considered as the beginning of a new era in the life of the Church. This is true, but at the same time it is difficult to overlook the fact that the Council drew much from the experiences and reflections of the immediate past, especially from the intellectual legacy left by Pius XII. In the history of the Church, the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ are always closely interwoven. The ‘new’ grows out of the ‘old,’ and the ‘old’ finds a fuller expression in the ‘new.’ Thus it was for the Second Vatican Council and for the activity of the Popes connected with the Council, starting with John XXIII, continuing with Paul VI and John Paul I, up to the present Pope.

What these Popes have accomplished during and since the Council, in their Magisterium no less than in their pastoral activity, has certainly made a significant contribution to the preparation of that new springtime of Christian life which will be revealed by the Great Jubilee, if Christians are docile to the action of the Holy Spirit (Tertio Millennio Adveniente, no. 18, emphasis added).

The Pope went on to say that “[t]he best preparation for the new millennium . . . can only be expressed in a renewed commitment to apply, as faithfully as possible, the teachings of Vatican II to the life of every individual and of the whole Church” (ibid., no. 20).

Similarly, in Novo Millennio Ineunte, the Pope’s “blueprint” for the “new springtime” in the third millennium, he calls Vatican II a “sure compass” for the Church’s activity. While there may be some sprouts here and there, the full blossoming of the “new springtime” is not something the Holy Father expects to fully see in his lifetime. Also, I should add that spring is always preceded by winter. Or to change the analogy, the blood of martyrs is the seed of the new evangelization. So, above all, I think the “new springtime” will be characterized by a new generation of heroic martyrs and tremendous saints—including many lay people (cf. Catechism, no. 828).

Are there any conflicts between Vatican II teachings on ecumenism and the teachings of earlier Popes (Pius XII) on ecumenism?
No. Surely, given the different periods of history in which the various documents were written, there is a noticeable difference of approach. What Vatican II actually taught on ecumenism is in continuity with the Church’s tradition and certainly did not advocate the false ecumenism and indifferentism that we’ve seen far too often in recent decades. The Vatican II document on ecumenism unequivocally sets forth the perennial doctrinal principles underlying any authentic ecumenical activity:

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life—that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is ‘the all-embracing means of salvation,’ that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God (Unitatis Redintegratio, no. 3).

How do Catholics benefit from ecumenism?
For one thing, it fulfills the prayer of Christ Himself, that His followers be “one” (Jn. 17:21).

Also, the Church by her nature is missionary, in that she exists to bring all people into full communion in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Through the communion of saints, we are related not only to God, but also to those who are in any way joined to Christ’s Mystical Body. The life of grace that we initially received at Baptism impels us to strengthen these bonds through our prayers, words, and actions.

And on a pragmatic level, the world needs Christ more than ever today, and that message is blurred and distorted when there are such significant divisions among Christians (even Catholics, I might add). A greater unity among Christians would provide a much more credible, unified witness that would make it “easier” for non-believers to hear the Gospel and cooperate with divine grace.

Can you reaffirm the value of Vatican II after 40 years?
Certainly. It was an authentic ecumenical council that provided rich teaching as well as a framework for bringing the Gospel to men and women in a world that presents many new and formidable challenges to Christian discipleship and evangelization.

I think Pope John Paul II, who has done so much to give flesh to the conciliar teachings, will go down as one of the great saints and popes (of course, that’s merely my opinion).

In saying all this, I’m by no means endorsing the co-opting of Vatican II (the so-called “spirit of Vatican II”) by certain radical and dissident elements, nor am I discounting the sins, scandals, and liturgical aberrations that have been prevalent in recent decades. It may not be a satisfying answer, but it truly is a case of wheat and weeds growing up together (cf. Mt. 13:24-30, 36-43), as Pope Paul VI said. I do think the “wheat” of Vatican II is becoming more prominent, whereas the “weeds” are increasingly being seen for what they are.