Does Vatican II Have Supreme Authority?

In 1962 the Second Vatican Council was opened as an Ecumenical Council. It took place under the governance of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which was operative until the 1983 Code of Canon Law superseded it.

The 1917 Code described Ecumenical Councils as having “supreme authority (suprema potestate) over the universal Church” (Canon 228). If Vatican II really was an Ecumenical Council, then that would seem to mean that Vatican II must have a supreme authority for Catholics.

But some Catholics reject aspects of Vatican II. So, the question arises whether Vatican II really is an Ecumenical Council which has supreme authority in the Catholic Church.

1. Was Vatican II an Ecumenical Council?

The 1917 Code of Canon Law clarified the criteria for an Ecumenical Council.

Canon 222 stated that an Ecumenical Council must be convoked by a Pope. That criteria was fulfilled when Pope John XXIII called the Council and opened it explicitly as an Ecumenical Council. In his speech opening the Council he said:

Mother Church rejoices that… the longed-for day has finally dawned when… the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council is being solemnly opened… (Opening Speech, 11 October 1962)

Canon 229 stated that if a Pope dies during an Ecumenical Council, then the Council is suspended pending the decision of the new Pope whether to continue with it. This occurred in June 1963 when Pope John XXIII died. (See Vatican News.) The new Pope Paul VI ordered that the Council should continue. He clearly believed that he was continuing an Ecumenical Council. In his speech closing the Council, he said:

This is our hope at the conclusion of this Second Vatican Ecumenical Council… (Address, 7 December 1965)

Canon 227 stated that the decisions of an Ecumenical Council only have “obliging force” if they are approved by a pope. All the documents of Vatican II contain Papal signatures approving them.

What this means is that Vatican II meets the 1917 canonical requirements for an Ecumenical Council. This would seem to mean that Vatican II must have a “supreme authority” in the Catholic Church.

2. But Vatican II Erred…

It is sometimes said that Vatican II erred into heterodoxy and heresy. So it cannot have a supreme authority.

Canon 227 (of the 1917 Code) reflects Papal approval as the arbiter of the Council’s Orthodoxy. This echoes long-standing Tradition that Popes judge the proceedings of an Ecumenical Council to ensure that they do not accidentally endorse error. (For example, some claims of the Ecumenical Council of Florence (1431–1449) were excluded from Papal approval.)

Vatican I (1870) explained why Papal approval is the arbiter of a Council’s Orthodoxy. It stated that Papal authority exists to ensure unity in the Church (Pastor Aeternus, Chap 3.3). The Pope possesses:

the full and supreme power of jurisdiction… in matters of faith, morals, discipline and governance of the Church… (Pastor Aeternus Chap 3.9)

So, if there are disputes about the orthodoxy of an Ecumenical Council, the Church can avoid schism because the Pope can definitively settle the disputed matters. This ability to settle disputes was a central element of the teaching of Vatican I because it is part of the Church’s constitutional mechanism for fulfilling Christ’s will of maintaining Unity (i.e., John 17:21).

Sometimes critics of Vatican II say that it is a FACT that Vatican II is inconsistent with prior Church teaching. And Papal powers cannot change established facts.

But that is a misdescription. Whether claims are inconsistent always depends upon interpretations of meaning and application. So, when critics claim that it is a FACT that Vatican II is inconsistent, what they are really saying is that it is their (interpreted) OPINION, that it is a fact… Where there are clashing OPINIONS which threaten the unity of the Church, the teaching of Vatican I is that Popes have the power to settle matters definitively.

What this means is that human OPINIONS about alleged errors and heresies of Vatican II cannot be grounds for rejecting that Vatican II is an Ecumenical Council which has “supreme authority” in the Church.

3. But the Pope Wasn’t a Pope…

Some Sedevacantists say that Pope John XXIII and/or Pope Paul VI were not valid Popes, so Vatican II cannot meet the 1917 Canon Law requirements of Papal convocation (Canon 222) and/or Papal approval Canon 227.

These kinds of views tend to manifest as Conspiracy Theories, because they are essentially unfalsifiable. For example, was Cardinal Siri really elected as the true Pope at the 1958 Papal conclave, so that Pope John XXIII is a false Pope? Claims like that have been argued about for over 50 years and they may still be argued about in 500 years. This is because there is no way of definitively disproving Conspiracy Theories to those who insist on believing them.

However, the consequences of Conspiracy Theories can show their implausibility. If there is not a valid Pope to appoint valid cardinals, then there is no one to (validly) elect a future Pope. That means that there cannot (ever) be another Pope or (Papally approved) Ecumenical Council. So, if Papal Conspiracy Theories were to be true, that would mean that the Church has effectively lost the role of the Papal Office, which (in the words of Vatican I) ensures:

the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and… can stand firm against the gates of hell. (Pastor Aeternus Chap 4.7)

Those are extremely serious consequences which cut to the heart of the Church’s constitution and mission. Even Marcel Lefebvre, when he rejected aspects of Vatican II and set up the SSPX (The Society of St. Pius X), did not want to go to the extreme of rejecting the validity of Popes (see Interview with Michael Davies). He realized only too well that if the Church really has lost its ability to fulfil Christ’s injunction to maintain unity, then the question would have to arise as to whether the gates of hell have, in fact, prevailed…

4. But Vatican II Wasn’t Described as Infallible…

A different challenge to the status of Vatican II focuses on the issue of Infallibility.

The 1991 Catechism states:

The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when… they exercise the supreme Magisterium… in an Ecumenical Council. (CCC 891)

This would seem to imply that Ecumenical Councils are infallible. But Pope Paul VI is sometimes cited as querying whether Vatican II was in fact infallible. For example, he said of Vatican II:

It avoided pronouncing solemn dogmatic definitions supported by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. (General Audience, 12 January 1966)

These kinds of comments might seem to raise a question. If Vatican II is not infallible, then how can it really be an Ecumenical Council?

However, Pope Paul VI never denied the infallibility of Vatican II (see Pope Paul VI on Vatican II). All that he did in the quote above is to deny a specific type of infallibility (i.e., that of “solemn dogmatic definitions”).

In the aftermath of Vatican II Church leaders may indeed have been reluctant to talk of Vatican II as infallible, but the reason for that is to be found in Vatican II’s request to

…avoid forms of expression which are obstacles to dialogue…  (Unitatis Redintegratio 11)

It is a well-known fact that appeals to infallibility are not conducive to dialogue with non-Catholics. So a post-conciliar reluctance to talk about Vatican II as “infallible” is arguably not so much a comment on the status of Vatican II, as it is an expression of linguistic sensitivity.

In any case, what the Catechism says (above) is that an Ecumenical Council CAN be infallible under certain circumstances. There was no requirement in the 1917 Code of Canon Law for an Ecumenical Council to explicitly invoke infallibility. Canon Law describes Ecumenical Councils as possessing “supreme authority,” and infallibility is merely one type of supreme authority.

This means that focusing upon issues of whether Vatican II is, or isn’t infallible, risks missing the more fundamental question. That is the question of whether Vatican II met the Canonical Criteria to count as an Ecumenical Council which possesses “supreme authority.”

5. But Vatican II Was Only a Pastoral Council…

Another objection suggests that Vatican II is radically different from other Ecumenical Councils because it was just a Pastoral Council, not a doctrinal one. In the words of Cardinal Ratzinger (who became Pope Benedict XVI):

The truth is that this particular Council [i.e., Vatican II] defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council. (Address to the Chilean Bishops, July 13, 1988)

Marcel Lefebvre cited the Pastoral nature of the Council as part of his justification for rejecting aspects of Vatican II:

Yet, you will say, the Council is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Not necessarily. A pastoral, non-dogmatic council is a sermon which does not of itself invoke infallibility. (A Bishop Speaks, 1972)

In the background of these kinds of comments is an assumption which contrasts a Pastoral DOING and a Doctrinal BELIEVING. Vatican II is being criticized because it focused upon the pastoral issues of what Catholics should be DOING (in relation to Ecumenicism, engaging with the modern world, etc.), rather than dealing with what Catholics should be BELIEVING.

However, other Ecumenical Councils have also focused upon Pastoral issues. For example, the Ecumenical Council of Lateran I (1123) dealt with priests living with concubines (Canon 7), marriages between blood relatives (Canon 9), organizing the Crusades (Canon 10), people using counterfeit money (Canon 11), etc. So, it is not unprecedented for Ecumenical Councils to focus on Pastoral issues.

Another issue with problematizing Vatican II’s pastoral nature is that it makes a false assumption that Councils must be either Pastoral or Doctrinal. Ultimately, there is not an either/or. Beliefs have logical implications for actions, and actions have logical implications for beliefs. We can see this in the DOCTRINE of Original Sin, which was argued for (partially) on the basis of the PASTORAL practice of baptizing babies.

Pope John XXIII realized that Pastoral practices and Doctrinal beliefs are inextricably linked. So, whilst he described Vatican II as a Pastoral Council, he also said that its purpose was “defending and promoting doctrine” (11 October 1962). Pope Paul VI described Vatican II as a Pastoral Council but in a 1964 Encyclical he also described it as “[defining] the doctrine dealing with the Church” (Ecclesiam Suam, 30). It is a mistake to jump from a description of Vatican II as a Pastoral Council to an assumption that it did not also have doctrinal implications.

Ultimately, the 1917 Canon Law did not require a Council to focus on a specific type of issue (such as Pastoral or Doctrinal), in order for it to count as an Ecumenical Council. So, the Pastoral nature of Vatican II is arguably irrelevant to the more fundamental question of whether Vatican II met the Canonical requirements to count as an Ecumenical Council, which possesses “supreme authority” in the Church.

6. But Vatican II Issued No Anathemas…

Another potential criticism of Vatican II might be that it was unlike other Ecumenical Councils because it issued no anathemas, or condemnations to enforce its teaching.

While it is true that Vatican II does not use the word “anathema,” it is not true that Vatican II made no condemnations. Paragraph 80 of Gaudium et Spes contains an explicit condemnation of modern styles of warfare. That condemnation bears similarities to a condemnation made by the Ecumenical Council of Lateran II (1139), which anathematized Catholics who shoot Christians with cross bows (Lateran II, 29). Both Ecumenical Councils condemned styles of warfare: could it really be of major significance that one Council adds the word “anathema,” while the other does not?

More fundamentally, while Ecumenical Councils can issue anathemas, there is no Canonical requirement for them to do so. Arguably there is also no practical need for them to do so. If Ecumenical Councils possess “supreme authority,” then rejecting their teaching falls within the framework of clearly defined sins of disobedience towards lawful authority. Is there really a practical need to add additional anathemas for those who reject the teaching of Ecumenical Councils?

7. Conclusion

It is difficult to coherently sustain an argument that Vatican II does not meet the (Catholic) criteria for it to count as an Ecumenical Council.

Yes, the Council can be accused of error, but doing so requires the theological novelty of reversing the Tradition of the Church, whereby the Papal Office was previously the Guarantor of Ecumenical Councils’ Orthodoxy.

Yes, the validity of Popes can also be rejected, but that leads to a theological novelty which risks undermining the very nature of Vatican I’s vision of the Church’s constitution and mission.

Yes, people can also argue about wider issues, such as whether Vatican II was infallible, or about its status as a Pastoral Council, or its non-use of the word “anathema.” But strictly speaking none of those issues are relevant to the more fundamental question of whether Vatican II met the 1917 canonical criteria for a council to count as an Ecumenical Council.

If it is indeed difficult to avoid the conclusion that Vatican II met the (1917) requirements for it to count as an Ecumenical Council, then that has a clear practical implication for Catholics. It means that the teachings of Vatican II have a “supreme authority” in theological matters within the Catholic Church. Whatever else “supreme authority” might mean, it is difficult to see how rejecting or disparaging the teachings of Vatican II could count as treating the Council as having “supreme authority” in the Church.