Traditionalist: 341 years left. Patience!

The Catholic Church will not make a critical revision of the heritage of the Second Vatican Council – due to the fact that it does not let the structure of the strategy of church power. The problem will be solved for a long time. possibly 341 years.

The council died, the council lives

Anna Domini 2026 almost no participants of the Second Vatican Council are alive. The bishops died, the council experts died. The symbolic "closure" of the Council era was December 31, 2022, or the death of Pope Benedict XVI. As a young theologian, Józef Ratzinger took part in the work of Vaticanum II in the function of peritus, or theological advisor; as a bishop, he implemented the resolutions of the Council in 1 of the most crucial dioceses of Europe, Munich; at the office of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of religion he was liable for interpreting Catholic religion in the context of Vaticanum documents; finally, as Pope, he was able to make absolutely key decisions concerning the heritage of that council.

The current Pope Leon XIV was born in 1955, which means he was 10 years old erstwhile Vaticanum II came to an end. He was educated at the time erstwhile the council improvement continued to be the best: a fresh liturgy was late introduced, a fresh Code of Canon Law was waiting for a fresh Code of Law, and work on the Council Catechism began... Robert Prevost accepted ordination erstwhile Pope John Paul II, a man of extraordinary council enthusiasm, was Pope. The pontificate of Karol Wojtyla was not considered to have caused any crisis by Vaticanum II. Yes, traditionalist environments centered around Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said so, but nobody listened to them – on the scale of the universal Church it was a numerical margin. Rather, the decline in the number of practitioners was explained by a large cultural ferment – not without a right.

In 1965, contraception for married couples was legalized in the United States; in 1972 for single people; in 1973 abortion was permitted. The same happened in another Western countries. The Catholic Church changed – but society changed even faster and deeper. In decades after the Second Vatican Council, therefore, it was not apparent that the Catholic crisis was linked to the improvement of the liturgy or at all to the improvement of the council. All the more so, that in the Church there were those who survived the council and were absolutely devoted to his ideas – as they understood it, sometimes in a more conservative key, but more frequently alternatively liberal. This atmosphere shaped Leon XIV and all those on top of the hierarchy.

Official communicative shall apply without exception

Since ecclesiastical power believes that the Vatican Council II was an event carried out and carried out by the will of the Holy Spirit, as well as a basic course of post-sobor changes, accepted and implemented by infallible popes – it is created in specified a way as to say, authoritative or authoritative ecclesiastical narrative. There is no democracy in the Catholic Church: power reproduces itself.

In another words, a ecclesiastical career can be done by 1 who is recognized by the current power as a well-promising figure. If the bishop is an enthusiast of the council, he will choose to associate with another council enthusiasts.

They'll be bishops later. The Pope will elect Cardinals from among them. The Cardinals will elect a fresh pope. The ellipse is closed – there is not much area for surprises. Yes, past knows popes who were highly dynamic and introduced real changes to the functioning of the system, but not against the mentality of bishops – at most against their passiveness.

Meanwhile, the strategy is tight. Sometimes in 1 place or another in the world, a priest will come to hierarchical power, who is simply a critic of Vaticanum II or post-compulsory changes. specified a man, however, rapidly "tones" in the full system. There is no greater chance of surviving in the sense of ensuring the continuity of his vision. Yes, he became a bishop, but his views are well known to the nuncio who closely guards the line of the Roman Curia. His successor will so be “on the line”.

This is how the church strategy works – and it has its immense advantages, due to the fact that it allows organization stability. Of course, there are besides shortcomings, due to the fact that sometimes the essential improvement is delayed. Just look at the 16th century. Marcin Luther appeared in 1517. The Council of Trent was not called until 1545 as a consequence to the Protestant revolution, and it was completed in 1563. On the 1 hand, a unchangeable church institution was not infected by Protestantism. On the another hand, she answered the challenge so late that everything could not be saved.

Numbers, i.e.: the strategy is sealed

Let's look at the numbers. There were 245 members at the College of Cardinals in early 2026. I will now effort to name those who have a critical attitude towards the Second Vatican Council.

—

The trial is complete, there is no cardinal like that.

There are respective (sic) who show criticism of a peculiar way of implementing Vaticanum II – but there is not a single cardinal who would criticize Vatican Council II as such. Those who criticise the way implementation is mostly rather cautious. Raymond Leo Burke and Robert Sarah focus on liturgy issues – what is more, they do not question the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, but talk about abuses. They besides criticize utmost progressives and their reading of the council. Progressives besides criticize Gerhard Müller, Walter Brandmüller, and Joseph Zen, but they already pay much little attention to liturgy. Müller and Brandmüller besides respect liturgical traditionalism as wrong, even if the erstwhile sometimes celebrates the Trident Mass. In total, there are respective of 245 cardinals who have a skeptical attitude towards the legacy of the council – but in no way criticize Vaticanum II as such.

World Episcopate? The bishops are presently around 5400. Recently, at the private audience, Leon XIV adopted Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who is critical of both post-sobor improvement and of any statements by Vaticanum II himself. This is an crucial event for all traditionalists.

Problem: Bishop Schneider accounts for about 0.0185% of the full global episcopal.

Yes, it can be assumed that his views are to any degree shared by a wider group; how many, however, do not know. Let us presume that it will be 100 names on a global scale – although I admit that so many hierarchs close to the visions of Bishop Schneider could not be mentioned (I do not consider it crucial what anyone thinks – I consider it crucial what anyone does and says). Thus, a 100 – or little than 2% of the full planet Episcopal. Let us reverse: More than 98% of the world's episcopate does not show any objections to Vaticanum II and the fundamental direction of post-compulsory reforms. If there was a survey in the country, in which more than 98% of the public would say "in favour" of a bill, and little than 2% would be opposed, all media would compose about "the crushing size", and virtually nobody would care about the solution. The Church is not democracy; it is true; but let us not pretend – numbers matter. The Pope cares about unity and peace, and unity is besides a number.

100% of the College of Cardinals and 98% of the planet episcopal support the Second Vatican Council and its improvement in its essential form.

Why statistic are specified and not different, I explained earlier: the hierarchical system, which is rather tightly closed. He does not accept strategy critics, and if any happens, he is isolated.

If in this situation individual hopes for a more thorough revision of Vaticanum II in the foreseeable future, he cannot number on – or he hopes for a miracle.

The Pope’s Miracle “Outside the System”

The miracle in this situation is primarily the pope, who abruptly begins to think "out of the box", that is, outside the box of the intellectual strategy of the present church hierarchy. However, the existence of specified a pope would should be the consequence of God's direct intervention in past – rather literally, the effect of a miracle.

After all, in order to become a Pope, he must:

– finish the seminar;

– to approve the bishop and make a career in the diocese;

– gain the approval of the nuncio;

– become a bishop;

– sign up in the national episcopal;

– gain the pope's approval and become cardinal;

– to show off on a global scale and gain popularity among cardinals.

At each of these stages, a critical attitude towards the Second Vatican Council is an obstacle – and this is an obstacle categorically excluding from the anticipation of passing a given “stage”.

Clearly critical of the council, the cleric simply won't finish the seminary. If “enlighten” him later, the career will end: the priest will not receive any position in the diocese; the curial authoritative will alienate the nuncio; the bishop will be on the margins of the episcopate; the cardinal will be disliked by others.

In order to win the conclave, the critic of the Second Vatican Council would gotta hide his actual views effectively throughout his ecclesiastical life. This means that he would be lying – and as a profoundly lied man, he would not be a good Catholic.

Therefore, in order to become Pope, the Pope must be a supporter of the Council – there is no another possibility.

The only way is to “enlighten” after the election as Pope. This would require a private revelation given to the Holy Father by God and a papal act of will to which he would consider this revelation actual and binding in his conscience. So a miracle – and a human decision that “updates”.

Because of the unpredictability of specified an accident, I leave a thing to the Lord God and as a publicist, I do not deal with it. Therefore, I will consider alternatively the second script of the change, which is, to say so, more tangible.

This is simply a increasing historical distance to the Second Vatican Council.

We inactive request 341 years – and respective wars or revolutions

In 1563 the Council of Trent ended, which importantly renovated and shaped the Church, giving it a lasting plan and a kind of paradigm of reasoning on many key doctrinal, disciplinary and moral issues. This church construction survived 402 years – until December 8, 1965, erstwhile the Second Vatican Council ended. The bishops and the 2 popes then decided to reform, in subsequent years defining its circumstantial shape.

In another words, after 4 centuries, taking a distance to the Council of Trent, influenced by large social events of a global dimension, the mentality of members of the church hierarchy changed, which led to the questioning of many crucial elements of the existing Catholicism model and the beginning of building a different model.

I believe that the future of the Second Vatican Council's heritage can be treated similarly. erstwhile adequate time has elapsed, members of the church strategy will take a distance to question it. If this is accompanied by sufficiently profound and dramatic changes in the world, it will be possible to look critically at Vaticanum II and, as a result, to make a profound change.

When will that happen? Does it take another 341 years to complete the 402 that passed between the Council of Trent and Vaticanum II? This, of course, I don't know – but I say it will take little time. Accelerating social change in fresh decades or even years is truly powerful. Moreover, the council improvement does not work very well, which can provoke the dominant part of the church hierarchy to a faster beginning to critical, you would say: a revisionist thought. But I presume you request a strong stimulus. The Council of Trent was called upon by the Luther Revolution. And the Vatican Council through the French Revolution. The Second Vatican Council through the Second planet War and the Communist Revolution, being somewhat a continuation of the French Revolution.

Short Action Plan

So we look forward to planet shocks that will change the mentality of the church system. The dominance of the Second Vatican Council will then be challenged and the anticipation of corrections will arise. Without that, I think a traditionalist Catholic should focus on 5 things.

Firstly, let him make usage of the opportunities that the present strategy gives him, both in the field of liturgy and in the area of historical and theological reflection.

Secondly, let an intensive dialog be established with the supporters of the council system, in order to keep the vitality of critical reflection in the space of discussion.

Thirdly, let him halt insulting those Catholics who accept the council order – they are people who live in accordance with the will of the Church's superiors and have the right to do so, as the Church teaches about the infallibility of the popes and the council sitting with the Pope. The insult of the majority contradicts the work of neighbor's love, violates the unity of the Church – and makes the second point ineffective, or dialogue, to preserve the vitality of critical reflection.

Fourth, pray for a miracle.

Fifth – and this is the key – let him exercise patience. The revision of the heritage of the Second Vatican Council will come, possibly already next day (see: miracle), but possibly not in 341 years.

This second solution must be taken seriously.

Paweł Chmielewski