Is it time for Vatican III?

[TLM08]

The disaster that resulted after Vatican II makes me wonder if a new Vatican council could clean up all of the confusion. It seems to me that “Trent” like council is badly needed. Does anybody here think that the Church has the proper leadership to clean house, unify the flock and get her Catholic identity back?

I would love to see the Holy Father call for another council to re-establish his supreme authority as Vicar of Christ, reassert the Catholic Church as the One True Church, restore respect for the Holy Mass, The Sacraments and Devotions. He has taken a great first step by releasing the 1962 Roman Missal and Traditional Latin Mass. Do you think the Church under Pope Benedict XVI is currently headed in the right direction?

 

[Dauphin]

A new council could easily be disastrous. Even though the current trend is towards Tradition, the hierarchy of today is much more liberal and filled with many more heretics than it was at the time of the Second Vatican Council.

The safest route to reform is simply for the Pope to exercise his personal apostolic authority, instead of convoking a general council. It’s a much less expensive option, too.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

An interesting proposition.

Do you think the Church under Pope Benedict XVI is currently headed in the right direction?

I think it is. However, it is going to take a lot of “grassroots” efforts among the faithful (and I mean the TRUELY faithful) for what Papa Benedict wants to happen. We MUST be willing to go to bat to make sure that what we see in our parishes is the One True Faith, and not just a charade of the Church Our Lord founded.

 

[otjm]

Considering that both John Paul 2 and the current pope have both siad that what we need to do is properly implement Vaticn 2, the question seems moot.

 

[Dempsey1919]

A new council could easily be disastrous. Even though the current trend is towards Tradition, the hierarchy of today is much more liberal and filled with many more heretics than it was at the time of the Second Vatican Council.

The safest route to reform is simply for the Pope to exercise his personal apostolic authority, instead of convoking a general council. It’s a much less expensive option, too.

I fully agree with this statement.

 

[ethelzguy]

I fully agree with this statement.

I rarely agree with Dauphin, but his remark is on track.

Instead of making a democracy of things, exercise his authority as pontiff and put some of this stuff to rest, one way or another.

 

[buffalo]

What would they change in the documents? The documents of VII did not anticipate the liberal interpretation and actions thereafter.

There basically is nothing to reverse if that is what you mean.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I do think we need to have another council, not a Council of Trent like, but we do need clarify some things. I do feel some aspects need readressed such as dress code. I find it appaling at the number people wearing blue jeans to a Sunday mass and how many people where flip flops at mass on Saturday mass. I would also like the liturgy be a discussion of some sort. What is read out of today’s lectionary and what is in our same Bible in Lectionary are different. I honestly think that they need to go back to using the Douay-Rheims Challoner and on occasion the Confraternity Edition or the Ronald Knox Translation. I honestly am apalled at what the NAB used to be and what it is now. I don’t think people are getting the correct word to them.

 

[otjm]

I do think we need to have another council, not a Council of Trent like, but we do need clarify some things. I do feel some aspects need readressed such as dress code. I find it appaling at the number people wearing blue jeans to a Sunday mass and how many people where flip flops at mass on Saturday mass. I would also like the liturgy be a discussion of some sort. What is read out of today’s lectionary and what is in our same Bible in Lectionary are different. I honestly think that they need to go back to using the Douay-Rheims Challoner and on occasion the Confraternity Edition or the Ronald Knox Translation. I honestly am apalled at what the NAB used to be and what it is now. I don’t think people are getting the correct word to them.

Dress code is a cultural issue and is not going to be addressed in either a Council or in the GIRM. The Church is world-wide, not just the provence of Europe or North America. While dress could be better, on the scale of issues the Church needs to deal with from 10 to 1, it is something like a -15.

And as to translations, that work is in progress.

 

[otjm]

I rarely agree with Dauphin, but his remark is on track.

Instead of making a democracy of things, exercise his authority as pontiff and put some of this stuff to rest, one way or another.

It is interesting; when he was first chosen, there were all sorts of remarks about a “smack-down” coming. It would appear that many did not know his temperment and attitude about things in the Church - things either needing correcting, or appearing to need correcting. He is an extremely thoughtful individual, and a very kind one, which is not to say a namby-pamby. He seems to seek a very pastoral approach, without fear of doing something that may not be seen as popular; his motu proprio is a prime example.

We live in a world of instant messaging, a world that seems to make decisions on the fly. The Church never has been that way, and the likelyhood of it ever getting that way is slim and none. The Church is not about rules - whether it is about the form the Mass is said in, or whether or not we hold hands during the Our Father, or sing a song with Yahweh in it, or fraction the wine before the Consecration or the Blood after it. It is about salvation; that does not mean that the rules have no purpose or meaning, but that salvation is the ultimate goal, and what will or will not be done about the rules is seen through that lense; a lense that on occasion may not be as perceived by those agitating about something as the one(s) who may or may not change the rule.

 

[ethelzguy]

It is interesting; when he was first chosen, there were all sorts of remarks about a “smack-down” coming. It would appear that many did not know his temperment and attitude about things in the Church - things either needing correcting, or appearing to need correcting. He is an extremely thoughtful individual, and a very kind one, which is not to say a namby-pamby. He seems to seek a very pastoral approach, without fear of doing something that may not be seen as popular; his motu proprio is a prime example.

We live in a world of instant messaging, a world that seems to make decisions on the fly. The Church never has been that way, and the likelyhood of it ever getting that way is slim and none. The Church is not about rules - whether it is about the form the Mass is said in, or whether or not we hold hands during the Our Father, or sing a song with Yahweh in it, or fraction the wine before the Consecration or the Blood after it. It is about salvation; that does not mean that the rules have no purpose or meaning, but that salvation is the ultimate goal, and what will or will not be done about the rules is seen through that lense; a lense that on occasion may not be as perceived by those agitating about something as the one(s) who may or may not change the rule.

I wholeheartedly agree. Wonderful post

 

[Genesis315]

What caused people to ignore the decrees of the last council will call them to do the same now. For example,Vatican II said religious orders should more fully embrace the spirit of their founders and the traditions particular to their orders. Yet many orders did the exact opposite. The problem is not the clarity of law and doctrine, but fidelity to it. Simoniacs continued to infest the Church at a breathtaking magnitutde for centuries despite condemnations from multiple ecumenical and local councils and papal decrees. Why? Because simoniacs cared about money, not fidelity.

The problems today are people caring more about their temporal well-being, doing their whatever they feel like, winning the praise of the world by seeming open-minded and enlightened, etc. rather than caring about fidelity.

Problems like this are not solved by decrees, but by people who do care about fidelity spreading that flame to others. The great reforming saints and orders of past times did this, and in our own day we see this with various priestly fraternities, faithful orders, and movements of lay people.

If you want devotions and traditions spread that people have neglected, then spread them. Be the light that penetrates darkness and the charity that defeats hardened hearts.

 

[ProVobis]

And as to translations, that work is in progress.

Is that a requirement put forth by Vatican II? Hardly, in fact VII documents strongly “argued” to keep the Latin in the Mass. Not that translations are wrong, but maybe better to stop further translations and go back to Latin (and Vatican II) basics.

 

[Slayer]

What would they change in the documents? The documents of VII did not anticipate the liberal interpretation and actions thereafter.

There basically is nothing to reverse if that is what you mean.

I do not think that is correct. It seems the documents were ambiguously written so a liberal interpretation can be allowed. It seems it was greatly anticipated.

What caused people to ignore the decrees of the last council will call them to do the same now. For example,Vatican II said religious orders should more fully embrace the spirit of their founders and the traditions particular to their orders. Yet many orders did the exact opposite. The problem is not the clarity of law and doctrine, but fidelity to it. Simoniacs continued to infest the Church at a breathtaking magnitutde for centuries despite condemnations from multiple ecumenical and local councils and papal decrees. Why? Because simoniacs cared about money, not fidelity.

The problems today are people caring more about their temporal well-being, doing their whatever they feel like, winning the praise of the world by seeming open-minded and enlightened, etc. rather than caring about fidelity.

Problems like this are not solved by decrees, but by people who do care about fidelity spreading that flame to others. The great reforming saints and orders of past times did this, and in our own day we see this with various priestly fraternities, faithful orders, and movements of lay people.

If you want devotions and traditions spread that people have neglected, then spread them. Be the light that penetrates darkness and the charity that defeats hardened hearts.

Did not Vatican II forced all the orders to modify their constitutions? What was wrong with them in the first place? Did not Padre Pio say that “St. Francis will not know us as his brothers”? - when referring to constitutions being changed?

Anyways, I am not sure if Vatican III is needed. Could not the pope just totally abrogate Vatican II and immediately start to embrace the old way?

 

[SenorSalsa]

Regardless of what the council would do, the effects would be the exact same as after Vatican II. Chaos as Bishops and Priests tried to understand the changes, “experimenting” with things that may seem allowed, etc. Just because the Council would be more Traditionally focused does not mean it would have an immediate effect. There is a reason councils are not held very often any more. It takes time for bishops to understand a Council how it was intended, and I think we are just about to reach that point. A new council now would be a disaster

 

[santodomingo]

What caused people to ignore the decrees of the last council will call them to do the same now. For example,Vatican II said religious orders should more fully embrace the spirit of their founders and the traditions particular to their orders. Yet many orders did the exact opposite. The problem is not the clarity of law and doctrine, but fidelity to it. Simoniacs continued to infest the Church at a breathtaking magnitutde for centuries despite condemnations from multiple ecumenical and local councils and papal decrees. Why? Because simoniacs cared about money, not fidelity.

The problems today are people caring more about their temporal well-being, doing their whatever they feel like, winning the praise of the world by seeming open-minded and enlightened, etc. rather than caring about fidelity.

Problems like this are not solved by decrees, but by people who do care about fidelity spreading that flame to others. The great reforming saints and orders of past times did this, and in our own day we see this with various priestly fraternities, faithful orders, and movements of lay people.

If you want devotions and traditions spread that people have neglected, then spread them. Be the light that penetrates darkness and the charity that defeats hardened hearts.

Hey Genesis, brilliant post!!

I agree with whoever wrote that now the Church is more full of liberals and heretics at the top. It´s a question of a bad generation working its way up to the top and eventually dying off. I see the generation of the 60´s (priests who are now approaching 70) as a disastrous generation. This happened to coincide with VII but HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH VII ITSELF. It has to do with the liberal, rebelious spirit of the times.

Of course this is a generalization. There are many wonderful, faithful priests of this age. I´m just making the point that this generation, compared to the previous one or later ones, was on the whole far less orthodox. Therefore, there are more liberals who have managed to climb to the top than there were 40 years ago, when the liberals were just starting out.

The answer to this problem is simple; we just wait for the sixty-something heretics to kick the bucket and get replaced by a more faithful generation. One undeniable characteristc of liberalism is that it´s self-destructive. We are suffering the liberals now, but their days are numbered!

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Problems with holding another council:

1. too many bishops who are unreliable
2. the biggest problem really *is *about fidelity (they don’t care what Vatican II said, why hold a Vatican III for them to disregard, too?)
3. the very last sort of impression we need to give at a time like this is that things are so unclear that we need a council to find our way out. Nothing, however, could be further from the case. Our Tradition is standing there for anyone to see. Sure, it might be nice to get some authoritative statements to clear up the most muddied issues, but we undermine the authority of Tradition by pretending we need a further statement in order to believe it.

 

[peary]

**Heavens, no. It is not needed. What is needed is that we implement Vatican II as it was intended to be. Things will settle down in time. We are now returning to a more traditional approach to the Church and liturgy. Give it another 25 years and we will be fine. The Vatican II ‘spirits’ are at retirement age now and will be leaving the Church and their nonsense behind. Keep the faith! **

 

[brigid12]

I think that renewed reverence for the Eucharist (as the Pope, many in the hierarchy, EWTN, etc. have been promoting) will correct many of the problems we see, including even dress at Mass and kneeling. I also agree that a council at this point would spell even further disaster, at least until the priests of the 60s and 70s have retired (however, we do have the promise of Christ, that the gates of hell won’t bring total collapse). Along with increasing reverence for the Eucharist, the thing I’d like to see now is more serious catechesis (something that needs to be addressed at the national/diocesan level - so much of the catechetical materials that are approved by the diocesan committees are pablum, at least on the West Coast). Oh, and vocations!!

 

[M0nkey]

I think the next ecumenical council will take into effect the re-evangelization of the Church. Along with a movement back to Orthodoxy. But since these are MY opinions I’m only speculating.