Is it Time for Vatican III?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Via_Dolorosa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Via_Dolorosa said:
estesbob;6485438:
Because of the decline in preistly vocations.
Click to expand...
Do you htink this is the first time in 2,000 years there has been a decline in Priestly vocations? And of course we are talking about a decline only in our area-there isnst a decline in Africa, or India or the Phillipines or many parts of South Americia and Asia. And if female clergey is the solution why are we seeing a declne in the Clergy of those denominationas who allow them?
Click to expand...
 
I wonder if the Catholic Church, at least in the US, isn’t still recovering from Vatican II. I think shaking things up even more is premature.

The author of the ABC News article wants a new Vatican Council to address priestly celibacy, and the sex abuse scandal. But perhaps that is like trying to rid your house of mice with a shotgun. I think these things can be handled with measures far short of a Vatican III, and with far less damage.

The author mentions that other people might want to address issues such as “[w]omen priests, sexual ethics, inter-religious dialogue, globalization and ecology.” But, again, these things don’t require all the bishops in the world to convene to discuss matters. They can be dealt with more simply. The single exception would be female priests, since Pope John Paul II invoked papal infallibility to forbid such a role. But I don’t think the Church is going to abandon the all male priesthood.

Yes, there is a shrinking number of priests relative to the number of believers. But we in the West are pampered. We have a ratio of one priest to over 1500 Catholics, whereas, say, in Uganda the ratio is 1:7500. The Western nations simply need be more flexible, as Catholics in non-Western nations have learned to be.
 
Via Dolorosa;6485436

Why are female deacons not possible? Is it affirmative action for a female to want to have a larger role in the church
Click to expand...
.

Via, the way the Church sees it, the deacon is a consecrated minister like a priest but just does not have certain powers. The male clergy goes to the iconographic nature----representing Christ and the Church is His bride. It is surprising how this is not understood. Further, as Pope JPII indicated----the Church has no authority to allow women clergy. That is the point—the Church does not change. Adminstrative negligence in this abuse scandal does not give the Church new and different authority to change things. Christ is the author of His Church.

Any additions welcome, but that is how this poster is reading what the Church says.
 
dale_m said:
i wonder if the catholic church, at least in the us, isn’t still recovering from vatican ii. I think shaking things up even more is premature.

The author of the abc news article wants a new vatican council to address priestly celibacy, and the sex abuse scandal. But perhaps that is like trying to rid your house of mice with a shotgun. I think these things can be handled with measures far short of a vatican iii, and with far less damage.

The author mentions that other people might want to address issues such as “[w]omen priests, sexual ethics, inter-religious dialogue, globalization and ecology.” but, again, these things don’t require all the bishops in the world to convene to discuss matters. They can be dealt with more simply. The single exception would be female priests, since pope john paul ii invoked papal infallibility to forbid such a role. But i don’t think the church is going to abandon the all male priesthood.

i had a discussion with someone who also stated that the pope spoke ex cathedra about woman not becoming priests. I am not saying you are wrong but i could not find the documentation for this. Quite honestly, i may not have done the search correctly. I didn’t think this rose to occasion of infallibility. Could you tell me where to look for this verification. I did find one reference to the fact that people “thought” he was speaking ex cathedra but actually was not. Please help me clear up my own confusion.

yes, there is a shrinking number of priests relative to the number of believers. But we in the west are pampered. We have a ratio of one priest to over 1500 catholics, whereas, say, in uganda the ratio is 1:7500. The western nations simply need be more flexible, as catholics in non-western nations have learned to be.
Click to expand...
 
One problem that I would love to see addressed is the lack of respect for Holy Communion. It is obvious that many people take communion in the state of mortal sin as the confession lines do not correlate with the amount of people receiving communion proportionally. I was thinking something along the lines of a year dedicated to the Holy Communion like this year is dedicated to the priests.
 
TenBobNote said:
One problem that I would love to see addressed is the lack of respect for Holy Communion. It is obvious that many people take communion in the state of mortal sin as the confession lines do not correlate with the amount of people receiving communion proportionally. I was thinking something along the lines of a year dedicated to the Holy Communion like this year is dedicated to the priests.
Click to expand...
I like a year didicated to the Holy Eucharist. I am an EEM and do notice some disrespect, namely dirty hands and not knowing exactly what to do. Who are we to judge who is in the state of grace. Why do you think so many people have commited a mortal sin. That is serious stuff.
 
estesbob said:
Via Dolorosa;6485436:
Ordination is reserved for men. Why should the Church EVER cede to the Cultural mores of a particual society at a particular point in time?
Click to expand...
Why indeed?

Those who clamor for such ‘modernity’ might ask themselves who was the first to rebel against God.
Click to expand...
 
Via_Dolorosa said:
I did find one reference to the fact that people “thought” he was speaking ex cathedra but actually was not. Please help me clear up my own confusion.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is open to interpretation, but I was thinking of his Apostolic Letter ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS

ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS said:
4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.
Click to expand...

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

The Pope didn’t specifically mention infallibility, but I think he was making a formal ex cathedra pronouncement.
 
Via_Dolorosa said:
Should the Catholic Church have another Vatican Council to address modern problems?
abcnews.go.com/print?id=10268914

I think it’s a good idea. What do you think?
Click to expand...
“Modern problems” - problems will remain problems, modern or not. Problems do not become antiquated so much as they remain unresolved.

However, if you consider “problems” to be a clash between the common ideology of modern society vs the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, there is no “problem.”

Like others here said, the Catholic church will not give in to current social trends.
 
No. Absolutely not.

As others have said, it is also not up to us. With all due respect, it is not up to the priest ABC got to write the piece. As a priest, I believe it is wrong for him to lobby in this way in a public forum.

We don’t need a “Vatican III” to reconsider celibacy. As he acknowledged it is not related to the sex abuse scandal. Those who are opposed to celibacy and feel a calling to serve in a holy order should consider becoming a deacon.
 
We are still trying to work out the implementation of Vatican II.
 
lutherlic said:
No. Absolutely not.

As others have said, it is also not up to us. With all due respect, it is not up to the priest ABC got to write the piece. As a priest, I believe it is wrong for him to lobby in this way in a public forum.

We don’t need a “Vatican III” to reconsider celibacy. As he acknowledged it is not related to the sex abuse scandal. Those who are opposed to celibacy and feel a calling to serve in a holy order should consider becoming a deacon.
Click to expand...
Amen.

I’m tired of scandal-mongers. I choose not to believe them or pay attention.
 
i had a discussion with someone who also stated that the pope spoke ex cathedra about woman not becoming priests. I am not saying you are wrong but i could not find the documentation for this. Quite honestly, i may not have done the search correctly. I didn’t think this rose to occasion of infallibility. Could you tell me where to look for this verification. I did find one reference to the fact that people “thought” he was speaking ex cathedra but actually was not. Please help me clear up my own confusion.
Click to expand...
The Pope taught infallibly, which is not necessarily the same thing as speaking ex cathedral.

The Church teaches infallibly in two ways.

The most common way is via the Ordinary Teaching Magisterium. What was handed down from Christ to us via the Apostles. This covers the VAST majority of the infalliable teachins of the Church. The deposit of Sacred Tradition.

The other way is via the ExtraOrdinary Magisterium. This would include Eccumenical Councils and Ex Cathedra statements.

When Pope John Paul II noted that the Church was not given the authority to Ordain women to the priesthood, he was articulating an Infallable teaching that is part of the Ordinary Teaching Magisterium. In other words, a teaching that was handed down to us from the Apostles.

That teaching, that the Church was not given the Authority to Ordain women to the priesthood, IS infallable. Not because +JP II stated it ex cathedra, but because it has always been true since the Church was founded by Christ.

In other words, the Church can no more make a woman a priest by edict than it can turn the Moon into green cheese by issuing an encyclical on the subject. Not because it is impossible (nothing is impossible with God), but because God didn’t give the Pope authority to do either.
 
A Vatican Council III would be fantastic!!!

It would be a great opportunity to correct the abuses of the modernist and the bad applications of Vatican Council II

Happy Resurection Easter and Blessings !!!

:):)🙂
 
It would be a great opportunity to correct the abuses of the modernist and the bad applications of Vatican Council II

Or to give the “progressives” another excuse to attack the Church! :eek:
 
Brendan said:
The Pope taught infallibly, which is not necessarily the same thing as speaking ex cathedral.

The Church teaches infallibly in two ways.

The most common way is via the Ordinary Teaching Magisterium. What was handed down from Christ to us via the Apostles. This covers the VAST majority of the infalliable teachins of the Church. The deposit of Sacred Tradition.

The other way is via the ExtraOrdinary Magisterium. This would include Eccumenical Councils and Ex Cathedra statements.

When Pope John Paul II noted that the Church was not given the authority to Ordain women to the priesthood, he was articulating an Infallable teaching that is part of the Ordinary Teaching Magisterium. In other words, a teaching that was handed down to us from the Apostles.

That teaching, that the Church was not given the Authority to Ordain women to the priesthood, IS infallable. Not because +JP II stated it ex cathedra, but because it has always been true since the Church was founded by Christ.

In other words, the Church can no more make a woman a priest by edict than it can turn the Moon into green cheese by issuing an encyclical on the subject. Not because it is impossible (nothing is impossible with God), but because God didn’t give the Pope authority to do either.
Click to expand...
If that is the case, why was the subject of infallibility not even mentioned until the late 1800"s. Is there a distinction to be made here? This confuses me even more. Thank you for trying to clarify it for me, though.
 
Via_Dolorosa said:
If that is the case, why was the subject of infallibility not even mentioned until the late 1800"s. Is there a distinction to be made here? This confuses me even more. Thank you for trying to clarify it for me, though.
Click to expand...
Probably because it had not been questioned before. Had infallibility not been addressed where would our Church be today? It’s funny how the Holy Spirit works, the Church was locked into it’s traditional sense prior to the mainstream modernist society taking hold. Don’t let the mainstream media affect your view of anything really because they are driven to find scandal in whatever is going to push the agenda, the Church apposes the agenda so where it is weakest is the place they will strike.
 
Also not to mention the amount of time and effort taken to do another Vatican Council, Vatican II 3 years wasn’t it, would it really be a good time to pull bishops away from there duties for that long of a period during this new season of attacks on the Church?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top