Vatican III

  • Thread starter Thread starter holdencaulfield
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

holdencaulfield

Guest
What do you think? I think a new counsel should be called. I think it’s time for change. Heres what I think should be changed.
  • Stricter Rules
  • Kneeling
  • At least one TLM Mass offered
  • New requirements for priesthood
  • Start working towards the way the Church was at the Council of Trent
  • More traditional
  • Go back the way before Vatican II
There is nothing wrong with doctrine, however I think the Church seriously needs to look at how things are running. The Church is not supposed to be entertaining, it’s supposed to be religious.

I challenge the Pope to call a council.
 
holdencaulfield said:
What do you think? I think a new counsel should be called. I think it’s time for change. Heres what I think should be changed.
  • Stricter Rules
  • Kneeling
  • At least one TLM Mass offered
  • New requirements for priesthood
  • Start working towards the way the Church was at the Council of Trent
  • More traditional
  • Go back the way before Vatican II
There is nothing wrong with doctrine, however I think the Church seriously needs to look at how things are running. The Church is not supposed to be entertaining, it’s supposed to be religious.

I challenge the Pope to call a council.
Click to expand...
How much kneeling? The whole Mass? And I still can’t understand what isn’t religious about the NO. It’s still the same sacrifice of the Mass going on. I do agree that every parish should have a TLM but that doesn’t mean doing away with the NO or forcing people to start praying in Latin.
 
holdencaulfield said:
What do you think? I think a new counsel should be called. I think it’s time for change. Heres what I think should be changed.
  • Stricter Rules
  • Kneeling
  • At least one TLM Mass offered
  • New requirements for priesthood
  • Start working towards the way the Church was at the Council of Trent
  • More traditional
  • Go back the way before Vatican II
    There is nothing wrong with doctrine, however I think the Church seriously needs to look at how things are running. The Church is not supposed to be entertaining, it’s supposed to be religious.
I challenge the Pope to call a council.
Click to expand...
Before there is a Vatican III we should try to implement the documents of Vatican II first. At least in regards to the Liturgy.

James
 
goofyjim said:
How much kneeling? The whole Mass? And I still can’t understand what isn’t religious about the NO. It’s still the same sacrifice of the Mass going on. I do agree that every parish should have a TLM but that doesn’t mean doing away with the NO or forcing people to start praying in Latin.
Click to expand...
I agree as well, I just don’t want the Church to change any more than it already has.
 
holdencaulfield said:
What do you think? I think a new counsel should be called. I think it’s time for change. Heres what I think should be changed.
  • Stricter Rules
  • Kneeling
  • At least one TLM Mass offered
  • New requirements for priesthood
  • Start working towards the way the Church was at the Council of Trent
  • More traditional
  • Go back the way before Vatican II
Click to expand...
Basically, you’re saying that we need to disregard the Second Vatican Council. Rules are strict now, it’s whether or not they’re practiced is the question. What exactly do you mean by “Kneeling,” since we’re still to kneel during the Novus Ordo. While I personally have a preference for the Tridentine Mass, I think that we need to keep in mind that there is no desire, nor should there be one, to disregard the Novus Ordo. Many problems people have with it are not with the Mass itself, but with implementations.

Vatican II is a valid Ecumenical Council and has the same authority that Trent does. There is NOTHING in Vatican II that contradicts Trent, and much of what you cited has little to do with a Church Council, but is discipline which the Pope has the authority to alter without the Council. Also, keep in mind that Benedict XVI has stated that historically speaking, there is always a period of around 100 years of drama (read as schisms) after a Council before it’s fully implemented. We haven’t really scratched the surface of the Second Vatican Council, or to sound cliche, the true “Spirit of Vatican II,” which was to reaffirm Catholic belief. Remember, a Tridentine Mass is in no way more valid or spiritual or mystical, or more of a sacrifice than the Novus Ordo.
 
The Church really wasn’'t in all that great a shape at the Council of Trent–which was one reason Trent had a bunch of decrees on reform.

Have you read Vatican II’s document on the training of priests? Actually doing what that says should be a good start rather than creating new requirements.

As for “more traditional” that’s kind of vague and I’m not sure some decree saying “Be more traditional” would do anything. You’ll have to be more specific.

The same can be said for telling people to act like Catholics before Vatican II. But things weren’t ok before hand–even Arbishop Lefebrve complained of a sclerosis in the faith. If most members of the Church actually knew of and obeyed the decrees of the Council we would by a dynamo of evangelization–instead the sclerosis has gotten worse. But all the Christological heresies and related abuses were worse after their respective Councils as well–but after time (in some cases centuries) things got better and we now see them as the bedrocks of our faith. But, right after the first two, St. Gregory of Nazienzen lamented:

“To tell the truth, I am convinced that every assembly of bishops is to be avoided, for I have never experienced a happy ending to any council; not even the abolition of abuses…”

Stricter rules or having at least one TLM could be done, but the Pope could easily do that alone by amending canon law.
 
**I would like to recall something that happened in the fourth century, a century of great councils. When, 10 years after a council, St. Gregory Nazianzen was invited to participate in a new council, he said: “No! I’m not going. Now we must continue to work on the other one. We have so many problems. Why do you want to convoke another one immediately?” I think that this somewhat emotional voice demonstrates that time is required to assimilate a council.
Click to expand...
In the time between two great councils, other forms of contact are necessary among the episcopates: the synods of Rome, for example. Without a doubt, it is necessary to improve the procedure, because there are too many monologues. We must really find a synodal process, a common way. Then there are the continental, regional, etc., synods, the effective work of the episcopal conferences, the meetings of episcopal conferences with the Holy See.
Click to expand...
In the course of five years, we [in the Roman Curia] see all the bishops of the world. We have improved these visits “ad limina” a lot, which before were very formal and now are genuine meetings of dialogue. Therefore, we must improve these instruments in order to have a permanent dialogue among all the areas of the Church and among all the areas of the Holy See, to achieve a better application of Vatican Council II. And then, we will see …
Click to expand...
Cardinal Ratzinger on Why It’s Not Time for Vatican III**
Click to expand...
Adam
 
We do not need a new Council.

We need Vatican II to be obeyed. Most of the problems now are not cause by the Council documents; they are caused by rampant disobedience, and subscription to the laissez-faire modernist mentality.
 
holdencaulfield said:
What do you think? I think a new counsel should be called. I think it’s time for change. Heres what I think should be changed.
  • Stricter Rules
  • Kneeling
  • At least one TLM Mass offered
  • New requirements for priesthood
  • Start working towards the way the Church was at the Council of Trent
  • More traditional
  • Go back the way before Vatican II
There is nothing wrong with doctrine, however I think the Church seriously needs to look at how things are running. The Church is not supposed to be entertaining, it’s supposed to be religious.

I challenge the Pope to call a council.
Click to expand...
lol, this is just a new way of saying take away Vatican II.

You don’t actually want Vatican III, you want Vatican II nullified.

And I’m sure the Pope will accept your challenge just because you double-dog dared him. 😛
 
A council is not necessary for what you say the church should do. A pope does not need to call a council to enforce the rules that already exist. Also we do not need to go back to the way things were in the times of Trent. You have little comprehension of what that would truly entail. The world and the Church can not go back to those times. We can of course emphasize the things that worked well back then.
 
Calling another council is much like the politicians who demand more and more laws when all that is needed is enforcing the laws that already exist.
 
Caulfield, You’re in deep ca-ca if you think the church should not change. WE are the church. You and I and all the other pew-warmers. And as long as we live, our experience of God and our relationship with God is going to change. We can’t help it; it’s a fact of life. The church is going to go on changing. Our job is to see to it that as we change, we put the best of ourselves into the changing. This is how to get a better, more faithful Christianity. Trying to stop change will end with no church at all.

Matthew
 
Mr. Caulfield (I like your choice of avatar, by the way),

I think everyone who has posted thus far has offered some good, solid responses as to why a Third Vatican Council to “make it more like it was at the time of the Council of Trent” or do away with certain reforms of Vatican II would not be a good course of action. Let me make it clear that I probably sympathize with a lot of your desires for how things should be in the Church as opposed to how they actually are today, for example with kneeling for Communion and wider access to the TLM. Personally, I usually only attend the Traditional Mass, and I tend to have a very traditional mindset regarding Catholic doctrines on faith and morals.

That being said, it is my firm belief, from things I’ve read on these forums and in other publications, that the Church by its very nature cannot “go back in time,” so to speak, or adjust itself to how it was in an earlier era.

The Church is constantly moving forward through history, toward her end point-Judgement Day. To take one arbitary point in history (such as the time of Trent) and absolutize it as the Perfect Catholic Age is essentially fundamentalism. Catholics are not fundamentalists. And as others have noted, the Church has its sins and its struggles in every age.

But “moving foward” does not equal “changing doctrines.” It does mean that some customs and disciplines will change or be dropped, fasts will be made more or less rigorous, etc.

For one thing, if we never moved foward, in Mass we wouldn’t have the Elevation of the Host after the Consecration! Nor would I ever want this particular part of the Mass to be done away with, because I think it so clearly expresses Catholic faith in the Real Presence of Christ among us.

But I think the proper way to view the customs or elements of the liturgy whose value we believe so strongly in is that they are so valuable not because they are the product of a particular age, but precisely because of that inherent, obvious value that makes them timeless and therefore appropriate in any age. All of the This therefore implies that there could be, at some point in the future, a change in the liturgy that more clearly brings out and visibly expresses a truth of Catholic faith. I don’t want to start suggesting changes because I don’t have any good ones; I doubt most people do.

All of the traditional priestly societies, like the FSSP, make the point that the desire to have wider access to the TLM for all the faithful is not motivated by nostalgia for a bygone era, but because we believe this Mass is part of the Church’s Living Tradition, because it is timeless.
 
Nor would I or (I think) any of these other posters limit this “moving forward” to the liturgy. As John Henry Cardinal Newman so clearly elucidated this fact of life for the Chuch, doctrines do develope. The substance of Catholic teaching on faith and morals does not change, that is to say, it does not turn into something ontologically opposed to what it was before, but as history moves foward, the Chuch grows deeper in the knowledge of the mysteries of faith, and explains them differently, more clearly, or at greater length in Papal and Conciliar documents.

Because people’s ways of thinking and speaking change as time goes on, and the structure of society, business, government, etc. changes, there come times when the Church deems it beneficial to explain an article of Catholic faith differently than She might have in a previous era, but the substance of that article of faith remains unchanged. We have to remember that there is a difference between the teaching and the way it is communicated. Of course, we have to be careful that in choosing a different way of communicating that same truth of faith, we do not compromise it, as this is always a danger we must be on guard against.
 
cascherman said:
lol, this is just a new way of saying take away Vatican II.

You don’t actually want Vatican III, you want Vatican II nullified.

And I’m sure the Pope will accept your challenge just because you double-dog dared him. 😛
Click to expand...
Besides, the Pope himself stated that if you follow Vatican II, you must follow Trent and Vatican I, and that if you follow Trent, you must follow Vatican II. In the light of that, there is no point in getting rid of Vatican II.

To be honest, the Church would be in a better state if Vatican II, and all other rubrics/dictates of the Church were properly enforced, and liberal la-la-land stuff was done away with.
 
drafdog said:
Caulfield, You’re in deep ca-ca if you think the church should not change. WE are the church. You and I and all the other pew-warmers. And as long as we live, our experience of God and our relationship with God is going to change. We can’t help it; it’s a fact of life. The church is going to go on changing. Our job is to see to it that as we change, we put the best of ourselves into the changing. This is how to get a better, more faithful Christianity. Trying to stop change will end with no church at all.

Matthew
Click to expand...
Letting the human element dictate change --can land the majority in apostasy. The Church is both human and Divine. We the human element --are the body of Christ by our submission and adherence to the Divine. The Divine does not submit to the human.
 
Knowing the state of the world episcopate, I would only trust a Vatican III if Benedict XVI personally wrote every document himself.
 
Pedestrian,
I never said it did. I said that we, who are the Church, change and therefore the Church changes. Even if this were true only in the instance of language which changes constantly, it would be true. We have to adjust at least to change in language and expression.

Matthew
 
drafdog said:
Pedestrian,
I never said it did. I said that we, who are the Church, change and therefore the Church changes. Even if this were true only in the instance of language which changes constantly, it would be true. We have to adjust at least to change in language and expression.

Matthew
Click to expand...
You are right-- language changes. In the hands of the human --Father , Son , and Holy Spirit in the Baptismal formula— end up as Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. So even by way of language --the human can find a way to to under-mind the Faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top