Vatican III

[Bubba_Switzler]

What are the arguments that a council should do this? When has a recent Pope acted out-of-line on declaring a matter of faith or morals?

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that no Pope in recent history has “acted out-of-line on declaring a matter of faith or morals”. (Let’s not drudge into the darker periods of the papacy.)

Now let me pose the question differently: Does the Pope need the authority to unilaterally declare matters on faith or morals?

Because if the answer to the second question is also “no”, and given the fact that many non-Catholic denominations are suspicious of Catholicism precisely because of the papacy, doesn’t it stand to reason that making the Pope “first among equals” might go a long way towards attracting Protestants back to Catholicism? (That is the primary issue for the Eastern Orthodox and the Anglicans.)

 

[DavidFilmer]

Couldn’t the Third Vatical Council trim the Pope’s authority back to a “frist among equals” admin/leadership role?

Obviously the Church cannot ever change doctrine.

If one Council defines some doctrine, but some aspects are unclear or incomplete, a future Council may add additional clarity to our understanding. But one Council (or Pope, in ex Cathedra matters) may never contradict or overrule another.

 

[Teflon93]

And therein lies one of the great issues of Catholicism: Couldn’t the Third Vatical Council trim the Pope’s authority back to a “frist among equals” admin/leadership role? Alas, that would require at least an implicit acknowledgement that eiether Vatican I or Vatical III was not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

You may wish to consider that the Pope’s authority is as God wants it to be.

I’m instantly reminded of our bishop’s puzzled response to one of my fellow RCIA member’s question regarding why the Church didn’t simply endorse gay marriage or women in the priesthood and thereby remove a source of constant criticism. “We don’t have the power to undo what Christ did” was his response.

“Trim the Pope’s authority back” is the same thing. The Pope has the same authority St Peter had. Christ gave it to St Peter.

Your quarrel is with Christ.

 

[Teflon93]

It should also be pointed out that despite claiming “first among equals” the latter day Orthodox retain the office of the Patriarch—an office with REAL power—and yet have some difficulty managing to pull together pan-Orthodox councils to address any controversial matter which arises, since one Patriarch or another simply can choose not to attend and bugger the proceedings.

This is precisely what the Russian Orthodox Patriarch did in the latest round of talks with The Vatican, in a snit over the seating of a bishop from an area no longer controlled by Moscow.

One reason why God doesn’t seem to prefer such a system—look back in Scripture and see how many times God chooses to interact with many of us versus one spokesman for us—is that it simply doesn’t work.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that no Pope in recent history has “acted out-of-line on declaring a matter of faith or morals”. (Let’s not drudge into the darker periods of the papacy.)

Now let me pose the question differently: Does the Pope need the authority to unilaterally declare matters on faith or morals?

Because if the answer to the second question is also “no”, and given the fact that many non-Catholic denominations are suspicious of Catholicism precisely because of the papacy, doesn’t it stand to reason that making the Pope “first among equals” might go a long way towards attracting Protestants back to Catholicism? (That is the primary issue for the Eastern Orthodox and the Anglicans.)

Couple things here.

• I completely agree with Teflon. It’s not a matter of us being able to change the chair of Peter because we feel like it. Christ set it up that way and prayed his faith would not fail and that he, singularly, would strengthen the others.
• Christ believed the Church “needed” this leader. We should submit to that and try to understand why if we do not already understand.
• One of the most important things to do when trying to draw Protestants back to the Church is NEVER compromise authentic Catholic doctrine. That is an artificial way to draw them back to something that is no longer Christ’s Church. We must rather be shining lights of God’s truth.

 

[chris_molter]

Seeing the reasons why posters want a 3rd Vatican council makes me even more convinced that there shouldn’t be one. Not until a few more generations have passed, at least.

 

[Teflon93]

• One of the most important things to do when trying to draw Protestants back to the Church is NEVER compromise authentic Catholic doctrine. That is an artificial way to draw them back to something that is no longer Christ’s Church. We must rather be shining lights of God’s truth.

This is a very important point. Sometimes we get wrapped up in forwarding this or that point of view as though we had the authority to do so. At best, it’s a fun mindgame. At worst, it incites disobedience and disrespect toward the true Font of Truth—the Church of Christ.

We see in these forums that some hold Catholics to be arrogant for presuming to have cornered the market on truth. We have done no such thing. Christ founded his Church, Christ abides with his Bride, and we simply do as Christ bid us do. St Peter didn’t create the Church. St Paul didn’t create the Church. No Pope or Cardinal or Bishop or Priest or Deacon or Mother or Sister or Brother created the Church. None had the power. None certainly had the wisdom, although many of these have been as wise as men get.

Christ did this.

When we ask why there are no women priests, we must ask Christ why he didn’t have any women among the Twelve.

When we ask why there needs to be a human head of the Church at all, we must ask Christ why he gave the keys to St Peter and promised to found the Church upon him. We must ask why God spoke through Moses and the prophets and not simply en masse to every human being all at once.

We must above all not seek to enshrine our human wisdom in the place of God’s supernatural and infinite wisdom. Where the two don’t match, we are in error, not Him.

This is not to say that I agree with everything the Church teaches. It is to say that where I disagree it is because I am in error and need the grace of God to straighten me out.

Where would I go if the Church were no longer the bastion of Truth?

There is simply nowhere else to go if Christ ever abandoned his Bride or his promise that the Gates of Hell would not stand against her. We would be lost as of that moment.

 

[Genesis315]

I would favor pushing further in the direction that Vatican II went: reducing reliance on Church authority in favor of argument and persuasion and greater involvement of the laity in the Church.

Persuasion has always been the right way in which we spread the truth to non-believers. However, in regards to Church authority for Catholics, Vatican II teaches more about the divine and binding authority of the Magisterium than all the other Councils combined. I do agree with your assessment in regards to involvement on the laity, if we understand such involvement as evangelization in the world and perfecting of the temporal sphere, which was the focus on Vatican II’s teaching on the role of the laity.

Anyway, I think it is definitely too soon for another Council; the reason Vatican II came less than a century after Vatican I was because Vatican I was cut short and not really completely and the makeup of modern society was changed greatly in the middle of the 20th century (plus Vatican II dealt with purely doctrinal issues so there wasn’t anything to really be “implemented”). All the problems of the world, and of the Church, can be solved, IMO, by greater fidelity to the actual decrees of Vatican II. If everyone–bishops, priests, deacons, religious, and laity–put into practice what Vatican II said those in their particular state of life should do, we’d be an evangelizing machine. Similarly, if the decrees on seminaries and Catholic education (including colleges) were faithfully adhered to, we’d also see many positive fruits. The same can be said for the decree on how modern communications should be used. One can go through all the decrees promulgated and imagine the abundant fruits if they were properly adhered to by all).

 

[Dempsey1919]

Since Vatican I gave the pope the power to decide dogmatic issues on his own, it is extremely unlikely there will ever be another dogmatic ecumenical council.

This is incorrect.

Although the doctrine of Papal Infallability was defined during the First Vatican Council, the full nature of the doctrine was unable to be discussed. The First Vatican Council was prematurely cut short due to the fact that Italian troops invaded Rome in 1870; and in response to this, Pope Pius IX suspended the Council. The Council was never reconvened and the work of fully explaining and defining the doctrine of *Papal Infallability *remained unfinished until the Second Vatican Council was convened in the 1960’s.

Vatican II completed the work of the First Vatican Council, especially in Lumen Gentium or the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. Many within the Church questioned the role of Bishops and the need for future Ecumenical Councils in the aftermath of Vatican I. It was only until Vatican II that these questions were answered. Please read paragraph 22 of Lumen Gentium:

In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28*) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29*)

As can be seen above, the power of Infallability was also given to the Bishops who are joined and united with their head, the Successor of St. Peter, the Bishop of Rome. The supreme power of Infallability is exercised in a special way during an Ecumenical Council. The Church, during Vatican II, reaffirmed the need for Ecumenical Councils.

The teaching of Vatican II on collegiality completed the work of Vatican I and reaffirmed the possibility of Ecumenical Councils in the future.

 

[Rogerteder]

This is incorrect.

Although the doctrine of Papal Infallability was defined during the First Vatican Council, the full nature of the doctrine was unable to be discussed. The First Vatican Council was prematurely cut short due to the fact that Italian troops invaded Rome in 1870; and in response to this, Pope Pius IX suspended the Council. The Council was never reconvened and the work of fully explaining and defining the doctrine of *Papal Infallability *remained unfinished until the Second Vatican Council was convened in the 1960’s.

Vatican II completed the work of the First Vatican Council, especially in Lumen Gentium or the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. Many within the Church questioned the role of Bishops and the need for future Ecumenical Councils in the aftermath of Vatican I. It was only until Vatican II that these questions were answered. Please read paragraph 22 of Lumen Gentium:

As can be seen above, the power of Infallability was also given to the Bishops who are joined and united with their head, the Successor of St. Peter, the Bishop of Rome. The supreme power of Infallability is exercised in a special way during an Ecumenical Council. The Church, during Vatican II, reaffirmed the need for Ecumenical Councils.

The teaching of Vatican II on collegiality completed the work of Vatican I and reaffirmed the possibility of Ecumenical Councils in the future.

TRUE TRUE TRUE BUT-----It is only an ecumenical council unless the Pope says it is. The teaching only (of an ecumenical council) becomes official unless the Pope approves it. Or at least a subsequent Pope. Theoretically all the Bishops of the world can gather an issue a stattment and the Pope can simply say “Um you are not a council.” Guees what then that means they arent a council. The bottom is the POPE RULES!!! (of course within certain limits, but not much)

 

[Genesis315]

Rogerteder, St. Francis de Sales (well before Vatican I) explains well that Councils are still necessary even though the Pope’s definitive decision is infallible:

But the great Cardinal of Toledo remarks most appositely on this place that it is not said [the Holy Spirit] shall carry the Church into all truth, but he shall lead; to show that though the Holy Spirit enlightens the Church, he wills at the same that she should use the diligence which is required for keeping the true way, as the Apostles did, who, having to give an answer to an important question, debated, comparing the Holy Scriptures together; and when they had diligently done this they concluded by the: It hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us; that is, the Holy Spirit has enlightened us and we have walked, he has guided us and we have followed him, up to this truth. The ordinary means must be employed to discover the truth, and yet in this must be acknowledged the drawing and presence of the Holy Spirit. Thus is the Christian flock led,-by the Holy Spirit but under the charge and guidance of its Pastor, who however does not walk at hazard, but according to necessity convokes the other pastors, either partially or universally**, carefully regards the track of his predecessors, considers the *Urim *and *Thummim *of the Word of God, enters before his God by his prayers and invocations, and, having thus diligently sought out the true way, boldly puts himself on his voyage and courageously sets sail. Happy the man who follows him and puts himself under the discipline of his crook! Happy the man who embarks in his boat, for he shall feed on truth, and shall arrive at the port of holy doctrine !

angelfire.com/ms/seanie/papacy/fds_pope14.html The whole thing is a good read on this topic.

 

[IrishJoe]

Christ did this.

perhaps, but did he make cardinals ? did he make priestly orders ?
there are many things the church has done and elaborated on by itself.

 

[Teflon93]

perhaps, but did he make cardinals ? did he make priestly orders ?
there are many things the church has done and elaborated on by itself.

Really? When did Christ leave the Church?

 

[paul_c]

I think that many of the suggestions for a third Vatican Council described here are actually moves toward Protestantism. (i.e, devalue the Pope’s role) . I fully agree with those that say that it is no where near time for another ecumenical council. Let’s complete implementation of Vatican 2 first…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’ve never quite understood this phrase. What does it mean?

**First in honour, but not lording it over the rest of the Church as though in some way detachable from the trrest of the episcopal college. The head is in a sense the most important part of the body - but it needs the rest of as body every bit as much as the rest of the body needs it: all the parts of the body, head included, are dependent on one another, are “parts one of another”. **​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

And therein lies one of the great issues of Catholicism: Couldn’t the Third Vatical Council trim the Pope’s authority back to a “frist among equals” admin/leadership role? Alas, that would require at least an implicit acknowledgement that eiether Vatican I or Vatical III was not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

**Councils are assisted - not inspired. Properly speaking, inspiration is applicable only to the Bible. That apart, the Church could always develop its doctrine in a way that verbally contradicted past definitions, if it had to. Its doctrine ****has **developed into a reversal of what it used to teach about the necessity of the Church for salvation. This is one of the things about development in ideas, doctrine, & thought: it is always a possibility that if a development goes on long enough, it will in effect reverse itself. That could happen here, eventually.​

I think the CC has not yet sorted out whether the Pope is sovereign or infallible - it wants to have both, but they are mutually exclusive. IMO, this is at the root of the issue you mention. :twocents:

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Obviously the Church cannot ever change doctrine.

If one Council defines some doctrine, but some aspects are unclear or incomplete, a future Council may add additional clarity to our understanding. But one Council (or Pope, in ex Cathedra matters) may never contradict or overrule another.

##** Is there not a danger here of taking the view that - where the Church is concerned - “whatever is, is right” ? **

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

That apart, the Church could always develop its doctrine in a way that verbally contradicted past definitions, if it had to. Its doctrine

**has ****developed into a reversal of what it used to teach about the necessity of the Church for salvation.

Then perhaps my hope is not misplaced. I sometimes fear that the CC is too prideful.**

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You may wish to consider that the Pope’s authority is as God wants it to be.

I’m instantly reminded of our bishop’s puzzled response to one of my fellow RCIA member’s question regarding why the Church didn’t simply endorse gay marriage or women in the priesthood and thereby remove a source of constant criticism. “We don’t have the power to undo what Christ did” was his response.

“Trim the Pope’s authority back” is the same thing. The Pope has the same authority St Peter had. Christ gave it to St Peter.

Your quarrel is with Christ.

**That is the reverse of convincing The Pope is a temporal ruler - was St. Peter ? **​

---

**People don’t seem to notice that the Petrine function as it was in Peter is vastly different from what it becomes later on; including now. It’s essential to make the usual distinctions between what is essential to that function, & what is historically accidental to it rather than belonging to its substance **

 

[MarcoPolo]

developed into a reversal of what it used to teach about the necessity of the Church for salvation.

Petrine function as it was in Peter is vastly different from what it becomes later on

“reversal” “vastly” I must point out that these are opinions.

I must question those who believe the Pope has been running around dictating doctrine apart from what the rest of the Church has taught for centuries…that he is totally “soverign.” He has used papal infallibility arguably, only twice. And the Immaculate Conception and Assumption certainly have been taught by bishops and saints for centuries. I don’t see the fictitious dictator caricature that needs to be caged, that many non-Catholics espouse, and that I’m hearing here.