Vatican III

[Bubba_Switzler]

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.

I don’t keep track of what non-Catholics say but I don’t think anyone here has made that accusation.

Let me repeat my question on this point, which went unanswered (other than a quibble about the cause of schisms):

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.)

 

[Teflon93]

I don’t keep track of what non-Catholics say but I don’t think anyone here has made that accusation.

Let me repeat my question on this point, which went unanswered (other than a quibble about the cause of schisms):

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.)

The Pope is either infallible or he is not.

If the Pope possesses the charism of infallibility, it is because Christ has so imbued the office since St Peter held it. (Hmm, wonder why Rome never fell into the heresies which constantly struck the East?)

If the Pope does not possess the charism of infallibility, we’ve got much bigger problems, since that means the dogmatic statement of Vatican I was mistaken. It also means that Christ left the Church, that the Gates of Hell have indeed prevailed against her. It makes Christ a liar.

These are all far bigger concerns than attracting those few Orthodox and Protestants whose primary objection to the Church is papal infallibility.

If you haven’t followed some of the threads concerning the Orthodox, you will find that papal infallibility is merely a fig leaf for a host of other disagreements. Even were we to adopt the least common denominator Orthodox views—not all Orthodox agree, as their many failures to hold pan-Orthodox councils demonstrate—it would not end the Orthodox schism.

Indeed, the prevailing Orthodox and Protestant views are very, very different. Their common ground is only through the Catholic Church. If we were to ignore Christ and make the Church either Orthodox or Protestant (and good luck getting agreement on what the latter would mean theologically), we would be no closer to fully united Christendom since irreparable gaps would exist with the remaining community.

All of which supposes that the primary objective of the Church is not to reveal the Truth God has entrusted to her but rather to refrain from offending anyone who deigns to call himself a Christian.

Since Christ told us the path was narrow, we can only assume that manmade attempts to widen it are doomed to failure.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The Pope is either infallible or he is not.

Agreed. But withdrawing the claim that the Pope is infallible is not the same as declaring the Pope to be infallible.

If the Pope does not possess the charism of infallibility, we’ve got much bigger problems, since that means the dogmatic statement of Vatican I was mistaken. It also means that Christ left the Church, that the Gates of Hell have indeed prevailed against her. It makes Christ a liar.

This is a point I addressed elsewhere so I won’t take it up here.

These are all far bigger concerns than attracting those few Orthodox and Protestants whose primary objection to the Church is papal infallibility.

I gave my list, what is yours?

If you haven’t followed some of the threads concerning the Orthodox, you will find that papal infallibility is merely a fig leaf for a host of other disagreements. Even were we to adopt the least common denominator Orthodox views—not all Orthodox agree, as their many failures to hold pan-Orthodox councils demonstrate—it would not end the Orthodox schism.

I have no knowledge here other than a vague recollection of the original schism.

But you really haven’t answered my question directly. Let me rephrase it: If the Pope is not using papal infalliblity and if it is a source of friction with other denominations, what harm is there in withdrawing the claim?

It strike me as prideful.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

I think that all the time. It has a lot of problems, & is quite a train-wreck. It does not need to be perfect, & on earth it never will be - it’s a chaotic mess To be what it claims to be, it does not need to be pristine, flawless, spotless, sinless - if it were, this would not last long anyway, because it is composed entirely of sinners. What matters is that God should love, choose, create & work in it - looking as if this is what happens is secondary to that: God chooses men for Himself because He is Love - not because men love God.​

God makes the Church effective as His Church - the human response to Him is secondary to that. He is well able to work His Will by using sin - in fact, He “has to”, because man is full of sin anyway. If God can turn human sin to His own purposes as He did in the Death of Christ, He is not going to be obstructed by human sin in His Church (which is just as well for us ).

**By the Cross, God overcame the strength of human sin by what looked like weakness - this Divine weakness is stronger than human strength; it has no need of it. So God has no “need” of human goodness & strength in His Church: it is still His, not because sin is of little importance (it is serious), but because He does not need the appearance of human strength, even if we think we do. So arguments for Christian faith that are derived from its seeming strength are - AFAICS - of little worth; God’s weak-seeming strength is what we need; even though strength like that is rather humiliating. **

Just my :twocents:

 

[Ignatius]

What should be the theme of the Third Vatican Council? .

After all of the problems arising after Vatican II, I would say let’s give it a millennium or so before the next one. A possible exception would be if there is an opportunity for full communion with the Orthodox.

 

[MGLechner]

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

First among equals (according to Eastern Orthodox churches out of communion with Rome) was the idea that in matters of doctrine and praxis, the Bishop of Rome was the one that the other Bishops turned to to render a final decision. This was due in large part to the fact that our Lord Jesus Christ declared that St. Peter would be the foundation upon which the Church would be built. It also had to do with the fact that the city of Rome was the place where Sts. Peter and Paul were martyred (cf. The Orthodox Church pg. 27 by Timothy Ware).

Papal primacy, as it was called, was long accepted by the Church so long as the Bishop of Rome recognized that he was one among equals. For those in the Orthodox fold, this notion became corrupted when the Pope took on the role as the authoritative head of the Universal (i.e. Catholic) Church. This created a rift among the Latin rite and Eastern rite branches of Chrisitanity, and continues to this day.

As a Catholic, I donot think Christianity can function effectively without a clearly defined leader and Chief Shepherd of the Church (i.e. the Pope).

However, I am grieved over the fact that the schism between East and West has not been resolved. I believe it was the Blessed Pope John Paul II that spoke of the impossibility of the Church breathing without both lungs. Maybe if there is a Vatican III, it will be convened and attended by both Eastern and Western Bishops in the hope that both lungs can breathe in unison once again. As least, that is my prayer.

 

[MarcoPolo]

If the Pope does not possess the charism of infallibility, we’ve got much bigger problems, since that means the dogmatic statement of Vatican I was mistaken. It also means that Christ left the Church, that the Gates of Hell have indeed prevailed against her. It makes Christ a liar.

Exactly. Flesh and blood did not reveal truth to Peter but rather God. It was for Peter that Jesus prayed his faith would not fail. It was the OT’s high priest to whom was given a special gift of prophecy simply because he possessed that highest office. It is through succession that Peter’s gift is perpetuated. It is not for us to challenge whether God “needed” to give Peter this gift. He did. It is certainly our place to be humble and attempt to understand why, as well as accept it.

Someone on here hinted that a council is needed because Catholics are too “arrogant.” I say recognizing that a Pope has infallibility requires great humility.

 

[anon5216]

I believe that councils to refine a bureaucratic system, (and/or a set of beliefs to believe), can never be effective. The bureaucrats will simply adapt to the new rules and keep doing the same inane things. And the believers will adapt and keep arguing over what they want and don’t want to “believe”.

I have a far better strategy to renew the Catholic Church:

You know how St. Augustine’s mother “prayed every day for 30 years for his conversion”?

If every Catholic on the planet prayed every day to connect personally with a (Catholic, of course ) spiritual director of the caliber of Padre Pio - and were also open to the possibility of God choosing them to be transformed into such a person themselves - there would literally be hundreds, if not thousands, of such spiritually evolved Catholics within 20 years.

Forget the bureaucrats. Bureaucrats will be bureaucrats no matter if they’re in charge of a school, city council, state, country, or a whole religion.

Forget being a mere “believer” - you must urgently “need” spiritual results - in this life. It’s been said that “all you need to do is ‘need’ spiritual results the way you ‘need’ to breath air”.

Imagine millions and millions and millions of people praying for this daily. Prayer at this scale, for this result, would do more for the spiritual renewal of the Catholic Church than a hundred Vatican Councils.