Vatican III?

[GEddie]

I don’t believe in some predetermined waiting period for councils. If you need a council, you convene a council. However, even an East-West reunification might not warrant a council. Just the opposite, maybe such a reunification would be grounds for putting off a council until there’s enough cohesion to ensure that a council wouldn’t upset the delicate union.

I would think that those who, let’s say, aren’t entirely happy with how Vatican II turned out, should be the least supportive of another council. Vatican II resulted in an earthquake, a break in the continuity of tradition, precisely the thing that traditionalists believe the Church would guard against, not create.

You don’t need a council to do most of the things traditionalists want to do. Much of it is already happening. Mass seems less folksy these days. The latest translation of the missal restored a lot of what had been lost. Yes, it’s slow but, again, traditionalists should be sympathetic to this approach. In fact, maybe this is the best possible route. I might argue that minor reform during Vatican II wasn’t possible considering the radical spirit of the times and that at any rate we needed to go through the fire of accordions and felt banners to truly appreciate what we had and adjust accordingly.

I still think that an East-West reunion would require a church council, just to bring all the facets together.

When I last studied Church history, I seem to recall that doctrinal development in the East requires a council (since they have no Papal infallibility) and that as they lack the Roman patriarch, the last council they were a part of was Chalcedon in 787(?)

Were there to be a reunion, it might be totally necessary to catch up on all the councils the two sides missed together. ISTM only of course.

I don’t believe that liturgical abuses or some people’s discomfort with the modern church would themselves be grounds to hold a council.

ICXC NIKA

 

[tafan]

I still think that an East-West reunion would require a church council, just to bring all the facets together.

When I last studied Church history, I seem to recall that doctrinal development in the East requires a council (since they have no Papal infallibility) and that as they lack the Roman patriarch, the last council they were a part of was Chalcedon in 787(?)

Were there to be a reunion, it might be totally necessary to catch up on all the councils the two sides missed together. ISTM only of course.

I don’t believe that liturgical abuses or some people’s discomfort with the modern church would themselves be grounds to hold a council.

ICXC NIKA

Good post, I think a reunion of east with west would be the only reason now for a council, but I doubt if it would be in the Vatican. But that is pure speculation and Eastern Orthodox churches would have to accept it first. I suspect that any pope would likely agree to the idea if it the orthodox churches did.

As to a Vatican council to "fix " interpretation of Vatican II: no way. I am reading the documents now. For the most part, there is no issue with them being difficult to interpret. If you accept that most problems since the council have been rooted in the liturgy, you will find the liturgical instructions of the council very clear and precise as to the types of reform desired. I don’t see how another council fixes what was done beyond the council’s instructions.

 

[GEddie]

No, not Vatican III.

I imagine that the “reunion council” if ever held, would be Jerusalem II. Provided, of course, the Israelis allowed it there

ICXC NIKA

 

[Zekariya]

Then, if the Council is to renew traditional theology or create more of a sense of continuity, it would create the image that Vatican II really was not in continuity with Church Tradition (or else what would be the point of this hypothetical Council?). In fact, a large part of what made Vatican II possible was the “Ressourcement” group that wanted more emphasis placed on the Church Fathers and Church Tradition. So the new Council would be very redundant.

It would be a disaster.

The Third Council condemned Nestorianism. The Fourth Council condemned Eutychianism and accidentally opened a loophole for Nestorians (Nestorius himself praised the Council). The Fifth Council clarified the intentions of the Fourth Council and closed the accidental loophole.

Having a Vatican III to clarify things would not lessen the continuity of Vatican II.

Note that I am not calling for a Vatican III. I am just replying about continuity.

 

[Joe_5859]

Is it possible? Sure. Any given day we could wake up to read on the internet how the Pope has called for another ecumenical council. But I don’t think it’s likely.

Vatican II produced a corpus of documents that dwarfs all the previous councils. It will take time to work through it all let alone start adding more to the pile. The second largest body of documents came from Trent. And we know how long that one’s influence lasted.

Certainly, the Holy Spirit is full of surprises. So I’d never rule it out completely. But it would indeed be very surprising to me to see a new ecumenical council called in my lifetime (or the lifetimes of my descendants down to my great-great-great grandchildren).

The way things have been set up since Vatican II, there are the periodic synods of bishops to meet and discuss specific issues. To me, that seems likely to continue as the modus operandi for the forseeable future.

 

[Pilgrim1701]

The only reason I can think of that a Church Council would be called in foreseeable time would be the reunion of the Eastern and Western Churches (if both sides ever wanted it enough)…I’d imagine Jerusalem II.
ICXC NIKA

I don’t believe in some predetermined waiting period for councils. If you need a council, you convene a council. However, even an East-West reunification might not warrant a council. Just the opposite, maybe such a reunification would be grounds for putting off a council until there’s enough cohesion to ensure that a council wouldn’t upset the delicate union…

Good post, I think a reunion of east with west would be the only reason now for a council, but I doubt if it would be in the Vatican…

I imagine that the “reunion council” if ever held, would be Jerusalem II. Provided, of course, the Israelis allowed it there ICXC NIKA

I agree with the above, though to be honest, these things are above my pay grade
I don’t think in the modern age, with the desire of ecumenism, you could have a truly ecumenical council, without all of the churches truly recognised as apostolic there, and not just in an observing capacity. Otherwise, it just resembles a synod or meeting of a particular group of bishops, those in communion with Rome, dealing with issues of particular churches, rather than the universal church proper. Full communion could be worked out in ways other than a council, granted, but my gut says that this issue is what the next truly ecumenical council will be about.
You don’t need a council to handle liturgical abuse, perceived or otherwise, or even to interpret the statements of a previous council. The means for handling these issues already exist.

The political situation of Israel precludes the possibility of such an en masse gathering of the worlds Christian leaders there in my opinion. The security demands would be untenable.

 

[johnmann]

I still think that an East-West reunion would require a church council, just to bring all the facets together.

Maybe but given that any council will be dominated by the West, I would think that a precondition for reunification might involve a moratorium on councils. In my view, the fear of undue Western influence is actually the biggest stumbling block to reunification.

 

[rfournier103]

Frankly, I think the worst possible idea.

The post-Vatican II “issues” will be worked out best by one and one thing only: time.

…I think time is the best way of dealing with these things.

No one will even think about another church council while the dust of the last one is still settling…

ICXC NIKA

I wholeheartedly agree. I also don’t think there is anything wrong with Vatican II. I DO think that the resolutions from the Council could have been put into practice in a better way. I just think some tweaking and maybe a tune-up on the Council’s application are all that is required.

Please remember that Vatican II was the most radical change to the Church in many centuries. Change is hard, and in this age, we are very impatient. I don’t think Pope John XXIII would have expected such drastic changes; but changes were made nonetheless. Give the Holy Spirit time to do His work.

Lastly… The Council calls US to holiness, not just our clergy. We cannot expect our priests and religious to do all the work while we watch for one hour on Sunday. They need our support, love, and sometimes even our feedback.

Read the Documents. Learn them. Love them. Many bishops and priests worked very hard to reinvigorate our Church. We must all do our part.

Techinically, Vatican II isn’t finished yet; since we haven’t fully seen it come to it’s full potential. A third Council would only undermine the hard work done by so many. Patience and an active ministry on all our parts is what’s needed here.

I highly recommend any serious Christian (Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant) read the Documents of the Council. You may be amazed at what you find.

 

[ProVobis]

I have no idea why V2 was called when it was (or V1 for that matter).

Pope John XXIII had its reasons but he wanted to have a short council as he made no long-range accommodations for all who were to attend.

 

[GEddie]

Maybe but given that any council will be dominated by the West, I would think that a precondition for reunification might involve a moratorium on councils. In my view, the fear of undue Western influence is actually the biggest stumbling block to reunification.

Such a council need not be Western dominated.

The RCC has many more sinners in it than the ECs, for sure, but that is what proportional representation is all about.

If both sides wanted it, reunion would come about. And since the ECs are apparently overdue for a council, what better setting for the negotiations.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I don’t know, but I think that it would be a great idea.

The world is getting kinda hectic, I feel that the Catholic Church is in some trouble,
Ecumenical Councils are never a bad idea, and I’m sure that Pope Francis means
to bring on a lot of changes, possibly getting back to more traditional themes, and
so forth.

 

[tafan]

Councils are not always a good idea. They are protected from error if they speak in union the pope. But they have " gone off the reservation" so-to-speak. Look up
The council if Florence which at one point was acknowledge as ecumenical, at then was trying to dispose the pope and caused a schism.