Vatican III?

[nysacerdote]

I recently watched a documentary on Vatican II, and during part of the commentary, one of the priests interviewed broached the possibility of seeing a third Vatican Council, one whose purpose would be to reconcile the Church with her venerable tradition. Specifically citing Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s “reform of the reform”, the idea was concerning normalizing and restoring the Roman Rite, cracking down on liturgical abuse, a renewal of traditional theology, a deeper sense of continuity with Church history, etc., etc.

My question is what are everybody’s thoughtS? Would it be possible? Why, why not? Would you like to see it take place? Why, why not? If so, do you think it could acheive the above goals? Why, or why not? Would have different goals? Why, or why not?

Basically, please stop for a mo, and express your thoughts on this concept.

 

[Nacho45]

I very much want to reply, but I want to think about the reply first.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Frankly, I think the worst possible idea would be to convoke another ecumenical council without waiting first for another, oh, three or four centuries.

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

I expect that the authentic teaching of Vatican II, which shall be that which is defined as such, will be the common reference point for the next several centuries. However, just like we don’t hear really old priests (80+ or so) who were formed in “Tridentine pre-Vatican II” seminaries harping on about the Council of Trent all the time–did they ever, even when they were new ordinands?–in the same way, we don’t hear really young priests (25-30-ish years old) who were formed in “post-Vatican II” seminaries harping on about Vatican II all the time. It seems that the people who harp on about Vatican II the most are the ones who have a lived experience of it, and most other age groups don’t talk much about it except in an academic/catechetical/theological/historical setting.

Now, I’m not putting down Vatican II, I’m just noting an observation and giving reasons why I think it’s only natural, and, yes, good that this happen. I think it was Pope Benedict as Fr. Ratzinger who said something in Communio after the Council in response to the Concilium folks like holding ecumenical councils is necessary every once in a while, but it is entirely unhealthy to put too much direct focus and energy on it for too long because then it just turns into less and less of a grace-filled moment and more into a daily grind. In other words, things that are useful in exceptional situations become dull, lifeless and useless if we use them too much; they become too ordinary.

Now, you might ask about Trent, which lasted foreverrrrr. Trent is, I think, an exceptional case, because the Pope wasn’t there for any of it and there were only a few hundred bishops there, mostly Italian. So it was going on, but it was mostly a background thing, without a lot of hooplah afaik, which is ironic because it produced some of the most beautiful and resounding and important teachings of any ecumenical council ever, kind of like Nicaea. However, going into the future, for as long as modern communications are around I think the Church will have to be very clever about these things. Holding an ecumenical council is not something that can be a background thing anymore, unless the Pope and bishops who participate in one (just hypothetically in the future) are very prudent about it and try to keep the chatter at bay. Can you imagine the blowing-up comboxes and Twitter accounts if there were an ecumenical council announced for 2016 or so? One word: #horriblePRnightmare!!! Now that I think of it, “attention” in general is something that the Church does not need. In fact, I daresay the best evangelization methods are not those grand-yet-abstruse gestures in the public’s eye, but those small gestures done at the lowest level, like in parishes.

So, I think the Church is ecumenical council-ed out for the foreseeable future.

Naturally, things change, and I think time is the best way of dealing with these things.

 

[GEddie]

I recently watched a documentary on Vatican II, and during part of the commentary, one of the priests interviewed broached the possibility of seeing a third Vatican Council, one whose purpose would be to reconcile the Church with her venerable tradition. Specifically citing Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s “reform of the reform”, the idea was concerning normalizing and restoring the Roman Rite, cracking down on liturgical abuse, a renewal of traditional theology, a deeper sense of continuity with Church history, etc., etc.

My question is what are everybody’s thoughtS? Would it be possible? Why, why not? Would you like to see it take place? Why, why not? If so, do you think it could acheive the above goals? Why, or why not? Would have different goals? Why, or why not?

Basically, please stop for a mo, and express your thoughts on this concept.

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

ICXC NIKA

 

[CruceSignati]

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

ICXC NIKA

:sad_yes:

 

[CrossofChrist]

I recently watched a documentary on Vatican II, and during part of the commentary, one of the priests interviewed broached the possibility of seeing a third Vatican Council, one whose purpose would be to reconcile the Church with her venerable tradition. Specifically citing Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s “reform of the reform”, the idea was concerning normalizing and restoring the Roman Rite, cracking down on liturgical abuse, a renewal of traditional theology, a deeper sense of continuity with Church history, etc., etc.

My question is what are everybody’s thoughtS? Would it be possible? Why, why not? Would you like to see it take place? Why, why not? If so, do you think it could acheive the above goals? Why, or why not? Would have different goals? Why, or why not?

Basically, please stop for a mo, and express your thoughts on this concept.

It wouldn’t make sense to have a Vatican III. Think about it. There are too many logistical problems, including financing the Council, transportation for clergy, finding suitable space for all the bishops (it was packed even at Vatican II), etc. 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.

 

[SMHW]

Frankly, I think the worst possible idea would be to convoke another ecumenical council without waiting first for another, oh, three or four centuries.

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

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

Yep. We may live in the information age where last week is old news but that’s not how the Church operates. It’s only been a short 50 years since the Second Vatican Council was convened.

 

[Cristiano]

I recently watched a documentary on Vatican II, and during part of the commentary, one of the priests interviewed broached the possibility of seeing a third Vatican Council, one whose purpose would be to reconcile the Church with her venerable tradition. Specifically citing Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s “reform of the reform”, the idea was concerning normalizing and restoring the Roman Rite, cracking down on liturgical abuse, a renewal of traditional theology, a deeper sense of continuity with Church history, etc., etc.

My question is what are everybody’s thoughtS? Would it be possible? Why, why not? Would you like to see it take place? Why, why not? If so, do you think it could acheive the above goals? Why, or why not? Would have different goals? Why, or why not?

Basically, please stop for a mo, and express your thoughts on this concept.

It sounds that the ones that made those statements had no clue about the Church and the ecumenical councils or more probably they expressed some concepts in a very poor manner. VII was fine by itself and the bishops, the CDF and other offices are more than sufficient to fix the errors that people created out of ignorance or malevolence. A lot of things that you mention were already covered by previous councils.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

It wouldn’t make sense to have a Vatican III. Think about it. There are too many logistical problems, including financing the Council, transportation for clergy, finding suitable space for all the bishops (it was packed even at Vatican II), etc. 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.

Agreed that another Council at this time makes no sense, but I don’t think the problem is logistics. For starters, most church councils have not been in Rome. There is no canonical reason one needs to be there. One could even make the case that being away from Rome would be an advantage. Sites with more modern meeting space and greater lodging facilities could easily be identified. There are somewhat more than 5100 bishops in the world. Compare that number with the volumes of people attending events ranging from political conventions to trade association meetings. Modern digital technology would greatly facilitate issues ranging from document distribution, simultaneous translations, to keeping in touch with a bishop’s home diocese. Holding large-scale meetings has never been easier.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Agreed that another Council at this time makes no sense, but I don’t think the problem is logistics. For starters, most church councils have not been in Rome. There is no canonical reason one needs to be there. One could even make the case that being away from Rome would be an advantage. Sites with more modern meeting space and greater lodging facilities could easily be identified. There are somewhat more than 5100 bishops in the world. Compare that number with the volumes of people attending events ranging from political conventions to trade association meetings. Modern digital technology would greatly facilitate issues ranging from document distribution, simultaneous translations, to keeping in touch with a bishop’s home diocese. Holding large-scale meetings has never been easier.

I wonder, if there were an ecumenical council sometime in the future, whether it would be better to hold it somewhere out in the country away from major cities and whatnot.

 

[Mike30]

So according to some of the opinions posted here,at least several hundred years should pass before another Council should be called, if then:ehh:

Using that exact same logic Vatican II never should have been called in the first place since it occurred right at about and started a little less than a hundred years after Vatican I. Amazing.

Or was there some special reason to ignore the several hundred years that others are saying is appropriate in this regard?

Absent some very special circumstances, I would say not.

 

[GEddie]

I wonder, if there were an ecumenical council sometime in the future, whether it would be better to hold it somewhere out in the country away from major cities and whatnot.

I doubt it.

You could find a minor town with all of the logistical perquisites, but there would be no real advantage. The media would still descend like piranhas.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

So according to some of the opinions posted here,at least several hundred years should pass before another Council should be called, if then:ehh:

Using that exact same logic Vatican II never should have been called in the first place since it occurred right at about and started a little less than a hundred years after Vatican I. Amazing.

Or was there some special reason to ignore the several hundred years that others are saying is appropriate in this regard?

Absent some very special circumstances, I would say not.

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

Remember though, before V1, it had been centuries since a council.

The very reason why anybody is conjecturing about a V3 is the primary reason there won’t be one: the Church is still adjusting to V2 in every way.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

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).

Such a reunion would pretty much demand a Council.

But as someone remarked, a Council need not be held in Rome.

I’d imagine Jerusalem II.

ICXC NIKA

 

[YoungTradCath]

So according to some of the opinions posted here,at least several hundred years should pass before another Council should be called, if then:ehh:

Using that exact same logic Vatican II never should have been called in the first place since it occurred right at about and started a little less than a hundred years after Vatican I. Amazing.

Or was there some special reason to ignore the several hundred years that others are saying is appropriate in this regard?

Absent some very special circumstances, I would say not.

Well, I would just like to point out that the Church probably didn’t/doesn’t need 300 or 400 years to adjust to Vatican I. Of course, opposition to it caused the Old Catholics, but that is a relatively small group. Within the Church proper, Vatican I doesn’t seem to have directly or indirectly caused any truly catastrophic damage, nor does it seem to have been distorted in a twisty topsy-turvy way like Vatican II has been. In Vatican I, really the only thing that might be said to affect most Catholics in a direct way, and even then only very rarely, is Pastor aeternus and its implications.

Vatican II is a whole 'nother story, as we all know. It is (still) used to justify all kinds of inane things. Good Catholics are often stuck in a predicament in which some people will say, “Let the bishops implement it,” and then some others will say, “Yeah but you hate Vatican II 'cause your parish has the Latin Mass 'n stuff!” and still others will say, “Ignore it.” So I am just left like this: For all practical purposes I just do my own thing. I don’t really worry about Vatican II too much personally, but I do discuss it on CAF sometimes.

But, who ever says, “WELL VATICAN I SEZ…” ?? Nobody. Who ever says, “WELL VATICAN II SEZ…” ?? A lot of people still. Less than in the past, if anecdotal evidence from older people who care is any clue, but still, many people.

Simply put, Vatican I doesn’t seem to be a confounding issue. Vatican II continues to be by my observation. Now, that doesn’t mean it’s “wrong” or whatever someone may say, but just that it is confounding, and the issues that Vatican II responded to continue to exist in one form or another, very broadly speaking. In that regard–do not extrapolate this point to apply in other ways–Trent and Vatican II are similar. The issues that they responded/respond to continued/continue (both tenses of both words for both Councils) for centuries (or will) and into the future. (That was an awful sentence, sorry.) Vatican I was very…provincial, shall we say…in its considerations.

I do not intend my comments about the hundreds of years thing to apply to every historical example of an ecumenical council and every possible future ecumenical council. My comments on that are based on a discrete instance, which is Vatican II. I don’t care that Vatican II occurred only 100 years after Vatican I; that is not my point, read above for my explanation.

 

[digitalpapist]

I think there needs to be something on the order of Bishop Schneider’s suggestion of a Syllabus of Errors for VII before we even think about a VIII.

There are still things in Vatican II that need to be clarified and set straight, and our current liturgical worship needs to be better defined and reformed. Those things need to happen, and then let sit for a while, before another council.

 

[nysacerdote]

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).

Such a reunion would pretty much demand a Council.

But as someone remarked, a Council need not be held in Rome.

I’d imagine Jerusalem II.

ICXC NIKA

I agree. I would love to see this happen.

 

[Mike30]

I think there needs to be something on the order of Bishop Schneider’s suggestion of a Syllabus of Errors for VII before we even think about a VIII.

There are still things in Vatican II that need to be clarified and set straight, and our current liturgical worship needs to be better defined and reformed. Those things need to happen, and then let sit for a while, before another council.

As Devils Advocate, I would say that perhaps because the confusion left by erroneous and/or self serving interpretation of Vatican II documents is so widespread, that they could only be solved by calling another council to clarify these very things in a dogmatic fashion.

Then there wouldn’t be much room for these type of never ending discussions that usually end up going nowhere…

 

[johnmann]

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.

 

[Rivers23]

Well, firstly, I don’t think a council is needed to mend the most problematic practices, a willing pope is more than enough. When I think of Vatican II, the first thing that comes to mind is how lax the Church has become when it comes to liturgy, ecumenism and how a good Catholic should live. Encyclicals and exhortations would be enough to mend the course. Speaking of exhortations, the newest one is not very encouraging, in my opinion.