Who else is ready for Vatican III?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tngail
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Great Idea!!
There are SO many things to anathimize!:dancing: :clapping:

“If any one says that human life does not begin at conception let him/her be anathema”

“If anyone says that a marriage can be of two persons of the same sex, let him/ her be anathema”

“If anyone says that artifiacial birth control is not a grave matter of sin, let him/her be anathema”

Plus some cool definitioins like:

“We by our apostolic authority recieved from our Lord through the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter and in union with the prayers of beloved St. Paul be declare and define as being of apostolic origin that Our Lady, Blessed Mary, Is the conduite of all Grace and Co-Redemptorix. And if anyone sees fit to interperet these words as a mediphore LET HIM/HER BE ANATHEMA”

Notice the Vat II influence: “HER” was added for inclusive language !!:newidea:

This is getting Fun!!!:extrahappy: :dancing: :tiphat:
 
napad said:
Great Idea!!
There are SO many things to anathimize!:dancing: :clapping:

“If any one says that human life does not begin at conception let him/her be anathema”

“If anyone says that a marriage can be of two persons of the same sex, let him/ her be anathema”

“If anyone says that artifiacial birth control is not a grave matter of sin, let him/her be anathema”

Plus some cool definitioins like:

“We by our apostolic authority recieved from our Lord through the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter and in union with the prayers of beloved St. Paul be declare and define as being of apostolic origin that Our Lady, Blessed Mary, Is the conduite of all Grace and Co-Redemptorix. And if anyone sees fit to interperet these words as a mediphore LET HIM/HER BE ANATHEMA”

Notice the Vat II influence: “HER” was added for inclusive language !!:newidea:

This is getting Fun!!!:extrahappy: :dancing: :tiphat:
Click to expand...
I like that word, anathema. Rolls off the tongue, don’t you think?

Sacrosanctum Concilium states that Latin is to remain in the Mass and that the use of the vernacular is to be used as well. I think it should be 50-50. If there were to be a Vat. III, it should primarily address what the Church really teaches on “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.”
 
Ignatius said:
The last thing we need is another opportunity for misrepresentation of The Faith. I think a valuable lesson was learned from the way the teachings of VII were hijacked. It will take a very long time to undo the damage which resulted. The Majesterium of the Catholic Church at long last is beginning to correct the excesses which were the result, not of Vatican II, but of the deliberate misrepresentation of it.
Before Vatican II the pews and seminaries were full. Now, at long last, the siminaries are starting to fill up again. The young people seem to have a tremendous longing for piety and holiness and are flocking to the Tridentine masses. Once again, it is Springtime in The Church and we are having a massive reawakening.

BTW, you don’t need to know Latin to understand the Latin Mass. The missal still, as it always has, the vernacular next to the Latin.
Click to expand...
I should also point out that those correcting the abuses which occured after Vatican II are the same who wrote the documents of Vatican II. The result is very good. They understand what their intent was when they wrote them.
 
I don’t know if I would have survived the 60’s and 70’s. Immediatly after the Council, there was lots of confusion and misunderstanding which led to much misinterpretation and misimplementation. But Deo Gratias, we are beginning to see the pendalum swing in the other direction. It does take a long time for a Council to have its true effect (desired or otherwise). It takes time to realize and unpack the documents and what they mean. It is too easy for one curial official in a key position to high jack a particular area or arena. It is no wonder there is such confusion. But now instead of talking about the spirit of Vatican II we are actually starting to read the documents and cite them. Progress can be painstaking, but well worth it. Just look at the recent papal liturgies!

We don’t need a Vatican III, just a proper implemenation of Vatican II.
 
Cathryn said:
My previous Pastor, a very devout and scholarly Dominican with advanced degrees in history, told us many times that it takes at least 100 years for the Church to stabilize after an ecumenical council. We are only in the first 40 years. Vatican II is only beginning to be studied, understood, and implemented.
Click to expand...
That priest is a very wise individual. I wish more of us were gifted with his level of understanding…
 
puzzleannie said:
we have not yet even begun to fully implement V2 so let’s give it a couple of hundred more years to sink in.
Click to expand...
Ughhh!:eek:

Vatican II has been erroneously implemented already, worldwide. There is nothing to salvage as far as the changes that have happened since 1965 in my opinion.

To state that the changes that have happened already since 1965 are only a beginning and there are many more to come is horrifying for me.

Ken
 
Cathryn said:
My previous Pastor, a very devout and scholarly Dominican with advanced degrees in history, told us many times that it takes at least 100 years for the Church to stabilize after an ecumenical council. We are only in the first 40 years. Vatican II is only beginning to be studied, understood, and implemented.
Click to expand...
How does this relate to Vatican I, which started 1860ish but was not officially closed until soon before Vatican II started?
 
In 75 years when Vatican 2 is no more than a book on the shelf for most catholics. “we always did it this way” won’t be an excuse anymore.

Basically, when we are all 6 feet under this won’t even matter anymore. Vatican 2 happened and it will not change. What will change are the people in the church, and let me tell you, the new priests are well versed in V-2 and they are loud proponents of it.

As someone else mentioned, councils take a good 100 years to really take ground. It takes the Holy Spirit a little time to crack the shells of those who must teach the new learning so that it may be accepted as what it is, divine teaching from heaven.

I am all for Vatican 2, just as I am all for liturgical enforcement teams with black hawk helicopters who break through the roof and rappel down and tackle the altar boy who is about to read the words of consecration at the priest’s urging…oh well, perhaps in V-3?
 
Ignatius said:
The last thing we need is another opportunity for misrepresentation of The Faith. I think a valuable lesson was learned from the way the teachings of VII were hijacked. It will take a very long time to undo the damage which resulted. The Majesterium of the Catholic Church at long last is beginning to correct the excesses which were the result, not of Vatican II, but of the deliberate misrepresentation of it.
Before Vatican II the pews and seminaries were full. Now, at long last, the siminaries are starting to fill up again. The young people seem to have a tremendous longing for piety and holiness and are flocking to the Tridentine masses. Once again, it is Springtime in The Church and we are having a massive reawakening.

BTW, you don’t need to know Latin to understand the Latin Mass. The missal still, as it always has, the vernacular next to the Latin.
Click to expand...
You make some excellent points. I don’t know a word of Latin, but I have no problems following the Mass at my Tridentine parish. The missal has the English translations for everything in the Mass, and the priest reads all the Scriptures in English after he reads them in Latin. Also, about half the people in my parish are under the age of 30, and I myself am 34. None of us were even born yet when Vatican II convened. I’ve talked to many of the younger people in my parish, and we all agree: We sought out the Tridentine Mass because of the reverence and overall lack of liturgical abuses. I definitely agree that the teachings of Vatican II were largely hijacked and misrepresented, from what I’ve studied. Pope Benedict XVI seems to be getting the Church back on track, and thank God for it. I hope he and his successor continue to do so. I don’t think we need a Vatican III either, at least not for a long time.
 
revelations said:
In 75 years when Vatican 2 is no more than a book on the shelf for most catholics. “we always did it this way” won’t be an excuse anymore.

Basically, when we are all 6 feet under this won’t even matter anymore. Vatican 2 happened and it will not change. What will change are the people in the church, and let me tell you, the new priests are well versed in V-2 and they are loud proponents of it.

As someone else mentioned, councils take a good 100 years to really take ground. It takes the Holy Spirit a little time to crack the shells of those who must teach the new learning so that it may be accepted as what it is, divine teaching from heaven.

I am all for Vatican 2, just as I am all for liturgical enforcement teams with black hawk helicopters who break through the roof and rappel down and tackle the altar boy who is about to read the words of consecration at the priest’s urging…oh well, perhaps in V-3?
Click to expand...
I’ve heard this “it takes a hundred years or so for a Council to stick” argument and it doesn’t hold water.

Nicaea 325------Constantinople 381… 56 years between

Constantinople 381-----Ephesus 431… 50 years between

Ephesus 431-----Chalcedon 451… only 20 years between those

Chalcedon 451-----Constantinople II 553… we finally have those 100 years to take effect?

Constan. II 553-----Constan.III 680… another 127 year gap, is somebody on to something?

Constan. III 680 -----Nicaea II 787… 107 years, so far half have been over 100 and the other have been 50 or less.

Nicaea II 787-----Constan IV 869… only 82 years, the times are getting closer…

Constan IV 869----- Lateran 1123… a whopping 254 years!

The 4 Lateran Councils were all held within 92 years, why didn’t they let them take effect?

From the 4th Lateran Council to the Council of Vienne there were 3 Councils in less than 100 years.

Constance, Florence and Lateran V (whoops! I made a mistake earlier :o ) were all held with in 100 years in the 15th and 16th Centuries.

Trent, everyone’s favorite Council, was held in 1545 and this seems to be the biggest gap; between it and Vatican I----- 325 years.

And… it was almost 100 years again between Vatican I and Vatican II.

This is assuming you agree that all 21 Councils were Ecumenical. Various groups have their opinions… 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 19, or 20 as well.

So, I conclude that the “it takes 100 years for a Council to take effect” argument is false. Otherwise we wouldn’t have had all the bunch ups in the lists.
 
Volodymyr_988 said:
I’ve heard this “it takes a hundred years or so for a Council to stick” argument and it doesn’t hold water.

Nicaea 325------Constantinople 381… 56 years between

Constantinople 381-----Ephesus 431… 50 years between

Ephesus 431-----Chalcedon 451… only 20 years between those

Chalcedon 451-----Constantinople II 553… we finally have those 100 years to take effect?

Constan. II 553-----Constan.III 680… another 127 year gap, is somebody on to something?

Constan. III 680 -----Nicaea II 787… 107 years, so far half have been over 100 and the other have been 50 or less.

Nicaea II 787-----Constan IV 869… only 82 years, the times are getting closer…

Constan IV 869----- Lateran 1123… a whopping 254 years!

The 4 Lateran Councils were all held within 92 years, why didn’t they let them take effect?

From the 4th Lateran Council to the Council of Vienne there were 3 Councils in less than 100 years.

Constance, Florence and Lateran V (whoops! I made a mistake earlier :o ) were all held with in 100 years in the 15th and 16th Centuries.

Trent, everyone’s favorite Council, was held in 1545 and this seems to be the biggest gap; between it and Vatican I----- 325 years.

And… it was almost 100 years again between Vatican I and Vatican II.

This is assuming you agree that all 21 Councils were Ecumenical. Various groups have their opinions… 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 19, or 20 as well.

So, I conclude that the “it takes 100 years for a Council to take effect” argument is false. Otherwise we wouldn’t have had all the bunch ups in the lists.
Click to expand...
I agree!!!

This constant excuse is confusing. How many councils did it take to get to Jesus Christ true God and true man? At least three! Why some many councils saying the same thing? Because there was CONFUSION in the Church. If there were another clear council like Trent it would take nothing away from VAt II it could help to clearify the things that have been a problem in the Church for a number of years!

Lets face it the council was a mess. I’m not saying it was not valid or it doesn’t say a lot of good things but judge by the fruits it was a mess. The documents of the council are longer than all the other councils COMBINED!!
Vat II resembles the European Constitution( 100’s of pages;The US constitution is about 5 or 10 pages) just too many words! and no anathemas! How can we have a coucil after trent with no Anathema???!!! :ehh:
 
napad said:
I agree!!!

This constant excuse is confusing. How many councils did it take to get to Jesus Christ true God and true man? At least three! Why some many councils saying the same thing? Because there was CONFUSION in the Church. If there were another clear council like Trent it would take nothing away from VAt II it could help to clearify the things that have been a problem in the Church for a number of years!

Lets face it the council was a mess. I’m not saying it was not valid or it doesn’t say a lot of good things but judge by the fruits it was a mess. The documents of the council are longer than all the other councils COMBINED!!
Vat II resembles the European Constitution( 100’s of pages;The US constitution is about 5 or 10 pages) just too many words! and no anathemas! How can we have a coucil after trent with no Anathema???!!! :ehh:
Click to expand...
VC2 was in no way a “mess.” However, implementation of the fruits of VC2 has been horrid in many situations. Even today there is a struggle to follow the letter of VC2 versus what some call the “spirit” of VC2.

I think there could be 10 years between EC’s, but they would have to be well implemented and settled in those 10 years…
 
I think we need some stability for a while. The Councils that are called close to each other are usually the medieval one’s which are almost exclusively dealing with Canon law or an individual heretic and the early Councils which were forming the faith. The last two were relatively close together because the first was not finished due to war.

As someone else said, there’s usually some turbulence after a Council, but then things improve–it’s only been 40 years. St. Gregory Nazianzen had this to say just after Constantinople I and about 60 years after Nicea I:

“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 …”

And those two Councils are now considered bedrocks of our faith–and at the time they seemed to him to have been a mistake.
 
Volodymyr_988 said:
So, I conclude that the “it takes 100 years for a Council to take effect” argument is false. Otherwise we wouldn’t have had all the bunch ups in the lists.
Click to expand...
The thing is, even when they come in succession, it takes a while for them to take effect–the first one may not have fully taken effect before the second one. I think is pretty apparent if one studies histories of the early Councils and their aftermaths–it was never pristine until decades or even centuries afterwards.
 
rwoehmke said:
Now this is what I find confusing. If the point is to have the Mass in Latin and many of us have to depend on the side by side Vernacular translation, why is that good for us? Does God only understand Latin or what? Maybe I am just too old to understand and made a mistake when I happily experienced the change in the liturgy in the 60’s. When it’s done correctly I really prefer to celebrate mostly in English, while some Latin along with it seems to be very nice and nostalgic, but 100 percent Latin? Sorry, but I just don’t understand.
Click to expand...
The priest, our representative, stands in persona Christi, and offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass** to the Father** on our behalf…he addresses the Father in the official language of the One True Church He established at the price of the blood of His Son Our Lord Jesus Christ.

We the faithful unite our prayers and intentions and ourselves with that of the priest - we do this from the heart either in Latin if we can or silently in our native tongue if we can’t.

That ain’t brain surgery - it’s quite simple.

As my brother said when he went to a TLM with me once - “I didn’t feel like the priest was talking to me”. Towhich I replied, “He wasn’t - he was talking to God.”

DustinsDad
 
Genesis315 said:
I think we need some stability for a while. The Councils that are called close to each other are usually the medieval one’s which are almost exclusively dealing with Canon law or an individual heretic and the early Councils which were forming the faith. The last two were relatively close together because the first was not finished due to war.

As someone else said, there’s usually some turbulence after a Council, but then things improve–it’s only been 40 years. St. Gregory Nazianzen had this to say just after Constantinople I and about 60 years after Nicea I:

“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 …”

And those two Councils are now considered bedrocks of our faith–and at the time they seemed to him to have been a mistake.
Click to expand...
So very true! So many who feel the need to judge VC2 not only lack the knowledge to accurately do so, they also lack the historical viewpoint – which is still in the works…
 
DustinsDad said:
The priest, our representative, stands in persona Christi, and offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass** to the Father** on our behalf…he addresses the Father in the official language of the One True Church He established at the price of the blood of His Son Our Lord Jesus Christ.

We the faithful unite our prayers and intentions and ourselves with that of the priest - we do this from the heart either in Latin if we can or silently in our native tongue if we can’t.

That ain’t brain surgery - it’s quite simple.

As my brother said when he went to a TLM with me once - “I didn’t feel like the priest was talking to me”. Towhich I replied, “He wasn’t - he was talking to God.”

DustinsDad
Click to expand...
I still don’t understand why, outside of long practice and personal preference by some , Latin is any better than any other language. Presumably God has no difficulty understanding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top