Do You Think There Should Be A Vatican 3 ?

[AccountDeleted]

Do you think that there should be a Third Vatican Council any time soon? When?

 

And if there were to be one, do you think the outcomes would favor the liberals or the conservatives in the Church?

 

This article discusses the topic   Those Who Dream of a Third Vatican Council.

 

 

[jumpfrog]

It could only be divisive and destabilizing at this point. Issues that the article mentions are either not suitable topics for a council (eco-stuff? Kill me now) or already have adequate responses (priest shortage). Leave well enough alone...

[Lilllabettt]

enough with all the changes. ecumenical councils once every 500 years.

[truthfinder]

It took forever to recover from Trent, and we're still adjusting to VII, so no, no VIII until I'm dead and gone (and God-willing in Heaven interceding for the next one).

[dairygirl4u2c]

vatican III.... coming soon to a theater near you.

[Nihil Obstat]

.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[Nihil Obstat]

Only if the liberals and modernists in the episcopacy were deposed first. :hehe:

[Basilisa Marie]

It's premature, but I really think a serious Vatican III would be an incredible opportunity to clarify a LOT of the vagueness in many of the Vatican II documents.  

 

We need clarification on a lot of things, and we need reform on others.  A lot of that clarification could happen through Pope Francis, but for it to have any staying power (rather than just being ignored by people who don't like our particular pope), it'd have to be a council. 

 

 

[Basilisa Marie]

Only if the liberals and modernists in the episcopacy were deposed first. :hehe:

 

I could say the same thing of the radical conservatives...OH WAIT. 

 

:saint2:  :hehe2:

[Nihil Obstat]

I could say the same thing of the radical conservatives...OH WAIT.

:saint2: :hehe2:

All four or five of them.

[Aloysius]

Why not a Trent II or Florence II?  Actually, maybe like Buenos Aires I, or actually why not some out of the way city that you could end up bringing in a lot of money to by holding such a big event. should have cities compete to hold it like the Olympics.  everyone always just assumes all future councils will be at the Vatican, I think it'd be interesting to hold one somewhere else, especially outside of Europe.

 

all that said, I don't think it's necessary.  you only call a council if there's an absolutely pressing need.  if there was to be another council, its focus should be on reuniting the Catholic and the Orthodox.  there is no need to rehash all doctrines again focusing on the Roman Church.  honestly, I think it'd be a good idea to attempt such a council, aimed at reuniting the Orthodox and Catholics, but not to consider it a council at all unless it succeeds.  invite all patriarchs and bishops both from the Roman Catholic Church and from the Orthodox and have them hold both separate meetings (including that the E. Orthodox would have their own meetings without any Catholics) and joint meetings, if it doesn't succeed after a few years, disband it without promoting any documents.  Try again after a few decades.  that's the only pressing issue that needs to be dealt with by an Ecumenical Council, honestly, there is nothing else that rises to the level of needing an Ecumenical Council to resolve it.

[Apotheoun]

A "new council that represents all Christianity"?

 

The Eastern Orthodox would never agree to participate in that kind of council.

[Aloysius]

yeah the way an ecumenical council is being talked about in that article is not by any means something that the Church needs right now I think.  they're talking about holding a Council for the same reason Vatican II was called, it's something that's completely unnecessary right now, especially considering that we've just had such a council so recently (in Church years).  the idea that we need to continually re-update everything through new councils is a bad idea.  

[Apotheoun]

I agree. There is no reason for a new council.

 

I would add that the whole idea of calling a council to "update" the Church is not something that the Church Fathers would have ever accepted as a good thing.

[Socrates]

I don't think there will be a new council anytime soon, as there's no pressing need for one.  In the article, it's just the same old heretics ("liberation theologians" and such), including the late Cardinal Martini, wanting to bring their lefty "hope 'n' change" into the Church.

 

I don't like the common practices of reducing moral and doctrinal issues to political language ("liberal" vs. "conservative") as if these were simply two equally valid political factions in the Church.

The reality is one either stands with the Church's timeless and unchanging doctrinal and moral teachings or against them.

 

 

The world will always regard the Church's dogmas and moral teachings as "conservative" because they are unchanging and eternal, and will not change according to the latest politically correct fads or opinion polls.

 

Those liberal "Catholics" endlessly hoping for wymyn priestesses and the Church's blessings on contraception, abortion, and homosexuality, will be endlessly disappointed.

The gates of hell will not prevail.