How About Vatican III?
#1


I'm all for it!.  :)
Reply
#2
But not for a few hundred years because it's be the same as before. As an aside Voris needs a dresser, man talk about confused, look at the tie and shirt. It's like the old TV patterns for checking the picture tube. Wheew ! Gives my eyes stigmatism.

tim
Reply
#3
(07-16-2013, 10:31 AM)Tim Wrote: But not for a few hundred years because it's be the same as before. As an aside Voris needs a dresser, man talk about confused, look at the tie and shirt. It's like the old TV patterns for checking the picture tube. Wheew ! Gives my eyes stigmatism.

tim

LOL.  Apparently you've never seen Don Cherry's wardrobe:

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4721724933211498&pid=1.7

or

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_E7HR_gc9PAc/TQ...herry3.jpg

Reply
#4
Now those are frightening.!!

tim
Reply
#5
But Tim Staples said in the Rad Trad radio program that the fruits of VII were just beginning to bud. Why stop the progress? :mrwinky:
Reply
#6
(07-16-2013, 11:57 AM)Tim Wrote: Now those are frightening.!!

tim
I actually find them amusing.  When my husband and I watch Hockey Night in Canada, I always look forward to Don Cherry's commentary after the first period so I can see what he wore....lol.
Reply
#7
If, as loads of trads believe the Council was hijacked by modernists, and since then the church has become chock full of them now, what good would another Council do ?? Do you want every change to be issued as a formal teaching with an attached anathema. Do you think the Lone Bishop whoever, take your pick, will ride in on his Palomino and return us to the glory days of Ss.Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas.  Voris would never be asked there.

tim
Reply
#8
(07-16-2013, 12:31 PM)Tim Wrote: If, as loads of trads believe the Council was hijacked by modernists, and since then the church has become chock full of them now, what good would another Council do ?? Do you want every change to be issued as a formal teaching with an attached anathema. Do you think the Lone Bishop whoever, take your pick, will ride in on his Palomino and return us to the glory days of Ss.Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas.  Voris would never be asked there.

tim

I don't know what I think of a Vatican III.  I think it would require the Church admitting that it screwed up....and how can they admit to that when the Church isn't supposed to screw up?
Reply
#9
Did the Church screw up at Nicea? If She didn't, why the Council of Constantinople shortly therafter?

Not only do the documents of Vatican II contain no errors qua faith and morals, but I have never heard or seen detailed exegesis from material heretics using Vatican II to bolster their position. Gary Wills, for instance, thinks that Vatican II transferred supreme sovereignty of the Church from the Pope to the laity - apparently he's never read Lumen Gentium, which states:
Lumen Gentium Wrote:The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.
Such examples could be multiplied almost ad infinitum.

This does not mean that the Council documents are immune from criticism or that doing so makes one a bad Catholic (Nostra Aetate and Gaudiam et Spes come to mind here), but teaching error qua faith and morals? Nope.
Reply
#10
(07-16-2013, 02:49 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote: Did the Church screw up at Nicea? If She didn't, why the Council of Constantinople shortly therafter?

What was the purpose of the Council of Constantinople?  Did it reaffirm Nicea?  Because I don't see a Vatican III reaffirming Vatican II.  And if it did, I would say we were in the same mess.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)