Or, perhaps, just like with Francis, we should not refer to Vatican I anymore but rather Vatican (period), meaning that there's only one.
I didn't get this at first -- you're referring to the way they spoke of Vat.I from its time, up until Vat.II arrived: they used to say
"The Vatican Council" because there was only one of them. Yes, I agree. I think the term would be "The Vatican Council," because if we said "Vatican" or "the Vatican" it could be mistaken to mean the physical place in Rome called "the Vatican" and not to mean the Council.
But all that could change if there is some kind of ιnѕυrrєcтισn or conflagration in or around the Vatican whereby holding a general Council there would be impossible. It wouldn't be the first time. There is an imposing wall built around Vatican City, which is a remnant of ages past when it was necessary to fend off military assaults against the Roman Church. Those days could be revisited, in some manner, but with modern warfare, such a wall isn't going to make much of a difference, obviously.
If re-convening The Vatican Council would not be possible in Vatican City then perhaps it would have a different name because of the place where it is held, wherever that is, for example, the Council of Mexico, or the Council of Fatima, or the Council of St. Petersburg.
Anything that works to blot that disgrace from the annals of Church history I'd be in favor of.
As I see it the problem anyone (but specifically the Church) faces in 'blotting out Vat.II' would be, that a lot of Catholics and I dare say the majority even of "traditional Catholics" have with throwing away Vat.II wholesale is as follows:
They recognize it as a valid Council of the Church, and as such, it cannot be discarded any more than any of the previous 20 Great Councils can be discarded.
For if Vat.II can be tossed out, then why not Florence, for example, especially since it contains that most problematic sticking point with EENS among other things?
We have a worldwide state of
Diabolical Disorientation that is affecting the way everyone thinks. It is part of our human condition in this age.
So it seems to me that our difficulty is how to expunge Vat.II without leaving open the possibility that any of the earlier 20 Oecuмenical Councils could be affected or disregarded or likewise held under suspicion.
Furthermore, it seems to me that the key to all of this is the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the Pope and all the bishops of the world, all on one day, and preferably in the same place, but at least by agreement everywhere in the world wherever each bishop happens to be.
Once that Consecration is done and accepted by God, Russia will convert and there will be a period of peace worldwide. But it also seems to me that it is easily explained why Vat.II would not be part of this conversion of Russia, because the effects of Vat.II are quite disreputable and they show how it looks when CORRUPTION enters the Roman Catholic Church.
Posts made since yours, above, show that there may be a new specter on the horizon, and that is an "Ecuмenism Council, Vatican III" which will involve all the false religions of the world. My first reaction to that is that maybe it will come to pass, but I don't think it will happen before the Collegial Consecration of Russia and the consequent conversion of Russia, which means that this Vat.III would likely be postponed until a later age around 20 or 30 years in the future, perhaps more.
.
Topic: VATICAN III ???!!!! (Read 3154 times)