[quote="Mike30, post:11, topic:347478"]
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: :confused: 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.