It kind of makes one wonder how they would ever have a “Vatican III”… It would probably require some radical remodeling of the length of the nave in St Peter’s, not to mention a very large increase in the number of hotels near the Vatican…
Of course, we remember that the calls for a “Vatican III” surfaced within a few years of the close of Vatican II from those convinced that Vatican II did not go far enough (see this extract from Time Magazine in November 1968 for proof).
Of course, one of the loudest exponents of these ideas then was one Father Hans Küng. As his Wikipedia page proclaims, Fr Küng “remains a Catholic priest in good standing” in the Catholic Church. But things have certainly not gone his way, and he knows it.
The same Cathnews article reports that Fr Küng is “very sad” over “the direction the current Church leadership was taking”.
What do you think Fr Küng might mean by that? What “direction”?
I mean, there are a lot of people on this blog – Catholics and non-Catholics who, far from wanting a Vatican III, bemoan the effects of Vatican II. They say that ever since Vatican II things have been getting worse and worse in the Church as the “liberals” are taking over.
But consider this:
1) It is evident that the real downward turn in the Catholic Church took place almost immediately after the Council, at which time those whose hopes for change in the Church had not been sufficiently realised were already calling for a Third Vatican Council and already acting as if they had its decrees in their hands as the authorisation for their “reforms”.
2) Things stayed at a low point for a while – also depressed by the negative reaction to Pope Paul VI’s decision re Humanae Vitae, but the Pontificate of John Paul II revived the Church’s confidence once again in the ’80’s and ’90’s, and so now we get a “direction” which is now being continued by Benedict XVI; a “direction” which is faithful to the all the Ecumenical Councils of the Church but decidely NOT in the direction of the Conciliarist’s long-dreamed-of “Vatican III”.
Hence, Fr Küng is “very sad”. And I would argue that if Fr Küng is “very sad” about “the direction the current Church leadership is taking”, that is good news for the rest of us: the “current Church leadership” is taking us in the right direction.
Isn’t that right, Mr Current Church Leadership?