Rosary Praying Catholics removed from Brussels Cathedral by Police during "Reformation Celebration"

[commenter]

Many posts have complained that Vatican II was a pastoral council, and thus supposedly not authoritative. However we are not talking about doctrine here, but about pastoral practice (Protestants participating in service at Cathedral).

Given that popes since Vatican II have participated in ecumenical services, it is ok for bishops to do so. Vatican II was authoritative. Its authority is cited by subsequent popes.

In other words, a given ecumenical service would be bad if this particular service compromises Catholic doctrine, but the fact that an ecumenical service is held is not in itself bad. If laity feel that a given service is bad - because of who is invited to speak, or because of something about the format - they should complain to the bishop, and if need be his superior. Using the rosary to disrupt a service is not an acceptable response.

 

[2towers]

I have to agree. As odious as this whole Luther thing appears on the surface, using a sacramental provided to us by Our Lady to disrupt a Mass, just seems wrong to me. I think it would have been fine for them to do this silently. There are ways to get your objections across without violating the sacredness of the Mass.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

While it was not a Mass. It was a service authorized by the bishop in charge and he was there, so it was wrong to disrupt it.

Praying the rosary silently on your knees in a large group would have sent a message, and been non- disruptive, and likely would have been permitted to continue in the church.

 

[Wandile]

Many posts have complained that Vatican II was a pastoral council, and thus supposedly not authoritative.

This is a misunderstanding. (name removed by moderator) and myself
clarified that the documents of Vatican II require religious submission rather than assent of faith. The former is simply obedience but not blind obedience which in certain instances allows the layman to respectfully disagree or question (with legitimate reason) one or two things because the documents are not infallible.

The latter means that we cannot even question at all the documents of whatever have been infallibly defined.

 

[commenter]

One could argue that Trent, for instance, included both dogma, and also lots of pastoral guidelines during and following the council. Trent’s pastoral guidelines sometimes were confused with Trent’s dogma in the minds of some people.

Vatican II allowed modification of some of Trent’s pastoral guidelines, sometimes with good reason, sometimes not, and sometimes disastrously in terms of implementation. The fact that some people misused “the Spirit of Vatican II” to push their own agenda does not eliminate the pastoral authority of the Council itself.

 

[Wandile]

It is a technical distinction. It defined no new dogma. Note the rest of the quote though and how it still taught that which must be accepted. Also note the hypocrisy of countering statements from Vatican II with statements from Popes and saints that lack even the authority of teaching which must be accepted.

The statements of popes of the past were made with the utmost authority. You should familiarize yourself with them.

Countering Vatican II with the state us of councils, Popes, scripture and saints i.e. the tradition of the church is always authoritative. This is why Vatican II must always be interpreted in light of tradition to avoid heterodox positions/understandings of the dovuments. Something that Pope Benedict XVI stressed during his role as prefect of the congregation of the doctrine of faith and during his papacy.

Anytime someone starts responding to Church teaching from Vatican II by attacking it, they always use that with less authority.

It’s simple fact that Vatican II only requires religious submission and not assent of faith like the 20 other councils.

Besides, the council did produce two dogmatic documents the reformulated and taught previous dogma. Note the quotes above did not say it taught nothing infallibly. It only says, “extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility” were avoided. Infallibility was not invoked to define new dogma.

Indeed and it was mentioned in my earlier post why the Council never invoked infallibility. Restating previous dogmatic positions in dogmatic constituentions is not an act of Infalibility. It’s no different than when a pope simply reaffirms one or other infallible teaching of the faith like in the case of Human Vitae.

The Popes blatantly said it did not invoke infalibility but remained at a pastoral level. The only infallible things are the dogmatic constitutions which you mentioned butbonjy by virtue of them being simple reaffirmations of previous dogmas already defined.

 

[Wandile]

One could argue that Trent, for instance, included both dogma, and also lots of pastoral guidelines during and following the council. Trent’s pastoral guidelines sometimes were confused with Trent’s dogma in the minds of some people.

All councils did this. Trent has dogmatic statements with anathemas attaches to them. Then the canons covered some disciplinary issues too apart from dogmatic ones.

However most of Trent’s disciplinary canons are treated dogmatically because they are based on the underlying dogma they pertain to, thus making them irreformable. To alter any aspect of said canons would be to undermine, subvert and deny the faith it hinges on.

This is the very reason why the permitting of the divorced and remarried to receive communion can never be permitted unless the parties live like brother and sister (thus not committing the sin of adultery) because this would amount to sacrilege. The dogma of indissolublity of marriage automatically dictates the discipline surrounding it. There is no wiggle room otherwise the church would permit sin and undermine the indissolubiluty of marriage. It’s would amount to a “paper doctrine” with no real substance in practice.

Vatican II allowed modification of some of Trent’s pastoral guidelines, sometimes with good reason, sometimes not, and sometimes disastrously in terms of implementation. The fact that some people misused “the Spirit of Vatican II” to push their own agenda does not eliminate the pastoral authority of the Council itself.

Fair enough although we can agree on the implantation part. Many progressives had no intention of implementating the documents correctly. They only sought to undermine the faith handed down to us. Many of these men are now in power in the church and hence the chaos we see today where heretical men are being promoted and catholic orthodox men are being punished and kicked out of any position of influence.

Pray for the church.

 

[commenter]

However most of Trent’s disciplinary canons are treated dogmatically because they are based on the underlying dogma they pertain to, thus making them irreformable. To alter any aspect of said canons would be to undermine, subvert and deny the faith it hinges on.

Who decides whether a Trent pastoral canon is:

• inseparable from unchangeable dogma…

or:

• responding to a 1500s situation that might, or might not, be modifiable under other circumstances, with added information now, without modifying the underlying dogma…

The current pope and bishops would be the ones to make that decision.

Keep in mind many of Trent’s pastoral directives were controversial when then they were first issued. I bet many people claimed that ancient, permanent practices based on what they considered permanent dogma were being swept away by Trent’s pastoral directives.

 

[Wandile]

Who decides whether a Trent pastoral canon is:

• inseparable from unchangeable dogma…

The church and she has responded time and time again before the current pontificate on these matters.

As a catechised Catholic you should also be able to discern which canons relate to dogmas. It’s not hard at all. The councils are formulated very simply (with the exception of Vatican II) where they issue a dogmatic proposition then issue canons that relate to them. It’s not that hard.

responding to a 1500s situation that might, or might not, be modifiable under other circumstances, with added information now, without modifying the underlying dogma…

There are no new circumstances. Especially in issues like marriage and divorce. There is nothing new under sun. Analyze any of these supposed new circumstances (in the rare instance it’s given) and you’ll see it’s just the same devil in a new dress. There were divorced and remarried then, and there are divorced and remarried now.

Note that the people that keep claiming “new circumstances” never actually give examples of what these are. This is because they know that nothing is really new, they just desire a relaxing of rules and are seeking anything to justify sacrilege.

The current pope and bishops would be the ones to make that decision.

If by this you mean any unsettled dogmatic situation then yes. But in settled issues the current and prior pope and bishops. If the church has settled an issue in the past then all you need to do is look to her statements. The new papacy can not change what has been defined by the old. They cannot contradict each other on matters of faith and morals. The church is a church of tradition. What comes before is the standard to judge what is said today. Therefore if a modern catholic layman, deacon, priest or bishop or even the pope were contradict a defined teaching on faith and morals then he would not invalidate the previous teaching but rather show himself to be a heretic.

Keep in many of Trent’s pastoral directives were controversial when then they were first issued.

Irrelevant because of those that relate to dogmas they have anathemas attached to them confirming their infallibility and irreformability. The church declared authoritatively requiring assent of faith to those dogmas and disciplines relating to dogmas. The cases was closed. The only people who wish to discuss issues with anathemas attached to them are heretics.

I bet many people claimed that ancient, permanent practices based on what they considered permanent dogma were being swept away by Trent’s pastoral directives.

No they didn’t.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

Why certain Catholic churches are tripping over themselves to celebrate the anniversary of the heresiarch’s rebellion is beyond me. The Reformation is a cause for mourning, not for church celebrations.

It is celebrated because it opened the eyes of the Church of the wrongs it was doing.

 

[pnewton]

Which is also why a Lutheran minister was allowed to speak, by the way.

 

[Wandile]

It is celebrated because it opened the eyes of the Church of the wrongs it was doing.

The church was well aware of the abuses in here bosom. Luther unveiled nothing new but only brought destruction. What next? Are we also going to commentate Arius? Eutychese? Pelagius? Sergius? Nestorius?
King Henry VIII???

It’s amaizng how baptised Catholics want to celebrate a heretic who was responsible for the destruction of the unityu of Christendom and the loss of souls. How many times has our church condemned Luther and his errors and instructed us to avoid him!

How many holy saints have seen hell and testified to have seen Luther there and all the souls that followed him into his errors ? Great mystics and saints like St Padre Pio who said Luther was precipitated into Hell said Padre Pio.

A brief story of another:

_In 1883, Blessed Sister Maria Serafina Micheli (1849-1911) was beatified in Faicchio in the province of Benevento in the diocese of Cerreto Sannita 28 May 2011, the foundress of the Sisters of the Angels, was going to Eisleben, Saxony, the birthplace of Luther. The fourth centenary of the birth of the great heretic (10 November 1483) was celebrated on that day. _

The future Blessed, noting the great hoopla was not interested in knowing the reason for this unusual animation, wanted to find a church and pray to be able to make a visit to the Blessed Sacrament. After walking for a while, she finally found one, but the doors were closed. She knelt on the steps for serenity prayer. As it was in the evening, she had not noticed that it was not a Catholic church, but Protestant. While praying, an angel appeared, who said to her. “Arise, because it is a Protestant church” Then he added: “But I want you to see where Martin Luther was condemned and the pain he suffered as a punishment for his pride.”

After these words, she saw a terrible abyss of fire, where they were cruelly tortured countless souls. In the bottom of this hole there was a man, Martin Luther, which differed from the other: it was surrounded by demons that forced him to kneel, and all armed with hammers, they tried in vain , to shove a big nail in the head. Religious thought, if some of the people had seen this dramatic scene, they would not have made honors and other commemorations and celebrations for such a character.

 

[Wandile]

Which is also why a Lutheran minister was allowed to speak, by the way.

To give a homily in the “beauty” of reformation? In a Catholic Church? He should have been thrown out

 

[pnewton]

The statements of popes of the past were made with the utmost authority. You should familiarize yourself with them.

No, not all statements of popes have the “utmost” authority. In fact, very few are utmost. Most statements do not rise to the same level as that of the Catholic Church meeting in ecumenical council to define doctrines.

It’s simple fact that Vatican II only requires religious submission and not assent of faith like the 20 other councils.

I do not believe your use or trust your definition of “fact”. I will keep my own counsel as to my trust in the Catholic Church.

 

[commenter]

There are no new circumstances. Especially in issues like marriage and divorce. There is nothing new under sun. Analyze any of these supposed new circumstances (in the rare instance it’s given) and you’ll see it’s just the same devil in a new dress. There were divorced and remarried then, and there are divorced and remarried now.

Let me offer a suggestion, as a conservative who has battled liberals on the internet, and my diocese, and in parishes and schools.
Try not to tie issues together.

Many people who have concerns over how certain parts of AL are being implemented have totally accepted the authority of Vatican II documents, which are on a much higher level of authority than AL. When people bundle all their opinions about the “evils of the modern world” that weakens the position of orthodox Catholics.

Likewise, when “traditional Catholics” do something like disrupting a service at the cathedral, that is music to the ears of those who would ban the Latin Mass, because “those people are against Vatican II”.

Keep in mind there are different levels of authority. It may sound tempting to argue “This action by the current pope or bishop must be evaluated in light of tradition - St. Thomas Aquinas, or Trent, or whatever”. But St. Thomas and Trent are not alive anymore. Keep in mind there are millions of laity with access to the websites, who reach countless contradictory interpretations of Thomas and Trent.

Thus, the current pope and bishops, not the layman, are the best interpreters of whether something fits into tradition. Otherwise, it would be the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[Wandile]

No, not all statements of popes have the “utmost” authority.

Of course but you were making it sound as if the prior Popes never ever spoke with authority when they actually did. There are enough documents and papal bulls to go around that you should read with regard to the controversial items/understandings of Vatican II. There are plenty of these authoritative documents.

In fact, very few are utmost. Most statements do not rise to the same level as that of the Catholic Church meeting in ecumenical council to define doctrines.

Neither does Vatican II. But many of them have the same authority as Vatican II and some are infallible declarations which this are of more authority than Vatican II

I do not believe your use or trust your definition of “fact”. I will keep my own counsel as to my trust in the Catholic Church.

Well I hope you trust Blessed Paul VI who presided over Vatican II who said on December 8, 1965 :

“ We decide moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church”

The other councils had anathemas attached to them for anyone who so much as doubted what was declared.

 

[Wandile]

I’m glad the church has Pope St Pius X, Cardinal Burke , Cardinal Sarah and bishops like Athanasius Schneider all who uphold the faith purely and faithfully.

I don’t know those cardinals you mentioned so I won’t comment on them

 

[Wandile]

This is such a straw man. Ecumenicsm of return and ecumenism with the aim of conversion to Catholicism are two different things.

The former expects the non Catholics to assume all customs, traditions and theology of the Roman Church and he completely outlaws this. That’s why Pope Benedict the XVI says

”It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline.”

The latter is about conversion while maintaining traditions which do not need to be changed. It was purely expressed in the creation of Anglican Ordinariate.