I agree with your premise on the traditional mass but what about ordaining bishops and consecrating priests to say these masses?

If there Francis is a true pope only he can grant jurisdiction and ordain bishops.  

If Francis is not the pope the eternal sacrifice has ceased as predicted by Jesus.

I saw that FSSP thread in the anonymous posts section and I want to start a discussion about it here.  Here's my theory on "Rome approved" TLM's (trad latin masses), and the jurisdiction "problem" for "independent" TLM's (sspx, others, etc).

I've been thinking about this for a while, here's my thesis:

Before Pope Benedict's Motu Proprio, the Church was in public doubt as to the jurisdictional status of "independent" TLM's because everyone in the Church acted as if the TLM was revoked, due to Paul VI's new missal.  This doubt caused everyone to assume that the TLM was revoked (and by extension, Quo Primum) which would make "independent" TLM's jurisdictionally "unapproved".

But Pope Benedict cleared away all this doubt.  He stated multiple times (both in his Motu and his letter to Bishops), that the 1962 missal, which is a legal revision of Pope St Pius V's Missal, and a legal revision to Quo Primum, is valid and not revoked.  Ergo, Quo Primum and the 1962 missal are law.

Quo Primum is not reformable ("...legal revision...").  That part is incorrect.  It cannot be changed.  It exists for all time, in perpetuity, as it was, is, and ever shall be.  Period.

Now, Quo Primum commands multiple things.  It gives permission for ANY priest to say it's missal, anywhere, under any circuмstances, without any permission from ANY bishop or superior BECAUSE the permission comes directly from the Papacy.  Ergo, any priest who says this missal HAS JURISDICTION.  No ifs, ands or buts.

To be clear, the papacy from which QP comes is that of Pope St. Pius V, in 1571.  Just as with any other infallible decree, it does not rely on the current pope for its effectiveness.  For example, we are not obliged to believe in the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady and her Assumption body and soul into heaven only because the current pope agrees with it.   These are defined dogmas of the faith, with a date of definition and a content, and a Pope who defined them.  (They also have a Denzinger number, but that's not inherently necessary, because Denzinger is not an official publication of the Church, therefore since Quo Primum has no Denzinger number, that doesn't mean it's not infallible.)

The topic is the faith of Catholics, since the way we pray (the Mass) establishes the way we believe the faith.  It is also regarding morals, since no pastor of the Church has the ability to demand of us that we stop assisting at a TLM, even for fulfilling our Sunday obligation. Therefore, it is in regards to both faith and morals.

Further, Quo Primum commands that no one can be FORCED to use any missal except his, that no changes, deletions or additions can be made and you can't use ANY OTHER missal except his (i.e. the 1962 missal).  Ergo, Paul VI's missal is illegal.

QP does not forbid the celebration of the Syrian rite or the Coptic rite or any of the other liturgies for example using St. John Chrysostom's Mass.  

However, it does forbid the use of any new rites that had emerged during the previous 200 years prior to 1570, specifically.  It does not, however, say that it forbids any new emergence of a new rite in the future.  That's actually unfortunate, as it turns out.  We can only wish that it had done so.

The NovusOrdo liturgy might seem to be illegal, but that is what Councils of the Church are for, and episcopal authority under legitimate ordinary jurisdiction.  It is not our place to go around telling Novordiens that they're in 'sin' by following their bishop's directives.  We have been given the grace to see where the true Mass endures, but they haven't, so we can pray for them and be gentle with them and suffer for them and DO PENANCE for them, but we cannot tell them that we forbid them to obey their bishop.  We have no ordinary jurisdiction to say that.

By controlling ourselves we actually please God by accepting this OUR CROSS to do penance for the Holy Father and our local bishops who currently are SO BLIND, or whatever it is.

Finally, he binds all Catholics to all this by penalty of a serious disobedience to the Pope himself.

All this being said, since Quo Primum is still in effect, then it follows that

1.  Anyone who says the TLM is "approved" by the Papacy, by law.  Who cares what "Rome" says, what matters is what the "Church" says.  In our day and age, "Rome" does not equal the "Church".

Your defect is in saying, "Who cares what 'Rome' says."  It is an infallible dogma of the Church that we are to be subject to the Roman Pontiff for our salvation.  Therefore, we must care what "Rome" says.  

However, we already have the longstanding and arguably infallible decree of Quo Primum, which says in perpetuity that no pastor of the Church "of whatever rank" (that includes the Pope!) has the authority to forbid any priest from offering Mass according to this missal (of A.D. 1571).

Quo primum temopore was printed inside the front cover of every altar missal ever published until John XXIII allowed it to be omitted in 1960 -- the year the Third Secret should have been revealed.............

.............Of course, this is merely a coincidence.  HAHAHAHAHAHA

While it might be of comfort to you to say "Rome does not equal the Church," it is not your place or mine to pass judgment on the pope, but it IS within the power of Quo Primum to prevent any pope from forbidding a priest to offer a TLM.

2.  ANYONE who says, approves, condones, attends, etc, etc ANY novus ordo mass is committing a serious sin of disobedience to the Pope because they are disobeying a law of the Church.  This includes anyone who is "under Rome", since they have publicly condoned the novus ordo and have to say it regularly in some capacity.  

Quo Primum does not forbid the practice of any of the Eastern Church liturgies, does it?  So how do you figure that it prohibits the practice of the NovusOrdo liturgy, after all, the MPSP acknowledges the TLM as "never abrogated."  

If only St. Pius V had had the foresight to say that no 'replacement' liturgy could ever relegate the TLM to second place status by displacing it, he would have precluded the NovusOrdoNonsense;  but at the time, that probably would have seemed like a ridiculous eventuality.  

Again, you presume to have the authority of the Church to say "2.  ANYONE...", and you have no such authority.  

Therefore what you say here is false.  Etc....

2a.  This also includes any FSSP or diocesan latin mass.  You can't attend under pain of sin, because they formally and publicly accept the novus ordo.  Ergo, just as Catholics could not attend the Anglican masses in England during Henry VIII because their clergy formally accepted heresy, no Catholic can attend a mass where the priest accepts a publicly unlawful and disobedient act (and I would argue, immoral and heretical too.  Generally, one cannot say that ALL novus ordo masses are heresy, but some do contain heretical ideas.  But that's another discussion...)

3.  It doesn't matter if novus ordo consecrations are "valid", the entire mass is illegal and disobedient, ergo sinful.  "Rome" can condone it, allow it, promote it, etc, etc all they want.  But "rome" is not the Church.  Anyone in Rome can disobey Church law just like we can and lose their soul.  In addition, even if a novus ordo consecration is "valid" does not mean it's "acceptable" (i.e. moral) in God's eyes and it certainly doesn't change it's legal status.  A satanic mass can have a "valid" consecration, in theory.  

There's certainly many, many things that follow from this line of reasoning, but those are the top 3.

The number of errors that proceed from one error has no limit.  
What you are doing is proceeding to multiply your errors.  

.

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Pax Vobis

I saw that FSSP thread in the anonymous posts section and I want to start a discussion about it here.  Here's my theory on "Rome approved" TLM's (trad latin masses), and the jurisdiction "problem" for "independent" TLM's (sspx, others, etc).

I've been thinking about this for a while, here's my thesis:

Before Pope Benedict's Motu Proprio, the Church was in public doubt as to the jurisdictional status of "independent" TLM's because everyone in the Church acted as if the TLM was revoked, due to Paul VI's new missal.  This doubt caused everyone to assume that the TLM was revoked (and by extension, Quo Primum) which would make "independent" TLM's jurisdictionally "unapproved".

But Pope Benedict cleared away all this doubt.  He stated multiple times (both in his Motu and his letter to Bishops), that the 1962 missal, which is a legal revision of Pope St Pius V's Missal, and a legal revision to Quo Primum, is valid and not revoked.  Ergo, Quo Primum and the 1962 missal are law.

Quo Primum is not reformable ("...legal revision...").  That part is incorrect.  It cannot be changed.  It exists for all time, in perpetuity, as it was, is, and ever shall be.  Period.

Where does that leave Urban VIII, Clement VIII, Leo XIII, Pius X and Benedict XV?

Did they all publish illicit missals?  Of course not.  Accidental changes to the missal are indeed allowed.

Quo Primum stands today just as it did in 1572, without alteration.  There is nothing in it that does not apply to all the years intervening.  It wasn't until after Pius XI that the Modernists managed to find ways to incur challenges to its authority, such that by 1960 there was insufficient recognition of its true power remaining and some real tests of corruption could take place.

But since you take sides with the sedes, you wouldn't understand that.  You're confused, again, Myth.  Maybe you should go back to the cult forum where you can sneak around spreading nonsense with impunity.  

Quo Primum said no one could PROHIBIT a priest from celebrating Mass according to that 1570 missal.  Any priest can pick up that same missal and use it today just as it was used then.  The organic additions that subsequent popes made were not substantive changes, FYI.  They were things like new saints' feast days and new holy days, and regional accretions.  That's not what we're talking about.  The NovusOrdoNewmass is a whole new concoction, and nothing like that.  In fact, the 1962 missal was a substantive change inasmuch as it deleted the second Confiteor and eliminated most of the Octaves.  

Now, "Pbax" -- are you making this up?  Who, pray tell is "Pbax?"

Quote from: Pbax

1. Anyone who says the TLM is "approved" by the Papacy, by law. Who cares what "Rome" says, what matters is what the "Church" says. In our day and age, "Rome" does not equal the "Church".

I'd be careful not to over-distinguish between Rome and the Church.  We are Roman Catholics.  Our faith is guarded and handed down by Rome.  Rome is under siege, and her institutions temporarily usurped by modernist heretics.  Who cares what the modernist usurpers have to say, is the way I'd word it.  They have no authority.

Quote from: Pbax

2. ANYONE who says, approves, condones, attends, etc, etc ANY novus ordo mass is committing a serious sin of disobedience to the Pope because they are disobeying a law of the Church. This includes anyone who is "under Rome", since they have publicly condoned the novus ordo and have to say it regularly in some capacity.

I disagree with this.  Actual sin requires malice; there are those (in the past and present) who attend the N.O. because they believe it is the Roman Missal of the Catholic Church, duly approved by a Catholic pope for their sanctification.  They are wrong about this, but these are their motives and these are not sinful motives, on the contrary it's a Catholic mindset.

I concede that this is a minority of people, but these people exist nevertheless and disrupts your unconditional condemnation of those who attend/celebrate Montini's missal.

Quote from: Pbax

2a. This also includes any FSSP or diocesan latin mass. You can't attend under pain of sin, because they formally and publicly accept the novus ordo. Ergo, just as Catholics could not attend the Anglican masses in England during Henry VIII because their clergy formally accepted heresy, no Catholic can attend a mass where the priest accepts a publicly unlawful and disobedient act (and I would argue, immoral and heretical too. Generally, one cannot say that ALL novus ordo masses are heresy, but some do contain heretical ideas. But that's another discussion...)

I don't think that's true.  The biggest problem with indult masses is that the men performing them have doubtful orders.  

No, the biggest problem with the Indult is priests who offer it have to recognize the legitimacy of the Newmass and the propriety of the unclean spirit of Vat.II.  

If a given valid priest "accepts" the N.O.M., does this make him a heretic?  

You sound just like a sedevacantist.  Oh, I almost forgot who I'm talking to.  Sorry.

It goes back to your first point, what does it mean to accept?  If it means that one is compelled to acknowledge its legitimacy because it was lawfully imposed on the faithful, there is nothing heretical about that.  It is wrong, but not heretical.  There is an ambiguity in saying that one "accepts" the N.O.M..  If this means actually professing a heresy (e.g., denying the Real Presence) then that particular priest should be avoided, but even canon law allows Catholics to approach heretics for sacraments in danger of death, so there are exceptions to the avoidance.

Quote from: Pbax

3. It doesn't matter if novus ordo consecrations are "valid", the entire mass is illegal and disobedient, ergo sinful. "Rome" can condone it, allow it, promote it, etc, etc all they want. But "rome" is not the Church. Anyone in Rome can disobey Church law just like we can and lose their soul. In addition, even if a novus ordo consecration is "valid" does not mean it's "acceptable" (i.e. moral) in God's eyes and it certainly doesn't change it's legal status. A satanic mass can have a "valid" consecration, in theory.

Well, the validity of the N.O.M. "doesn't matter" inasmuch as attendance is concerned, I agree.  It's illegality and evil nature is enough to compel a Catholic to stay away-- after all, the Eastern Schismatic liturgies are certainly valid, but we don't attend them-- and they're more Catholic than the N.O.M., even.

But the validity of the N.O.M. (both before and after the addition of the pro multis, and with consideration to the men performing the ceremony) is hardly irrelevant for other reasons.

It goes to show, when you're all loopy on the basics, you just go around in circles.  And not much makes sense anymore.  

Pity.

.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Pax Vobis

I saw that FSSP thread in the anonymous posts section and I want to start a discussion about it here.  Here's my theory on "Rome approved" TLM's (trad latin masses), and the jurisdiction "problem" for "independent" TLM's (sspx, others, etc).

I've been thinking about this for a while, here's my thesis:

Before Pope Benedict's Motu Proprio, the Church was in public doubt as to the jurisdictional status of "independent" TLM's because everyone in the Church acted as if the TLM was revoked, due to Paul VI's new missal.  This doubt caused everyone to assume that the TLM was revoked (and by extension, Quo Primum) which would make "independent" TLM's jurisdictionally "unapproved".

But Pope Benedict cleared away all this doubt.  He stated multiple times (both in his Motu and his letter to Bishops), that the 1962 missal, which is a legal revision of Pope St Pius V's Missal, and a legal revision to Quo Primum, is valid and not revoked.  Ergo, Quo Primum and the 1962 missal are law.

Quo Primum is not reformable ("...legal revision...").  That part is incorrect.  It cannot be changed.  It exists for all time, in perpetuity, as it was, is, and ever shall be.  Period.

Where does that leave Urban VIII, Clement VIII, Leo XIII, Pius X and Benedict XV?

Did they all publish illicit missals?  Of course not.  Accidental changes to the missal are indeed allowed.

Quo Primum stands today just as it did in 1572, without alteration.  There is nothing in it that does not apply to all the years intervening.  It wasn't until after Pius XI that the Modernists managed to find ways to incur challenges to its authority, such that by 1960 there was insufficient recognition of its true power remaining and some real tests of corruption could take place.

But since you take sides with the sedes, you wouldn't understand that.  You're confused, again, Myth.  Maybe you should go back to the cult forum where you can sneak around spreading nonsense with impunity.  

Quo Primum said no one could PROHIBIT a priest from celebrating Mass according to that 1570 missal.  Any priest can pick up that same missal and use it today just as it was used then.  The organic additions that subsequent popes made were not substantive changes, FYI.  They were things like new saints' feast days and new holy days, and regional accretions.  That's not what we're talking about.  The NovusOrdoNewmass is a whole new concoction, and nothing like that.  In fact, the 1962 missal was a substantive change inasmuch as it deleted the second Confiteor and eliminated most of the Octaves.  

I thought the context of Pax Vobis (There are several members who use "pax" or some variation thereof, I mistook Pax Vobis' name for Pbax) post made it sufficiently clear that what he meant by a "legal revision" was simply that the 1962 missal IS the missal of Pius V, "revised."  Just as the Divino Afflatu reform of Pius X is, or any of the other editions published by the five different popes who published the Roman Missal with some type of revision.

Considering this, I took your comment to be saying that the missal of Pius V cannot be revised-- considering that five popes have done just that, including a canonized saint, it shouldn't be difficult to understand why I replied to you the way I did.

As to the rest of your post, whether or not the priest is a priest is indeed of paramount importance.  You would instead have us believe that it is more important to avoid those who are confused-- rather than to avoid those who aren't ordained, or are doubtfully ordained.  

Such men are not heretics, certainly not categorically so-- the Church's law provides that we may receive the sacraments even from heretics though, in danger of death-- but the Church's law never allows us to receive sacraments from men who can't confect them.  

Mithrandylan -

"I disagree with this.  Actual sin requires malice; there are those (in the past and present) who attend the N.O. because they believe it is the Roman Missal of the Catholic Church, duly approved by a Catholic pope for their sanctification."

The point is, Quo Primum is law and it orders holy obedience to attend only its missal.  If one goes against this law, it's a sin.  God will judge a person's culpability if he attends the novus ordo, but it's still a sin nonetheless.

"If a given valid priest "accepts" the N.O.M., does this make him a heretic?"  

Maybe, maybe not.  That's not the point i'm trying to make.  If someone accepts the Novus Ordo (and anyone who is "under Rome" accepts it publicly), they are publicly against Quo Primum and therefore publicly in disobedience of Church law, which is a sin.  I'm talking about the legality of it, not the morality or validity.

Mithrandylan -

"I disagree with this.  Actual sin requires malice; there are those (in the past and present) who attend the N.O. because they believe it is the Roman Missal of the Catholic Church, duly approved by a Catholic pope for their sanctification."

The point is, Quo Primum is law and it orders holy obedience to attend only its missal.  If one goes against this law, it's a sin.  God will judge a person's culpability if he attends the novus ordo, but it's still a sin nonetheless.

"If a given valid priest "accepts" the N.O.M., does this make him a heretic?"  

Maybe, maybe not.  That's not the point i'm trying to make.  If someone accepts the Novus Ordo (and anyone who is "under Rome" accepts it publicly), they are publicly against Quo Primum and therefore publicly in disobedience of Church law, which is a sin.  I'm talking about the legality of it, not the morality or validity.

Pax Vobis,

I agree that Quo Primum is law, I disagree that one who believes he is following the law (and isn't) sins.  One cannot sin in a way that doesn't offend God.  If one does something wrong which doesn't offend God due to the person's lack of culpability or malice, it isn't a sin.  Ergo, if one attends the N.O.M. precisely because they're trying to follow the law, they don't sin.

That doesn't mean that it isn't wrong, it means that they do not incur any punishment for that action.  

Ditto "accepting" the N.O.M..  New Church teaches that it is the same mass as Pius V's missal, merely a different "form."  "Good" Novus Ordites buy this, and believe they are attending a variant form of Pius V's missal.  In any event, it is clear that such a person has no intention at all to transgress the law, on the contrary they do what they're doing precisely to fulfill the law.  You say that you wish to speak only of legality, but you're not doing a very good job of it by having your salient point be that a sin is committed in X, Y and Z instances.  

The N.O.M. is illegal.  You definitely don't need to convince anyone here of that!  (except maybe a guest or two, and crossbro).

Does the deliberate intent of Paul VI to establish a Mass that would please the Protestants, make it illegitimate?

Valid, but illegitimate?.

Either way, it must be resisted until it no longer exists.