Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: MadonnaDolorosa on August 03, 2019, 12:18:16 AM
-
Recently I have become a bit disillusioned with R&R, and I have started hold the sedeprivationist opinion. Mainly this comes with my better understanding of the
UOM. (Imbibing many of the videos put out by Father Jenkins has helped as well.) Privationism makes the most sense to me, because if the Sedevacantists are right, Apostolic succession in the Roman Rite has completely been obliterated aside from the +Thuc, +Lefebvre, and +Mendez lines, and the crux of the issue is that I, as a layman, using my private judgment, am deposing Popes based on personal heresy. This also puts me in no position to condemn the likes of Ibranyi. Sedeprivationism maintains the hierarchy (but "impounds" them), and a true Catholic Pope could come along (or, Siri started his own underground church...), and anathematize everything from the post-council era -- and it also explains why the Church has not defected, a problem I have with R&R. However, I recently came across this quote:
Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, 1870, Session 4, Chapter 3, EX CATHEDRA: “If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church… let him be anathema.” (Denzinger 1831)
Now I've become confused again.
-
Recently I have become a bit disillusioned with R&R, and I have started hold the sedeprivationist opinion
There's a difference in theory but, in practicality, there's very little difference, if any at all.
Just remember, your salvation isn't dependent upon whether recognizing Francis is legitimate or an imposter. It's dependent upon living the traditional Catholic Faith handed down since Pentecost up to Vatican II Council.
It's good to resist Francis the imposter & destroyer, but trads shouldn't make it central to their Catholic faith.
-
Now I've become confused again.
Always remember that Pope Pius IX at The First Vatican Council, defined when the pope teaches infallibly, V1 did *not* teach that the pope cannot teach heresy. Starting with a premise that's true makes all the difference.
-
Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, 1870, Session 4, Chapter 3, EX CATHEDRA: “If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church… let him be anathema.” (Denzinger 1831)
Now I've become confused again.
.
The "office of inspection or direction" is the notion that the pope's office is a merely supervisorial one-- that his authority is limited to evaluating his subordinates and directing them. This is contrary to the notion of universal jurisdiction which, though including inspective and directive rights, also includes the right to command or compel every member of the Church. That's all that's happening here.
-
Always remember that Pope Pius IX at The First Vatican Council, defined when the pope teaches infallibly, V1 did *not* teach that the pope cannot teach heresy. Starting with a premise that's true makes all the difference.
So if a Pope can teach heresy, why would I ever accept anything that a Pope teaches? It could be heretical. For that matter why would I believe in Vatican I and Pastor Aeternus since quite a few Bishops considered it false teaching. Pius IX could be accused of heresy for pushing for God like powers.
-
So if a Pope can teach heresy, why would I ever accept anything that a Pope teaches? It could be heretical. For that matter why would I believe in Vatican I and Pastor Aeternus since quite a few Bishops considered it false teaching. Pius IX could be accused of heresy for pushing for God like powers.
The whole Catholic world knew right from wrong before V2 and of their own free will, they chose to do wrong. Always remember that. People will not be led to where they do not already want to go.
<snip>
"...Most people in the [conciliar] church today do not care that they are heretics. In fact, if you point out certain ideas to them as being heretical, they consider the whole thing irrelevant to such an extent that they can hardly be bothered with it.
And if you point out, for instance, certain expressions in peoples utterances, or in Catholic, so called Catholic papers and books which are diametrically opposed to Catholic Doctrine and to traditional Catholic belief and practice, again they’re totally unimpressed, simply because they say, “well, the only thing we have to worry about is doing what the priests and bishops and the pope tell us.”
See what I mean, they are invoking authority to get by and to avoid the whole issue of their personal belief. This is why most people are now in heresy within the Church, not because they want to believe error, many of them really want to know the truth.
I shouldn’t say that word really, what they really want is what they’ve got, that’s why they have it, that’s why they’ve chosen it, that’s why they fight for it, and its why they continue to absorb it, they cling to it and they love it. So I should not say that word really, but let us say that many people in the church aspire, at least faintly to the truth - not so strongly not so adamantly nor tenaciously that they’d suffer for it, not so that they would fall out with their relatives and their friends on account of it, not so really that they would become such oddities as we have become for the sake of it, but they do hope that they can retain orthodoxy at least within the pale of the church, the problem is it is so much easier to follow the wolves in sheep’s clothing..."</snip> - Fr. Wathen
-
There's a difference in theory but, in practicality, there's very little difference, if any at all.
Just remember, your salvation isn't dependent upon whether recognizing Francis is legitimate or an imposter. It's dependent upon living the traditional Catholic Faith handed down since Pentecost up to Vatican II Council.
It's good to resist Francis the imposter & destroyer, but trads shouldn't make it central to their Catholic faith.
I agree that "Sede vacante" does not really change the day-to-day life of a Traditional Catholic. I'm not going to suddenly stop saying the Hail Mary, or receiving sure Sacraments.
Always remember that Pope Pius IX at The First Vatican Council, defined when the pope teaches infallibly, V1 did *not* teach that the pope cannot teach heresy. Starting with a premise that's true makes all the difference.
Here is my problem: The Sedevacantist claim that such thinking destroys the Papacy makes sense. If I essentially deny the Novus Ordo sacraments, magisterium, and canonizations the Popes have made since V2, do I really believe in the actual Catholic Papacy? On the other hand, Boniface VIII was, by all accounts, a wicked man -- but he gave us Unam Sanctam. Quia Quorundam is also interesting.
.
The "office of inspection or direction" is the notion that the pope's office is a merely supervisorial one-- that his authority is limited to evaluating his subordinates and directing them. This is contrary to the notion of universal jurisdiction which, though including inspective and directive rights, also includes the right to command or compel every member of the Church. That's all that's happening here.
What it seems to indicate is that there is no such thing as a partial/defective/"material" Pope. Supreme jurisdiction, is, of course, an element of the Papacy -- thus someone cannot materially be Pope while lacking authority, ergo, the Cassiciacuм Thesis is false. But that leaves me with the issue of indefectibility in the R&R camp, and personal issuing of anathemas in the Sedevacantist camp.
-
What it seems to indicate is that there is no such thing as a partial/defective/"material" Pope. Supreme jurisdiction, is, of course, an element of the Papacy -- thus someone cannot materially be Pope while lacking authority, ergo, the Cassiciacuм Thesis is false. But that leaves me with the issue of indefectibility in the R&R camp, and personal issuing of anathemas in the Sedevacantist camp.
.
Why does it seem to indicate that?
.
To be clear I am not a privationist. But the reasons have nothing at all to do with this canon. If you are looking for a reason to not maintain the privationist view, how about the fact that a material pope is a meaningless designation? It makes as much sense as calling a pile of sawdust a material chair, or a cow a material meatball. It's a trivial designation without any real significance.
-
.
The "office of inspection or direction" is the notion that the pope's office is a merely supervisorial one-- that his authority is limited to evaluating his subordinates and directing them. This is contrary to the notion of universal jurisdiction which, though including inspective and directive rights, also includes the right to command or compel every member of the Church. That's all that's happening here.
Correct. That quote has nothing to do with a sedeprivationist scenario.
-
I agree that "Sede vacante" does not really change the day-to-day life of a Traditional Catholic. I'm not going to suddenly stop saying the Hail Mary, or receiving sure Sacraments.
Here is my problem: The Sedevacantist claim that such thinking destroys the Papacy makes sense. If I essentially deny the Novus Ordo sacraments, magisterium, and canonizations the Popes have made since V2, do I really believe in the actual Catholic Papacy? On the other hand, Boniface VIII was, by all accounts, a wicked man -- but he gave us Unam Sanctam. Quia Quorundam is also interesting.
It doesn't make sense to me that such teaching destroys the papacy. V1 defined when the pope is infallible, namely, when he defines a doctrine from The Chair, i.e. Ex cathedra. *That* is the Church's doctrine on papal infallibility.
When you read V1 (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм20.htm), you will find that it is as Fr. Wathen says in his book, The Great Sacrilege:
"...In fact, papal infallibility covers a most rigidly and specifically circuмscribed area, the most narrowly-defined, I might add, of all the areas of his sovereignty......The doctrine of papal infallibility, by stating in what respect the pope cannot err, admits, in effect, that in all other areas of his vast prerogatives the pope is completely fallible."
Because this (above) is truth, the papacy does not get destroyed by heretical popes, rather, it is the popes and the people who foolishly follow them into the pit that destroy themselves. But the Church lives on, papacy and all. Consider that in spite of everything, we have the true faith and are here to persevere in it and hand it down, this itself is a testament to the indefectibility of the Church. They cannot take from us that which we will not give up.
Also, when one attempts to expand upon V1's definition, what they *should* find, is that they are granting the pope infallibility he does not and never did have no matter how they expand upon it, as such, they should see that doing so contradicts or changes the dogma as decreed at V1.
But they cannot see this because they wrongfully believe the doctrine of papal infallibility basically teaches that "popes speaking as pope, cannot teach or fall into heresy". They think this because this is what was taught by some of the theologians of the last few centuries. But this is not the doctrine of the Church, V1's definition is.
We doubt or deny the Novus Ordo sacraments, magisterium, canonizations and etc. since V2 because they are not Catholic and some are even blatant heresy, the status of the pope really has nothing to do with it.
Pray for the pope daily, that is the duty of every Catholic. Lex Orandi, lex credendi
-
It doesn't make sense to me that such teaching destroys the papacy. V1 defined when the pope is infallible, namely, when he defines a doctrine from The Chair, i.e. Ex cathedra. *That* is the Church's doctrine on papal infallibility.
When you read V1 (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм20.htm), you will find that it is as Fr. Wathen says in his book, The Great Sacrilege:
"...In fact, papal infallibility covers a most rigidly and specifically circuмscribed area, the most narrowly-defined, I might add, of all the areas of his sovereignty......The doctrine of papal infallibility, by stating in what respect the pope cannot err, admits, in effect, that in all other areas of his vast prerogatives the pope is completely fallible."
Because this (above) is truth, the papacy does not get destroyed by heretical popes, rather, it is the popes and the people who foolishly follow them into the pit that destroy themselves. But the Church lives on, papacy and all. Consider that in spite of everything, we have the true faith and are here to persevere in it and hand it down, this itself is a testament to the indefectibility of the Church. They cannot take from us that which we will not give up.
Also, when one attempts to expand upon V1's definition, what they *should* find, is that they are granting the pope infallibility he does not and never did have no matter how they expand upon it, as such, they should see that doing so contradicts or changes the dogma as decreed at V1.
But they cannot see this because they wrongfully believe the doctrine of papal infallibility basically teaches that "popes speaking as pope, cannot teach or fall into heresy". They think this because this is what was taught by some of the theologians of the last few centuries. But this is not the doctrine of the Church, V1's definition is.
We doubt or deny the Novus Ordo sacraments, magisterium, canonizations and etc. since V2 because they are not Catholic and some are even blatant heresy, the status of the pope really has nothing to do with it.
Pray for the pope daily, that is the duty of every Catholic. Lex Orandi, lex credendi
Except we owe the pope submission and obedience. Disregarding his authority to bind and loose and refusing religious submission based on personal opinion is not Catholic. Even if we were to, for example, say canonisations are not infallible - it would still be sinful to reject the Pope's canonisations. The Catholic way, even for fallible things, is to submit to authority until told otherwise. That's largely the basis for sedeplenism, is it not? Most Trad sedeplenists acknowledge that Francis is a heretic, but they submit to the Church and wait for the Church to declare it. So why do you not do the same for the mass or canonisations or matters of canon law? It's a hugely inconsistent position.
-
Except we owe the pope submission and obedience. Disregarding his authority to bind and loose and refusing religious submission based on personal opinion is not Catholic. Even if we were to, for example, say canonisations are not infallible - it would still be sinful to reject the Pope's canonisations. The Catholic way, even for fallible things, is to submit to authority until told otherwise. That's largely the basis for sedeplenism, is it not? Most Trad sedeplenists acknowledge that Francis is a heretic, but they submit to the Church and wait for the Church to declare it. So why do you not do the same for the mass or canonisations or matters of canon law? It's a hugely inconsistent position.
I really don't see evidence, whether in Vatican I, or anywhere else, for the kind of ultramontanism that I see some sedevacantists (and some pro-conciliar sedeplenists like the Where Peter Is crowd) advocating. I think its completely reasonable to take a position that's skeptical of the New Mass, skeptical of Vatican II (or *at least* its prudence), being skeptical of Vatican II canonizations, and yet still accepting Francis as the Pope.
Where the problem comes in for me is the sheer level of rebelliousness I see from the SSPX Resistance, where it really does seem to me that there's no practical meaning to having a pope, yet they still have one.
Speaking for myself (and I know I'm not the standard for anything), I don't attend the New Mass, and I don't venerate the post Vatican II saints. But I also freely and willingly state that I don't do those things because I have *doubts* about them, doubts which I think are grounded in good reasons, yes, but I also don't go around judging people for doing something that Rome, at least at the moment, is allowing. I'll express my reservations about say a JPII, if it comes up, but I don't tell people they're sinning if they venerate him. Same with attending the NO, for the most part.
Lefebvre, it seems, whatever his exact opinions (and as we all know, his opinions aren't infallible) seemed to have his back against the wall. There was no general permission for the Latin Mass like today. Assisi had just happened. There was no impending regularization for the SSPX, there was not even an FSSP. If Lefebvre had died without consecrating any bishops, the Novus Ordo would very likely have become the ONLY Western Rite mass.... the Western Tridentine Rite would effectively have been gutted. I also... don't get the impression that hermeneutic of continuity (however naive we may or may not think that is) was even a live option at the time. I'm not singing his praises, or saying he was the best thing since sliced bread, but a lot of these corrections were made by Benedict XVI. Benedict XVI allowed the Latin mass to be celebrated everywhere, and he also seems to have (both by lifting the SSPX excommunications and trying to argue for hermeneutic of continuity) allowed for a lot more skepticism of Vatican II. That's not to say that Benedict was a great pope or that he was a trad, but I really have a hard time comparing the situation in 2019, as much as the pope and many of the bishops are liberal, with the situation in 1988. It really does seem like Lefebvre did what he had to do. And occasionally disobeying authority to obey a higher authority is justified. The Pope is not God, he can be wrong.
But the Resistance attitude really does seem to be like "Yes, the Pope is the Pope but we want nothing to do with him." Not even, like "We won't compromise for him" but like really, wanting nothing to do with him, and not thinking he has any authority at all. That seems problematic to me, and inconsistent.
But I don't think its inconsistent to have doubts about certain things, or to not just accept something that seems like a fairly obvious deviation from the past.
-
I really don't see evidence, whether in Vatican I, or anywhere else, for the kind of ultramontanism that I see some sedevacantists (and some pro-conciliar sedeplenists like the Where Peter Is crowd) advocating. I think its completely reasonable to take a position that's skeptical of the New Mass, skeptical of Vatican II (or *at least* its prudence), being skeptical of Vatican II canonizations, and yet still accepting Francis as the Pope.
Where the problem comes in for me is the sheer level of rebelliousness I see from the SSPX Resistance, where it really does seem to me that there's no practical meaning to having a pope, yet they still have one.
Speaking for myself (and I know I'm not the standard for anything), I don't attend the New Mass, and I don't venerate the post Vatican II saints. But I also freely and willingly state that I don't do those things because I have *doubts* about them, doubts which I think are grounded in good reasons, yes, but I also don't go around judging people for doing something that Rome, at least at the moment, is allowing. I'll express my reservations about say a JPII, if it comes up, but I don't tell people they're sinning if they venerate him. Same with attending the NO, for the most part.
Lefebvre, it seems, whatever his exact opinions (and as we all know, his opinions aren't infallible) seemed to have his back against the wall. There was no general permission for the Latin Mass like today. Assisi had just happened. There was no impending regularization for the SSPX, there was not even an FSSP. If Lefebvre had died without consecrating any bishops, the Novus Ordo would very likely have become the ONLY Western Rite mass.... the Western Tridentine Rite would effectively have been gutted. I also... don't get the impression that hermeneutic of continuity (however naive we may or may not think that is) was even a live option at the time. I'm not singing his praises, or saying he was the best thing since sliced bread, but a lot of these corrections were made by Benedict XVI. Benedict XVI allowed the Latin mass to be celebrated everywhere, and he also seems to have (both by lifting the SSPX excommunications and trying to argue for hermeneutic of continuity) allowed for a lot more skepticism of Vatican II. That's not to say that Benedict was a great pope or that he was a trad, but I really have a hard time comparing the situation in 2019, as much as the pope and many of the bishops are liberal, with the situation in 1988. It really does seem like Lefebvre did what he had to do. And occasionally disobeying authority to obey a higher authority is justified. The Pope is not God, he can be wrong.
But the Resistance attitude really does seem to be like "Yes, the Pope is the Pope but we want nothing to do with him." Not even, like "We won't compromise for him" but like really, wanting nothing to do with him, and not thinking he has any authority at all. That seems problematic to me, and inconsistent.
But I don't think its inconsistent to have doubts about certain things, or to not just accept something that seems like a fairly obvious deviation from the past.
Trent specifically anathemises anyone who would call a mass or ceremony of the Church, or the vestments used therein, unholy, impious, or blasphemous. R&R get around this by saying the NOM isn't actually a mass of the Church but rather a mass of the "Conciliar Church". Which is a ridiculous position as it proposes that while the pope stated in the docuмents that he promulgated it for the Catholic Church, he somehow accidentally promulgated it for a separate entity he doesn't know or believe even exists. The NOM is also the mass said by the pope and 99% of the clergy, so by that alone it's pretty ridiculous to say it's not a mass of the Church.
If you take canonisations to be fallible, one can be skeptical but you still must give religious submission regardless. Declaring John Paul II is not a saint and that the Church was wrong to canonise him would still be sinful if you believe the Church did indeed canonise him(i.e you believe Francis is pope).
Religious submission is not "ultramonatism", that's ridiculous. Rejecting the Church's rites, solemn judgments and canon laws goes beyond disobedience, it's borderline schismatic, and slurring basic obedience doesn't serve as a defence of that.
-
Except we owe the pope submission and obedience. Disregarding his authority to bind and loose and refusing religious submission based on personal opinion is not Catholic. Even if we were to, for example, say canonisations are not infallible - it would still be sinful to reject the Pope's canonisations. The Catholic way, even for fallible things, is to submit to authority until told otherwise. That's largely the basis for sedeplenism, is it not? Most Trad sedeplenists acknowledge that Francis is a heretic, but they submit to the Church and wait for the Church to declare it. So why do you not do the same for the mass or canonisations or matters of canon law? It's a hugely inconsistent position.
Yes, we owe submission and obedience to the pope. "We should have to continue to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, UNLESS he should command something which is sinful." - "Who Shall Ascend?" This is apparently all but impossible for sedes to comprehend, let alone accept, because they must believe that popes are incapable of doing what the conciliar popes have done. What other reason could there be?
"...Catholics must be convinced of the following most important principle, a principle which has a special relevance in the context of this present writing. It is this: No matter what may happen, since no one may justifiably command another to sin, and since no one is permitted to obey such a command, no one may ever blame another—even an errant pope—for his sins. Conversely, the failure of any person—even the pope—to keep God's law or to preserve his own faith, does not excuse any other person for his failure to do the same. Ignorance of the law or ignorance of the Faith is never an excuse for sinning; one is bound to know when he is being commanded to sin. The notion is abroad that one may always simply follow the pope and the bishops and thus be sure of salvation. Ordinarily this is a reliable norm. However, it is so only because ordinarily the pope and the bishops are more zealous for and more perfectly instructed in the Faith than their subjects.
Neither can anyone get permission to sin through the erroneous teaching of the pope or any of his other spiritual superiors, nor through their failure to teach what they ought. Everyone is bound to keep God's law and the Faith. The obligation to do that which is good and avoid that which is evil and to believe the truths of Catholicism does not arise from the hierarchy of the Church, nor from the Papacy, but from the intrinsic nature of things and the commands of Christ, Who is Lord of all." - Fr. Wathen, "The Great Sacrilege"
-
Trent specifically anathemises anyone who would call a mass or ceremony of the Church, or the vestments used therein, unholy, impious, or blasphemous. R&R get around this by saying the NOM isn't actually a mass of the Church but rather a mass of the "Conciliar Church". Which is a ridiculous position as it proposes that while the pope stated in the docuмents that he promulgated it for the Catholic Church, he somehow accidentally promulgated it for a separate entity he doesn't know or believe even exists. The NOM is also the mass said by the pope and 99% of the clergy, so by that alone it's pretty ridiculous to say it's not a mass of the Church.
CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.
This canon of Trent is in regards to the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs used during the Masses of Quo Primum, not the new "mass" of V2 - which apparently used this canon to create the new "mass", which has nothing but impious ceremonies, outward signs and rainbow vestments.
-
CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.
This canon of Trent is in regards to the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs used during the Masses of Quo Primum, not the new "mass" of V2 - which apparently used this canon to create the new "mass", which has nothing but impious ceremonies, outward signs and rainbow vestments.
No, Trent does not specify a rite when it says that. There were other Catholic rites, if it meant that only the Tridentine rite couldn't be called impious and that anyone could fire away and condemn the Mozarabite, Byzantine et al. masses, it would have said so.
-
Yes, we owe submission and obedience to the pope. "We should have to continue to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, UNLESS he should command something which is sinful." - "Who Shall Ascend?" This is apparently all but impossible for sedes to comprehend, let alone accept, because they must believe that popes are incapable of doing what the conciliar popes have done. What other reason could there be?
"...Catholics must be convinced of the following most important principle, a principle which has a special relevance in the context of this present writing. It is this: No matter what may happen, since no one may justifiably command another to sin, and since no one is permitted to obey such a command, no one may ever blame another—even an errant pope—for his sins. Conversely, the failure of any person—even the pope—to keep God's law or to preserve his own faith, does not excuse any other person for his failure to do the same. Ignorance of the law or ignorance of the Faith is never an excuse for sinning; one is bound to know when he is being commanded to sin. The notion is abroad that one may always simply follow the pope and the bishops and thus be sure of salvation. Ordinarily this is a reliable norm. However, it is so only because ordinarily the pope and the bishops are more zealous for and more perfectly instructed in the Faith than their subjects.
Neither can anyone get permission to sin through the erroneous teaching of the pope or any of his other spiritual superiors, nor through their failure to teach what they ought. Everyone is bound to keep God's law and the Faith. The obligation to do that which is good and avoid that which is evil and to believe the truths of Catholicism does not arise from the hierarchy of the Church, nor from the Papacy, but from the intrinsic nature of things and the commands of Christ, Who is Lord of all." - Fr. Wathen, "The Great Sacrilege"
If one can declare that John Paul II isn't a real saint, that the Church has got it wrong, and that they must declare John Paul II to not be a saint as it would be sinful to not do so... - then one could do the exact same for St. Thomas. You're giving every Catholic a carte blanche to reject anything the Church does as long as they have the personal opinion that it would be sinful to do otherwise. Was it a reasonable position for a man in the 1500s to declare that the Tridentine rite was uncatholic and refuse to attend it?
-
No, Trent does not specify a rite when it says that. There were other Catholic rites, if it meant that only the Tridentine rite couldn't be called impious and that anyone could fire away and condemn the Mozarabite, Byzantine et al. masses, it would have said so.
You should read Quo Primum (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius05/p5quopri.htm), because what you are saying, is that Trent anathematized whoever says the ceremonies etc., are incentives to impiety, of a "mass" Trent anathematized. I will quote you the pertinent parts if you wish, but better for you to read it.
-
You should read Quo Primum (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius05/p5quopri.htm), because what you are saying, is that Trent anathematized whoever says the ceremonies etc., are incentives to impiety, of a "mass" Trent anathematized. I will quote you the pertinent parts if you wish, but better for you to read it.
You're saying Quo Primum anathemised the NOM? Well I've read it before but I'm not sure what you're referring to. I assume you mean this:
All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.
Which does not refer to the popes at all, as many popes altered the Tridentine rite after Trent. Rather it refers to the lesser clergy changing the rite themselves.
-
You're saying Quo Primum anathemised the NOM? Well I've read it before but I'm not sure what you're referring to. I assume you mean this:
Not sure how anyone could miss it.......
Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us.
This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases.....
Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used.... Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us...
Which does not refer to the popes at all, as many popes altered the Tridentine rite after Trent. Rather it refers to the lesser clergy changing the rite themselves.
Quo Primum allowed for insignificant alterations (to the rite and manner of the Mass) by popes. Quo Primum decreed to "chant or read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us", not that popes could not make incidental revisions when necessary.
-
Not sure how anyone could miss it.......
Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us.
This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases.....
Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used.... Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us...
Quo Primum allowed for insignificant alterations (to the rite and manner of the Mass) by popes. Quo Primum decreed to "chant or read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us", not that popes could not make incidental revisions when necessary.
Except nowhere does it say "Nothing SIGNIFICANT may be added, omitted or changed" rather it just says that NOTHING may be added, omitted or change. So if that order applied to popes, then all the alterations made to the right thereafter would have been illegal. You're making up a distinction that is simply not in the text to try and justify your erroneous interpretation. Quo Primum did not intend to ban future popes from ever altering the rite or promulgating new ones, and it could not. Popes cannot limit the authority of future popes.
-
Except nowhere does it say "Nothing SIGNIFICANT may be added, omitted or changed" rather it just says that NOTHING may be added, omitted or change. So if that order applied to popes, then all the alterations made to the right thereafter would have been illegal. You're making up a distinction that is simply not in the text to try and justify your erroneous interpretation. Quo Primum did not intend to ban future popes from ever altering the rite or promulgating new ones, and it could not. Popes cannot limit the authority of future popes.
Well, popes have revised it because revising it was necessary for different reasons, like different classes of feast days for one. Whatever was changed did nothing to the rite, nor the manner of celebrating it - I call those changes, insignificant, or that popes may make incidental changes "goes without saying". For 400 years no pope threw the whole thing out and replaced it. Because of that and the other reason I gave you, Trent was not talking about the new "mass", which should be obvious.
You are trying to say that the new "mass" is supposed to be all fine and good because a pope perpetrated it, but that is because you believe that popes are divinely protected from doing what the conciliar popes did, even though defined dogma on papal infallibility - and reality - proves that whole idea to be altogether wrong.
-
Trent specifically anathemises anyone who would call a mass or ceremony of the Church, or the vestments used therein, unholy, impious, or blasphemous.
This is a clearcut teaching regarding the infallibility of the Church's Liturgical discipline. To say that the Mass promulgated by the Church is harmful to souls is a grave error and at least proximate to heresy. Even Bishop Williamson acknowledged this in principle when he dealt with the matter.
How did he get around it? Well, his answer (and the most common R&R answer) is that the New Mass wasn't actually "promulgated" by the Church. I don't find that the least bit persuasive. Father Cekada did an excellent job debunking it. Plus, it's all about legal technicalities. But the principle is that the Church cannot produce and promote for Universal usage a Rite of Mass that harms souls. Period.
Now, an older way to get out of it was to say that since it's only the Latin Rite, it's not "Universal" ... but that has been debunked and most R&R have dropped that argument.
-
Well, popes have revised it because revising it was necessary for different reasons, like different classes of feast days for one. Whatever was changed did nothing to the rite, nor the manner of celebrating it - I call those changes, insignificant, or that popes may make incidental changes "goes without saying". For 400 years no pope threw the whole thing out and replaced it. Because of that and the other reason I gave you, Trent was not talking about the new "mass", which should be obvious.
You are trying to say that the new "mass" is supposed to be all fine and good because a pope perpetrated it, but that is because you believe that popes are divinely protected from doing what the conciliar popes did, even though defined dogma on papal infallibility - and reality - proves that whole idea to be altogether wrong.
Not even the SSPX or the Resistance would assert Trent banned future popes from promulgating new rites, or that the the canons on the Mass in Trent apply solely to the Tridentine rite and not to other Catholic rites. I don't think either ABL or Bishop Williamson have ever said anything along those lines.
We don't need papal infallibility to tell us that the Mass cannot be harmful to souls, Trent says as much.
-
How did he get around it? Well, his answer (and the most common R&R answer) is that the New Mass wasn't actually "promulgated" by the Church. I don't find that the least bit persuasive. Father Cekada did an excellent job debunking it. Plus, it's all about legal technicalities. But the principle is that the Church cannot produce and promote for Universal usage a Rite of Mass that harms souls. Period.
Ah yes, the old "the pope accidentally only promulgated it for the 'Conciliar Church' which he doesn't even believe exists, despite explicitly saying he was promulgating it for the Catholic Church'. I wonder if Martin Luther had thought of saying Exsurge Domini was somehow only issued on behalf of the Pope Leo X Fan Club and not actually the Catholic Church, despite the docuмent saying otherwise, would we still have Lutherans today insisting that *they're* the real Catholics and telling us we're misrepresenting papal infallibility if we suggest that it's impossible for the entire Church to teach falsely and use invalid masses for 500 years.
-
Not even the SSPX or the Resistance would assert Trent banned future popes from promulgating new rites, or that the the canons on the Mass in Trent apply solely to the Tridentine rite and not to other Catholic rites. I don't think either ABL or Bishop Williamson have ever said anything along those lines.
Sorry forlorn, but Pope Pius V banned new rites when he said: "Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us".
You let him know that he didn't ban new rites when you meet him in eternity, then duck.
Aside from the Roman Rite, the only other rites he permitted were the ones that were already the custom for at least 200 years prior to his law., the NO does not meet any of his criteria as such, Trent condemned it in plenty of time before it came to be.
"This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom...."
You really should read Quo Primum.
We don't need papal infallibility to tell us that the Mass cannot be harmful to souls, Trent says as much.
Certainly Trent says as much, and we know Trent was most certainly *not* talking about the NOM, which certainly is harmful to souls, which is likely the reason why Pope St. Pius V in QP forbade it with his full authority.
-
Sorry forlorn, but Pope Pius V banned new rites when he said: "Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us".
You let him know that he didn't ban new rites when you meet him in eternity, then duck.
Aside from the Roman Rite, the only other rites he permitted were the ones that were already the custom for at least 200 years prior to his law., the NO does not meet any of his criteria as such, Trent condemned it in plenty of time before it came to be.
"This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom...."
You really should read Quo Primum.
Once again, those orders apply to the lesser clergy, not the popes. If they applied to the popes then every change made to the Tridentine rite post Quo Primum, and there were plenty, would have been illegal and invalid. I'm not sure how much simpler I can make this.
Can you quote any authority stating Missale Romanum was illegal on the grounds that popes can no longer promulgate rites?
-
Just a detail:
"This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom...."
This english translation (as found everywhere on the internet) manipulates words and meaning of Quo Primum. St. Pope Pius V does not mention a "new rite" anywhere in the latin original. He well knows that he must not present a new rite. And he does not present a new rite. It's the traditional roman rite.
He rather talks about "Missalis a nobis editi formulam decantetur, aut recitetur", the missal edited by himself, no other may be sung or read ...
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0816/_P1.HTM
-
Once again, those orders apply to the lesser clergy, not the popes. If they applied to the popes then every change made to the Tridentine rite post Quo Primum, and there were plenty, would have been illegal and invalid. I'm not sure how much simpler I can make this.
Can you quote any authority stating Missale Romanum was illegal on the grounds that popes can no longer promulgate rites?
In your zeal to go by the letter of the law, you are missing the spirit of the law, which is Catholic. Incidental changes that the popes made after QP, did not change the norm laid down by PPV. The "chant, or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us" wholly remained after they made their changes, all the incidental changes were, were exactly that, incidental changes, the Rite of Mass remained unchanged.
I will use your logic and ask, If PPV did not intend to bind even future popes, then why did he not say that he did not intend to bind future popes?
I think that maybe Fr. Hesse is a bit more explicit in that he is certain that QP binds all future popes, but this interview may be of interest to you....
A few Snips from an interview with Fr. Wathen on this subject, not sure of the date, but it was some time after 1984. The one asking the questions was one of the Dimond Brothers in their pre-sede days, Peter I think.....
Question: As far as there are three main parts of the Mass, am I right? There’s the liceity, the morality and the validity. Would you explain each of these and give a little explanation of each of these in their different areas.
Fr.When you use the word liceity you’re referring to the question of whether the new mass is legal.
When you speak of validity, you are discussing whether the consecration of the mass is valid and true, whether there is truly transubstantiation.
When you discuss the matter of morality, you are questioning whether it’s a sin either to offer the new mass or to attend it.
I hasten to say that if the new mass is against the law, then it is immoral, and if there is a question of validity in the consecration, then it is immoral for anyone to use it.
Question: You believe it’s actually a sin, a mortal sin to use the new mass, is that not right?
Fr.That’s right. We believe that because the new mass is clearly against the law which governs the liturgy of the Roman Rite, that there is no legality to it - and we think that to violate the law with regard to the True Mass there is a moral violation, we believe that is a grievous violation, and therefore a sacrilegious violation of the True Mass. It is most important for people, when considering the new mass, always to bear in mind that the Traditional Latin Mass, which is to be found in the Missale Romanum of Pope Pius V, that, that is the standard whereby they judge any other Rite in the Roman Rite.
Question: But the people say that the people make the contention that pope Paul VI had the right so therefore we must accept it.
Fr.That of course is a central question. We deny that he had such a right. That exactly is the point. We have every reason to question whether the pope had the authority to introduce a brand new mass, introduce a new Rite of the liturgy of the Western Church. We believe that when one reads Quo Primum of St. Pius V, he can see clearly that it is altogether forbidden for his successors, any of his successors to go contrary to this law.
Here is a key question, whether a successor can override pope Pius V with regard to the establishment of the Rite of the Mass. It’s a key question.
It was never considered that the pope could go contrary to this ruling because Quo Primum was issued to protect the Mass. It was as strong of legislation as the pope could possibly impose. If we say that his successor is not bound by this legislation, we have to say that the Church has no way of protecting it’s own liturgy. There is no doctrine that says that a pope cannot make a mistake, there’s no such doctrine.
Question: He allowed for incidental and minor changes to be made, but obviously he could probably never imagine….
Fr.That goes without saying, incidental changes could be made. Quo Primum states that only the pope could make such changes. The idea that anyone including the pope, could make a substantive change in the Mass, is so obvious that it is not stated.
Question: The Council of Trent Canon 6 says “if anyone says the Mass contains errors, therefore should be abrogated let them be anathema”. Would something like that hold any weight pertaining to what pope Paul VI did? In a way he was saying that it did contain errors therefore should be abrogated did he not?
Fr.I would not say that his changing the Rite of the Mass was a suggestion that there was fault in the old Mass, that canon simply states that the doctrine expressed by the prayers and the ritual of the traditional Mass are thoroughly Catholic, that everyone may have confidence that there is no doctrinal error expressed by this Rite. The matter of the new mass must be considered first of all why the new mass was introduced. Was it introduced because it was suggested there was some deficiency in the old mass, was it introduced for less cogent reasons? It was never suggested that there was some deficiency, it was suggested that there was room for improvement.
……no sufficient reason was ever given, and no one has a sufficient reason. The only reason they have is that one pope may override the rules and the laws of another. This is an error.
Question: Now people will say Father, that it could be changed because this is simply a matter of discipline, that the pope could change it because it’s not a matter of strictly faith and morals he could not make an ex cathedra statement to define the Mass, therefore the pope has the justification to establish a new rite – that’s what people are saying and that’s why your wrong father.
Fr. People have been given the idea that whatever the pope has the authority to do he may morally do, we deny both that the pope has the authority to introduce a new mass and we insist that the introduction of a totally new Rite with a questionable theology, and that is putting it mildly, the introduction of a new Rite with a questionable theology is not only unlawful, that is, it goes clearly contrary to the established law, but it is immoral, independent of the law of which the pope is bound.
People have the idea that the pope, because he is the head of the Church, has limitless authority. This is altogether wrong. He is not at all limitless in what he may do, he is strictly bound to what he must do and he is bound to adhere to what has been established. The role and the duty of the pope not to deviate from what has been established, but to make sure that all his subjects don’t deviate from it....
-
Just a detail:
This english translation (as found everywhere on the internet) manipulates words and meaning of Quo Primum. St. Pope Pius V does not mention a "new rite" anywhere in the latin original. He well knows that he must not present a new rite. And he does not present a new rite. It's the traditional roman rite.
He rather talks about "Missalis a nobis editi formulam decantetur, aut recitetur", the missal edited by himself, no other may be sung or read ...
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0816/_P1.HTM
Yes, thank you. I've heard that before but for the sake of using what's out there, I still use that translation.
The Liturgy of PPV is not a new rite, he merely codified the liturgy that developed over the centuries and said; "This is it, this is the liturgy we use from now on". It's really the same thing Trent did when they took all the books of the Bible and said; "These are the books, only these books comprise the Bible".
Can popes make a new Bible and impose it on us because they can? Neither can popes make a new liturgy and impose it on us because they can. Same thing.
-
The whole Catholic world knew right from wrong before V2 and of their own free will, they chose to do wrong. Always remember that. People will not be led to where they do not already want to go.
<snip>
"...Most people in the [conciliar] church today do not care that they are heretics. In fact, if you point out certain ideas to them as being heretical, they consider the whole thing irrelevant to such an extent that they can hardly be bothered with it.
And if you point out, for instance, certain expressions in peoples utterances, or in Catholic, so called Catholic papers and books which are diametrically opposed to Catholic Doctrine and to traditional Catholic belief and practice, again they’re totally unimpressed, simply because they say, “well, the only thing we have to worry about is doing what the priests and bishops and the pope tell us.”
See what I mean, they are invoking authority to get by and to avoid the whole issue of their personal belief. This is why most people are now in heresy within the Church, not because they want to believe error, many of them really want to know the truth.
I shouldn’t say that word really, what they really want is what they’ve got, that’s why they have it, that’s why they’ve chosen it, that’s why they fight for it, and its why they continue to absorb it, they cling to it and they love it. So I should not say that word really, but let us say that many people in the church aspire, at least faintly to the truth - not so strongly not so adamantly nor tenaciously that they’d suffer for it, not so that they would fall out with their relatives and their friends on account of it, not so really that they would become such oddities as we have become for the sake of it, but they do hope that they can retain orthodoxy at least within the pale of the church, the problem is it is so much easier to follow the wolves in sheep’s clothing..."</snip> - Fr. Wathen
So are you saying that Catholics as soon as JXXIII was elected or shortly after were suppose to know that he was a bad and not to follow him? You are dreaming. No Catholic in his right mind back then would EVER rebel against JXXIII and the Holy See. They would have been thrown out immediately and rightly so. I was an eye witness to those days.
JXXIII was right after PXII. During his reign he was given the same respect as PXII and NO ONE rejected his authority to teach and bind. Everything and I mean everything was rock solid in terms of the faith for the average laity up until that faithful year of 1969. It is always easy to judge in hindsight but it was impossible to judge JXXIII during the time he was alive.
You are literally proposing that the laity are equipped to judge and parse the actions of the HOLY SEE on a continuous basis for 50 years in order to be saved!
-
So are you saying that Catholics as soon as JXXIII was elected or shortly after were suppose to know that he was a bad and not to follow him? You are dreaming. No Catholic in his right mind back then would EVER rebel against JXXIII and the Holy SEE. They would have been thrown out immediately and rightly so. I was an eye witness to those days.
JXXIII was right after PXII. During his reign he was given the same respect as PXII and NOONE rejected his authority to teach and bind. Everything and I mean everything was rock solid in terms of the faith for the average laity up until that faithful year of 1969.
You are literally proposing that the laity are equipped to judge and parse the actions of the HOLY SEE on a continuous basis for 50 years in order to be saved!
No, I am not saying anything about JXXIII, nothing at all.
I am saying that there were a number of people, including priests and nuns who did not go along with the NO because they knew it wasn't right. Most did not understand what was going on exactly, but they knew that what was happening in the Church when the NO was in it's infancy was definitely wrong and rejected it. They did not need to know all the details, it was and is enough to know that it's wrong and on that account to stay away.
Good thing too because they were the pioneers who laid the foundation for keeping the faith when your Church turns against everything that's been sacred your whole llife. OTOH, where would the faith be today had they ate the poison along with the rest who ate it like candy?
-
No, I am not saying anything about JXXIII, nothing at all.
I am saying that there were a number of people, including priests and nuns who did not go along with the NO because they knew it wasn't right. Most did not understand what was going on exactly, but they knew that what was happening in the Church when the NO was in it's infancy was definitely wrong and rejected it. They did not need to know all the details, it was and is enough to know that it's wrong and on that account to stay away.
Good thing too because they were the pioneers who laid the foundation for keeping the faith when your Church turns against everything that's been sacred your whole llife. OTOH, where would the faith be today had they ate the poison along with the rest who ate it like candy?
You are absolutely right.
I knew something was wrong and didn't find out what had actually happened at VII until the 80's. We had no internet and, if you didn't know someone who subscribed to The Remnant or other similar newsletters/publications of those times, you didn't know anything.
I never heard the name ABL until 1984. And it was a few years later that I discovered the old Mass was alive and well.
I hated the new Mass.
-
:pray: