Author Topic: The New "mass" is not protected by the Churchs indefectibilty (Read 5781 times)

Stubborn · « **on:** September 16, 2011, 10:40:03 AM »

This seems like the common (only?) reply for many Trads(?) who attend the NOM ~ as another poster on another forum posted: .....but my point stands that Paul had the authority (unless, of course, one is a sede), that the indefectibility of the Church guarantees the validity of the NO and that the Commandments and Precepts require hearing Mass on Sundays and other Holy Days of Obligation.

Does one meet their Sunday Obligation by attending the Caricature and Parody of the True mass i.e. the NOM?

Here, this snip is from A Theological Critique OF Rev. James F. Wathen, O.S.J's THE GREAT SACRILEGE by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Br. Alexis Bugnolo ends up agreeing with Fr. Wathen and admits that the NOM is not a liturgical norm and it is not protected by the Church’s infallibility or indefectibility.

.........The general interpretative principle that a universal disciplinary decree is protected from error, on account of the Church’s indefectibility, is based on its precise nature both as a universal decree and as an exercise of the infallible Ordinary or Extraordinary Magisterium.

Because inasmuch as the decree, even if it virtually teaches in regard to some matter of faith or morals, does not fulfill the other conditions for infallibility established by Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I, it fails to represent that form of the exercise of the Magisterium of the Church which Christ willed to be protected from error.

In addition, the Missale Romanum of Paul VI clearly was not a universal norm, because Paul VI never formally made it such, never formally derogated the Old Rite, granted a general exemption for England to use the liturgy of 1965, and did not require the non-Roman Rite Churches in communion with the Apostolic See to use it. Clearly then, it was not a universal decree, nor did it rise to the level of that form of liturgical norm, which expressly confirmed by Trent and the decree of St. Pius V, is expressly recognized as free from error and valid for all times.

The constant changes made to the Missal and its translations, norms, rubrics, etc., clarifies that it was never intended to be a stable, liturgical form. For all these reasons, since the very nature of infallibility and indefectibility requires a stable adherence to the deposit of the faith, the Missale Romanum of Paul VI, cannot be considered a universal liturgical norm that is protected by the Church’s infallibility or indefectibility. And if not, then it is capable of containing errors, which while not formally heretical, to the extent that it did not intended to contradict or abrogate formally any dogma of the faith, could contain materially grave errors, even those which could not otherwise be founded but upon heresy; and hence virtually could be as detrimental to the Faith and the Church as something formally heretical. As for the rest of the merits of the argument I present in this article, I leave them to be, as a historical testament to my own imperfect understanding of the issues.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #1 on:** September 16, 2011, 01:05:03 PM »

Good find!

Stephen Francis · « **Reply #2 on:** September 25, 2011, 10:51:32 PM »

There is NO CIRcuмSTANCE WHATSOEVER under which attending the Bogus Ordo 'mess' would fulfill one's Sunday obligation. The very existence of the NO 'service' is a direct act of rebellion AGAINST SACRED TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE, which tells us that "whoever hears you hears Me", in the Words of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Magisterium of the Church spoke, the Tridentine Mass was defined once and for all as the Mass of the ages and the Mass of all time IN PERPETUITY, and the case was closed, upon penalty of the wrath of God.

The pretend NO 'meal', with its presbyters, 'altar girls', 'extraordinary ministers' and all the other nonsense, is POISONOUS to faith and to your eternal souls. STAY AWAY!

Mary, Help of Christians, pray for us.

St. Anthony, hammer of heretics, terror of Hell, pray for us.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

NewTrad · « **Reply #3 on:** September 26, 2011, 12:30:05 AM »

Hmm, that's interesting, actually.

Indefectibility of the Church is a powerful argument when I hear it. I think the first time it really was busted as an argument was when I learned that the translations into vulgar languages are in no way indefectible. Hence the "for all" "for many" debacle.

Recently I've been thinking that perhaps the nom is indefectible in the original latin (which nobody uses), but that can't be. The NO doesn't seem to be Catholic at all, imo. This argument about stability makes sense to me, really. I've asked myself numerous times before learning about tradition, "If the Church is indefectible, why do they continually make changes in the Mass?" I mean, prior to this century, how often was the TLM adjusted? Not very often at all, as far as I'm aware...and never the words of consecration. Heh, even as a new Catholic I was sensitive about anybody making changes to the Mass. Not sure I knew why, really.

I think that the changes which they are having to make to the NO serve as evidence that, whatever it is, it most certainly can't be authentically Catholic. It should be a fearful thing to make even the smallest adjustment to the liturgy...but they aren't concerned at all.

Anywho, I enjoyed reading your post, thanks.

Stubborn · « **Reply #4 on:** November 26, 2013, 04:07:47 AM »

After reading the quote from Ladislause below, seemed like a good time to bump this back to the top.

Quote from: Ladislaus

By the way, I consider the argument that the New Mass was never officially promulgated to be utter nonsense. Bishop Williamson realized that this is a real problem, i.e. that it runs counter to the disciplinary infallibility of the Church, and he made this same argument. While I don't agree with Father Cekada on a lot of things, he completely demolished that line of thinking. There's no legalistic "magic formula" involved in promulgating something. In order to promulgate something, the Pope need only manifest his will in an official way. Paul VI had the Missale printed up and ordered it to start being used throughout the Church.

bowler · « **Reply #5 on:** November 26, 2013, 04:38:08 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

..

Br. Alexis Bugnolo ends up agreeing with Fr. Wathen and admits that the NOM is not a liturgical norm and it is not protected by the Church’s infallibility or indefectibility.

...and did not require the non-Roman Rite Churches in communion with the Apostolic See to use it. Clearly then, it was not a universal decree, ...

Then the mass codified by Pius V was not universal either, for he "did not require the non-Roman Rite Churches in communion with the Apostolic See to use it".

Just an observation, for I agree with Br. Bugnolo and Fr. Wathen.

TKGS · « **Reply #6 on:** November 26, 2013, 04:55:23 AM »

Actually, in the legislation of the Novus Ordo, there is no actual requirement that it be used by anyone. The only formal requirements is that it be published and that the "words of the Lord" should be the same in all the various "Eucharistic Prayers" in order to aid in concelebration. How that is an aid to concelebration is not explained.

However, the Novus Ordo Missae, along with the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Code of Canon Law, is the common teaching...the ordinary teaching, if you will...of the pope [of the Conciliar sect] and all of the bishops who are in union with him. These things are, without doubt, infallible if they are from the Catholic Church for the ordinary magisterium is just as infallible as the extraordinary magisterium. If these things are not from the Catholic Church, they have no guarantee of infallibility of course, but that also means that those who have created them are not of the Catholic Church either.

Since all three of these items contain, in some measure, things that are in direct conflict with the Catholic Faith prior to, say, 1960, then either what we think of as the Catholic Church prior to 1960 was not Catholic or what claims to be the Catholic Church today is not Catholic.

I choose to believe what existed from the time of Christ until 1960 was the Catholic Church and what came into existence circa 1960 is the fraud.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #7 on:** November 26, 2013, 06:21:27 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

After reading the quote from Ladislaus below, seemed like a good time to bump this back to the top.

Post
Quote from: Ladislaus
By the way, I consider the argument that the New Mass was never officially promulgated to be utter nonsense. Bishop Williamson realized that this is a real problem, i.e. that it runs counter to the disciplinary infallibility of the Church, and he made this same argument. While I don't agree with Father Cekada on a lot of things, he completely demolished that line of thinking. There's no legalistic "magic formula" involved in promulgating something. In order to promulgate something, the Pope need only manifest his will in an official way. Paul VI had the Missale printed up and ordered it to start being used throughout the Church.

I added the link to the original post, and here is my response to it, several pages later.

.

Stubborn · « **Reply #8 on:** November 26, 2013, 06:52:52 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Stubborn
After reading the quote from Ladislaus below, seemed like a good time to bump this back to the top.

Post
Quote from: Ladislaus
By the way, I consider the argument that the New Mass was never officially promulgated to be utter nonsense. Bishop Williamson realized that this is a real problem, i.e. that it runs counter to the disciplinary infallibility of the Church, and he made this same argument. While I don't agree with Father Cekada on a lot of things, he completely demolished that line of thinking. There's no legalistic "magic formula" involved in promulgating something. In order to promulgate something, the Pope need only manifest his will in an official way. Paul VI had the Missale printed up and ordered it to start being used throughout the Church.

I added the link to the original post, and here is my response to it, several pages later.

That was an excellent reply Neil.

Everything about the NO amounts to deception of the most diabolical invention and on the grandest scale that's ever ever perpetrated on mankind.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #9 on:** November 26, 2013, 08:10:58 AM »

If the most important thing this side of Heaven is not protected by the Church's detectability, why would canonizations, sacraments and doctrine not be. In that case I guess it is okay to invalidly "consecrate" "bishops" and "ordain" "priests" and let laymen, as in a worldwide costume party, pretend to administer the soul saving sacraments. Maybe the Novus Ordo is really the Catholic Church.

Christ did His thing yes. But the Church He founded is a pile of rubbish.

If it works for you I guess you can believe it.

Sorry for the sarcasm but I am not sure how else to make the point clear.

2Vermont · « **Reply #10 on:** November 26, 2013, 08:20:08 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Actually, in the legislation of the Novus Ordo, there is no actual requirement that it be used by anyone. The only formal requirements is that it be published and that the "words of the Lord" should be the same in all the various "Eucharistic Prayers" in order to aid in concelebration. How that is an aid to concelebration is not explained.

However, the Novus Ordo Missae, along with the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Code of Canon Law, is the common teaching...the ordinary teaching, if you will...of the pope [of the Conciliar sect] and all of the bishops who are in union with him. These things are, without doubt, infallible if they are from the Catholic Church for the ordinary magisterium is just as infallible as the extraordinary magisterium. If these things are not from the Catholic Church, they have no guarantee of infallibility of course, but that also means that those who have created them are not of the Catholic Church either.

I disagree. To me, the following excerpt from the Apostolic Constitution is saying that Paul VI wanted this to be the new liturgical unity, the "one" prayer in the Church to be firm and effective now and in the future:

In conclusion, we wish to give the force of law to all that we have set forth concerning the new Roman Missal. In promulgating the official edition of the Roman Missal, Our predecessor, St. Pius V, presented it as an instrument of liturgical unity and as a witness to the purity of the worship the Church. While leaving room in the new Missal, according to the order of the Second Vatican Council, "for legitimate variations and adaptations,"(15) we hope nevertheless that the Missal will be received by the faithful as an instrument which bears witness to and which affirms the common unity of all. Thus, in the great diversity of languages, one unique prayer will rise as an acceptable offering to our Father in heaven, through our High-Priest Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit.

We order that the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect November 30th of this year, the first Sunday of Advent.

We wish that these Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by Our predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation.

I also think that the fact that every pope after VII followed suit that they too believed it was promulgated and required.

I do agree with you that regardless of how this happened (promulgated or not) it is now infallible via Ordinary magisterium. So we either have to accept these popes as valid and comply or.....as you say not accept them as valid and not comply. The option to accept popes as valid and not comply does not seem to be a viable option and does not make any sense at all.

TKGS · « **Reply #11 on:** November 26, 2013, 09:05:46 AM »

I'm sorry, but the only orders contained in Missale Romanum of Montini are the following:

Quote

Both for pastoral reasons, however, and for the facilitation of concelebration, we have ordered that the words of the Lord be identical in each form of the canon. Thus in each eucharistic prayer we wish those words to be as follows: over the bread: Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes: Hoc est enim Corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur; over the chalice: Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: Hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem.

Quote

We decree that these laws and prescriptions be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and amendment.

Which, of course, really only apply to the one item above since nothing else in the docuмent are laws or prescriptions.

The other quotes from Missale Romanum of Montini simply don't actually command anything, otherwise words have no meaning. Of course, to the Modernists, words mean exactly what they wish them to mean at any given moment so they could mean one thing today, and something completely different tomorrow.

I will say, however, that because the entire Conciliar establishment acted as if this new missal was the "law of the land", so to speak, it is a part of the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Conciliar sect. If the Conciliar sect is Catholic, then it is absolutely protected by infallibility but if it contains error, then it was not a product of the Catholic Church.

We absolutely agree on the ultimate outcome; our views differ only in how that outcome came about.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #12 on:** November 26, 2013, 09:11:35 AM »

Priests were forced to say the New Mass or retire and perhaps lose their pensions. And "Rome" did nothing to stop it.

Why again was this not binding?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #13 on:** November 26, 2013, 09:17:57 AM »

Father Wathen's opinion runs counter to that of all the theologians prior to Vatican II. Disciplinary infallibility does not only pertain to doctrinal (or magisterial) content of discipline but to the fact that the Church cannot promulgate a discipline which is HARMFUL to souls; that would be contrary to the Church's indefectibility. Vatican I did not define this, so it's not strictly de fide but it was held to be proxima fidei by pre Vatican II theologians simply because it derives from the Church's indefectibility. Trent actually condemned the proposition that there can be harmful things in the Catholic Mass (I don't have it readily available to me.)

Even the SSPX folks concede the disciplinary infallibility of things like the MASS that's in use by the Church. Only Father Peter Scott tried to make the argument that the New Mass wasn't universal because it didn't include the Eastern Rites (but that's completely false).

SSPX argument is simply that the New Mass was never officially promulgated. But Father Cekada's article to the contrary is extremely compelling and correct. It was CLEARLY promulgated. Whether or not the Tridentine Rite was officially abrogated or even if you claim the New Mass was not made mandatory (which it was), the Church CANNOT put something into place of that magnitude which would cause harm to souls. Otherwise, the Church's indefectibility becomes completely meaningless. You could just as easily argue that the Tridentine Mass could be harmful to souls because St. Pius V did not apply it to Eastern Rites or because he kept intact and did not abolish the immemorial rites. Think about what you're saying. It reduces the Catholic Church to a laughing stock.

2Vermont · « **Reply #14 on:** November 26, 2013, 09:18:39 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

I'm sorry, but the only orders contained in Missale Romanum of Montini are the following:

Quote
Both for pastoral reasons, however, and for the facilitation of concelebration, we have ordered that the words of the Lord be identical in each form of the canon. Thus in each eucharistic prayer we wish those words to be as follows: over the bread: Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes: Hoc est enim Corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur; over the chalice: Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: Hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem.

Quote
We decree that these laws and prescriptions be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and amendment.
Which, of course, really only apply to the one item above since nothing else in the docuмent are laws or prescriptions.

The other quotes from Missale Romanum of Montini simply don't actually command anything, otherwise words have no meaning. Of course, to the Modernists, words mean exactly what they wish them to mean at any given moment so they could mean one thing today, and something completely different tomorrow.

I will say, however, that because the entire Conciliar establishment acted as if this new missal was the "law of the land", so to speak, it is a part of the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Conciliar sect. If the Conciliar sect is Catholic, then it is absolutely protected by infallibility but if it contains error, then it was not a product of the Catholic Church.

We absolutely agree on the ultimate outcome; our views differ only in how that outcome came about.

We do agree on the outcome but I still don't see why Paul VI would write his apostolic constitution just to point out a few words that are required. He speaks of the New Mass as "one" prayer and "liturgical unity" on the same level as was described of the Pius V Missal. How is that not speaking about the whole New Mass, rather than just a few words in it?