Author Topic: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass (Read 51695 times)

ElwinRansom1970 · « **Reply #135 on:** January 31, 2024, 07:57:33 PM »

Quote from: WorldsAway on January 31, 2024, 07:28:25 PM

Not to derail the thread, but is it still possible to receive a degree in the Tridentine liturgy, or really any non-Novus Ordo traditional catholic degree?

Yes, it is possible. Graduate degrees in sacred sciences, especially doctorates, are very much autodidactic with seminars and tutorials thrown in. Keep in mind, there is a BIG difference between Sr. Susan Suitpants with her M.A. in Pastoral Studies from the Chicago Theological Union and who serves as Pastoral Associate at Singing in the New Spirit Catholic Christian Community versus someone who has earned a D.Phil. or D.Theo. or S.T.D. from a rigourous pontifical or ancient faculty, e.g., Blackfriars Hall, Oxford (where I did not go and could only dream to hold a degree from -- way above my intellectual abilities).

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #136 on:** January 31, 2024, 08:30:08 PM »

Really, I think Fr Hesse's view was a good-faith effort to explain the crisis. (Even though, now that Benedict XVI said that the new rite was part of the Latin rite, this means Fr Hesse's view was factually wrong. But his attempt, at the time, was the only logical solution....I'm not condoning his new rite ordination...I'm just saying, he's one of the few people who rightfully saw that the new rites were, on paper, invalid.)

Classic R&R/+ABL erred in trying to rectify/argue the validity of the new rite, and (practically speaking) ignored the licit/schismatic problem.

Sedes (for the most part) go to the opposite extreme and declare everything invalid, while not concentrating on the licitness issue.

Fr Wathen said that the new mass was certainly illicit (i.e. schismatic), but only the future Church could decide validity.

The error that +ABL/post-ABL sspx made, is to not take a stand on the illicitness of the new rites. Practically speaking, even if you argue the new rites *could be* valid, you must advise others to stay away, due to their being illegal. Canon Law tells us to treat them as invalid. This is the proper middle road.

Had +ABL taken such a stand, then sedevacantism may not have gone too far in the other direction (not theologically extreme, but humanly speaking, where they could not work with the sspx to build Tradition), as a reaction to the sspx's *apparent* lukewarmism. And +Fellay wouldn've never had the opportunity to take the sspx down the 'slippery slope' to which the over-concentration on validity led...which is the modern-day, new-sspx indult.

On the whole, sedevacantism did go extreme (in my opinion) but not in the realm of theology or doctrine, but only in human terms. But we're all human, and especially in a crisis, such can be expected and not condemned. +ABL went extreme too, but again, I can hardly blame his motives. +Fellay, on the other hand...

Stubborn · « **Reply #137 on:** February 01, 2024, 04:53:33 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 31, 2024, 05:30:06 PM

It's been splained to you numerous times. You've yet to explain how he also bound the Church forever regarding the Breviary and yet St. Pius X saw fit to change it. You ignorantly claimed that the Breviary was not the Church's Liturgy.

You've explained nothing, all you do is the same thing you are well known for, avoiding answering the question and cry insults in your feeble attempt to distract away from you not answering the question.

How can Pope St. Pius V officially bind the whole Roman Church forever to a law, or anything for that matter, and at the same time *not* bind his successors?

Either he also bound his successors, or he had no authority to bind the Church.

See, even the Dimonds understood that in binding the whole Roman Church to the Roman Liturgy forever, all of his successors were bound.

What I find amazing is you and the other argue against this, effectively rendering the Missal of Pius V and Quo Primum to no purpose whatsoever.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #138 on:** February 01, 2024, 05:49:45 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on February 01, 2024, 04:53:33 AM

You've explained nothing, all you do is the same thing you are well known for, avoiding answering the question and cry insults in your feeble attempt to distract away from you not answering the question.

How can Pope St. Pius V officially bind the whole Roman Church forever to a law, or anything for that matter, and at the same time *not* bind his successors?

Either he also bound his successors, or he had no authority to bind the Church.

See, even the Dimonds understood that in binding the whole Roman Church to the Roman Liturgy forever, all of his successors were bound.

What I find amazing is you and the other argue against this, effectively rendering the Missal of Pius V and Quo Primum to no purpose whatsoever.

I find your lack of intellectual capacity to be astounding, as I'm sure do most others on this thread.

1) Canonists all agree that an equal cannot bind an equal. God alone can bind a Pope, i.e. through Divine Law and natural law.

2) St. Pius V used the same language in Quod a nobis regarding the Breviary, and yet St. Pius X saw fit to change the Breviary. So St. Pius X disagrees with you.

And you don't even understand that the Breviary is in fact Catholic Liturgy.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #139 on:** February 01, 2024, 05:54:41 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 31, 2024, 08:30:08 PM

Sedes (for the most part) go to the opposite extreme and declare everything invalid, while not concentrating on the licitness issue.

Yet another strawman against sedevacantism.

1) No sedevacantist "declares" anything, but they are simply dealing with the problem they are confronted with regarding whether the NO Sacraments are valid. Not that they would be "licit" to use under normal circuмstances, but there's the question of whether they may even be approached in an emergency situation (i.e. danger of death, etc.)

2) Sedevacantists rightly consider many of the NO Sacraments to labor under positive doubt ... and not necessarily "invalid". And, oh wait, the SVs are not alone in this ... as many of the Resistance entertain the same doubts.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #140 on:** February 01, 2024, 05:57:28 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 31, 2024, 08:30:08 PM

Fr Wathen said that the new mass was certainly illicit (i.e. schismatic), but only the future Church could decide validity.

Continuing the strawman, since SVs also realize that only the Church can "decide" validity, in the sense where it's binding on consciences. In the meanwhile, we're left to deal with the question of OUR OWN consciences until that happens. Of course, what is this "future Church" if you're not an SV? We have the PRESENT CHURCH declaring their Sacraments to be valid ... according to R&R at least. So why does this "future Church" have more authority than the current Church?

Just buckets of hogwash everywhere.

Marulus Fidelis · « **Reply #141 on:** February 01, 2024, 06:17:38 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 01, 2024, 05:57:28 AM

Continuing the strawman, since SVs also realize that only the Church can "decide" validity, in the sense where it's binding on consciences. In the meanwhile, we're left to deal with the question of OUR OWN consciences until that happens. Of course, what is this "future Church" if you're not an SV? We have the PRESENT CHURCH declaring their Sacraments to be valid ... according to R&R at least. So why does this "future Church" have more authority than the current Church?

Just buckets of hogwash everywhere.

Don't you know? It's the conciliar non-Church Church headed by the anti-Catholic Catholic Pope, because words don't have meaning any more.

Stubborn · « **Reply #142 on:** February 01, 2024, 06:22:09 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 01, 2024, 05:49:45 AM

I find your lack of intellectual capacity to be astounding, as I'm sure do most others on this thread.

Of course, this is what you always resort to when you know you're wrong and on that account cannot answer the question.

Quote

1) Canonists all agree that an equal cannot bind an equal. God alone can bind a Pope, i.e. through Divine Law and natural law.

No they don't. Use Quo Primum, quote from Quo Primum to demonstrate how PPV bound the Church but not his successors.

Quote

2) St. Pius V used the same language in Quod a nobis regarding the Breviary, and yet St. Pius X saw fit to change the Breviary. So St. Pius X disagrees with you.

And you don't even understand that the Breviary is in fact Catholic Liturgy.

Repeat this is often as you like, but he did not use the same language because the law of Quo Primum is to protect the Roman Liturgy, not the Breviary.

Either way, you will keep parroting the same thing over and over without providing any proof whatsoever, but that's not going to stop you.

Texana · « **Reply #143 on:** February 01, 2024, 06:54:02 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 31, 2024, 08:30:08 PM

Really, I think Fr Hesse's view was a good-faith effort to explain the crisis. (Even though, now that Benedict XVI said that the new rite was part of the Latin rite, this means Fr Hesse's view was factually wrong. But his attempt, at the time, was the only logical solution....I'm not condoning his new rite ordination...I'm just saying, he's one of the few people who rightfully saw that the new rites were, on paper, invalid.)

Classic R&R/+ABL erred in trying to rectify/argue the validity of the new rite, and (practically speaking) ignored the licit/schismatic problem.

Sedes (for the most part) go to the opposite extreme and declare everything invalid, while not concentrating on the licitness issue.

Fr Wathen said that the new mass was certainly illicit (i.e. schismatic), but only the future Church could decide validity.

The error that +ABL/post-ABL sspx made, is to not take a stand on the illicitness of the new rites. Practically speaking, even if you argue the new rites *could be* valid, you must advise others to stay away, due to their being illegal. Canon Law tells us to treat them as invalid. This is the proper middle road.

Had +ABL taken such a stand, then sedevacantism may not have gone too far in the other direction (not theologically extreme, but humanly speaking, where they could not work with the sspx to build Tradition), as a reaction to the sspx's *apparent* lukewarmism. And +Fellay wouldn've never had the opportunity to take the sspx down the 'slippery slope' to which the over-concentration on validity led...which is the modern-day, new-sspx indult.

On the whole, sedevacantism did go extreme (in my opinion) but not in the realm of theology or doctrine, but only in human terms. But we're all human, and especially in a crisis, such can be expected and not condemned. +ABL went extreme too, but again, I can hardly blame his motives. +Fellay, on the other hand...

Dear Pax Vobis,

Could you point out the docuмent in which Father Ratzinger proves Dom Hesse wrong? Is there still anyone subscribing to the hermeneutics of continuity?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #144 on:** February 01, 2024, 07:14:59 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on February 01, 2024, 06:22:09 AM

Repeat this is often as you like, but he did not use the same language because the law of Quo Primum is to protect the Roman Liturgy, not the Breviary.

Either way, you will keep parroting the same thing ...

It doesn't get any more absurd, you claiming that I "keep parroting the same thing" while you again repeat the absurdity that the Breviary is not "the Roman Liturgy" ... despite having been corrected on this point by numerous posters.

You're the blowhard who just keeps repeating your gratuitous assertion, whereas I'm repeating the logic ... because your thick skull is impervious to reason. You've already decided your conclusion and, in bad will, you refuse to think about is reasonably.

Your false distinction between Liturgy and the Breviary is utterly meaningless, since your primary argument is whether the Pope can say that his decision lasts "forever" and not bind a Pope. Evidently St. Pius X thinks that he is not bound by one such "forever" pronouncement.

Stubborn · « **Reply #145 on:** February 01, 2024, 07:26:51 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 01, 2024, 07:14:59 AM

It doesn't get any more absurd, you claiming that I "keep parroting the same thing" while you again repeat the absurdity that the Breviary is not "the Roman Liturgy" ... despite having been corrected on this point by numerous posters.

You're the blowhard who just keeps repeating your gratuitous assertion, whereas I'm repeating the logic ... because your thick skull is impervious to reason. You've already decided your conclusion and, in bad will, you refuse to think about is reasonably.

Your false distinction between Liturgy and the Breviary is utterly meaningless, since your primary argument is whether the Pope can say that his decision lasts "forever" and not bind a Pope. Evidently St. Pius X thinks that he is not bound by one such "forever" pronouncement.

You just keep flapping your lips without ever even acknowledging the question at hand - not something you should like being famous for, but it is what it is.

Here is a recording all about Quo Primum from 1974 given by Fr. Altenbach, (he was made a sede bishop a few years before he died) so it should appeal to you.

But you only should listen to the first 3 or 4 minutes, not sure you'd be able to stand any more than that.
https://tinyurl.com/mrxc4k5n

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #146 on:** February 01, 2024, 07:59:40 AM »

Quote

Yet another strawman against sedevacantism.

It was not meant as an attack but an observation. The point being, both the sspx (and and new) and most sedes put too much emphasis on the validity question, when analyzing the new mass, instead of on the legality. The former question can only be decided by the Church; the legal questions can readily be decided and applied in real life.

Had Tradition in the 80s more focused on the illicitness/schism issue, as the main point for avoiding new-rome, then Trads would be more unified.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #147 on:** February 01, 2024, 08:09:46 AM »

Quote

Could you point out the docuмent in which Father Ratzinger proves Dom Hesse wrong?

Fr Hesse argued that the novus ordo could be valid because it was a new rite, not part of the Latin rite. Thus, it didn’t have to abide by the clear sacramental decrees by Pius XII and Florence, etc. He said if it was a new rite, then we’d have to compare its sacraments against the Eastern and Orthodox rites, many which are still valid.

But Benedict’s 2005 motu proprio, which expanded the indult Latin mass, clearly states that the new mass/rites are the ‘ordinary form’ and part of the Latin Rite. Thus, Fr Hesse’s (RIP) arguments were proven wrong.

So we can definitively say that the new rites are 100% schismatic, illegal and sinful.

Not sure if it was intended or not, or a big mistake by new-rome, but Benedict’s 2005 motu proprio was a HUGE victory for all Trads, in the legal sense. Benedict also said Quo Primum was never abrogated, still law, and the True Mass had never been outlawed. Total win for Trads.

The expansion of the indult TLM was good for novus ordo people but has been bad for lukewarm Trads. But the legal facts admitted in this docuмent were/are historical.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #148 on:** February 01, 2024, 08:24:44 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 01, 2024, 08:09:46 AM

Fr Hesse argued that the novus ordo could be valid because it was a new rite, not part of the Latin rite. Thus, it didn’t have to abide by the clear sacramental decrees by Pius XII and Florence, etc. He said if it was a new rite, then we’d have to compare its sacraments against the Eastern and Orthodox rites, many which are still valid.

But Benedict’s 2005 motu proprio, which expanded the indult Latin mass, clearly states that the new mass/rites are the ‘ordinary form’ and part of the Latin Rite. Thus, Fr Hesse’s (RIP) arguments were proven wrong.

So we can definitively say that the new rites are 100% schismatic, illegal and sinful.

Not sure if it was intended or not, or a big mistake by new-rome, but Benedict’s 2005 motu proprio was a HUGE victory for all Trads, in the legal sense. Benedict also said Quo Primum was never abrogated, still law, and the True Mass had never been outlawed. Total win for Trads.

The expansion of the indult TLM was good for novus ordo people but has been bad for lukewarm Trads. But the legal facts admitted in this docuмent were/are historical.

Before getting into this further, where does the Magisterium say that a pope can create a new rite but he can't alter or change an existing rite?

Note: your brain is not a legitimate locus.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #149 on:** February 01, 2024, 08:54:20 AM »

Quote

Before getting into this further, where does the Magisterium say that a pope can create a new rite but he can't alter or change an existing rite?

Actually, Quo Primum lays out the rules quite clearly.

1. The latin rite of St Pius V can be used in perpetuity (allowance/permission to use).
2. No one can change, alter or add anything to the rite (no changes to the rite at all).
3. ONLY this rite can be used. No other rites are allowed (strict use of this rite is commanded).

**Exceptions exist for ancient rites (i.e. Benedictine/Dominican) within the latin rite. Except for a few prayers, these rites are nearly identical to the latin rite.

The loophole in Quo Primum, is that it never forbid a future pope from creating a new rite (which V2 did); but it does forbid it's use, in 2 ways - it says only the latin rite can be used and the latin rite MUST be used. So it commanded such from 2 different angles, to make it clear. But the Modernists found the loophole which allowed them to create a new rite (which is technically legal), and then they used half-truths, lies, manipulation and pressure from bishops to push people into accepting this illegal rite.

Poll

If Pope Pius XII had put St. Joseph in the Canon, what would you have done?

Author Topic: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass (Read 51695 times)

ElwinRansom1970

Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass

Pax Vobis

Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass

Stubborn

Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass

Ladislaus

Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass

Ladislaus

Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass

Ladislaus

Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass

Marulus Fidelis

Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass

Stubborn

Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass

Texana

Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass

Ladislaus

Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass

Stubborn

Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass

Pax Vobis

Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass

Pax Vobis

Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass

DecemRationis

Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass

Pax Vobis

Re: Pius XII and St. Joseph in the Canon of the Mass