Author Topic: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei (Read 58610 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #220 on:** February 01, 2019, 08:02:12 PM »

If we can’t use the 62 missal without sinning by accepting the new mass, and if we can’t use an earlier missal because it’s a sin to use an illegal missal (since John XXIII abrogated all missals pre-62), then there are only 2 logical conclusions.

1.). John XXIII isn’t the pope since he didn’t have the power to create/approve the 62 changes....Pius XII is also not a pope since his changes are wrong being they came from Bugnini as well.

Or 2.) Pius XII and John were popes but There’s no missal anyone in the Roman rite can use. The 62 is immoral and all others illegal.

drew · « **Reply #221 on:** February 01, 2019, 08:06:16 PM »

Quote from: PAX

Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
« Reply #217 on: Today at 04:17:22 AM »
Quote from: Drew
They are the people, just like Pax, who insist that the pope can throw out any immemorial tradition he wants, such as, genuflecting at the Incarnatus est, as a free and independent act of his personal will.
You’re falsely applying the word “immemorial” to many liturgical changes because you don’t know what the word means. Since we know when the genuflection during the Creed was added (and many other such liturgical additions), then such additions/edits are not “immemorial”, per the definition above.

It was I who defined "immemorial" for you in a previous post.
Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
« Reply #86 on: January 11, 2019, 06:48:45 AM »

With few exceptions the entire "received and approved" rite is composed of immemorial custom. Some of the immemorial custom is of divine or apostolic tradition and some is a ecclesiastical tradition. With very few exceptions liturgical changes are first established by immemorial custom before they are approved by Rome and given to the universal Church. They can at best be traced to a general historical time and a general location. That is why they are called "immemorial." Since you claim that the genuflection at the incarnatus est was a rubic "added" by Rome, then you should be able to provide a specific person who did it on a specific date and through a specific docuмent. So who was it that invented this rubric and imposed it upon the Church? Perhaps the work of an early "liturgical committee"?

But those who have a mechanical, legalistic conception of worship have no problem with what you propose as possible. In fact, the Novus Ordo has eliminated the genuflection at the incarnatus est on all days excepting Christmas and the Annunciation. The practice has become so rare that they do not even remember to add it on those particular days.

The suppression is typically Bugninian and it is no surprise that you and Bugnini would agree on this that it is perfectly within the right of the pope to dump this little act of piety, this little profession of faith. We can say much the same for such practices as kneeling for communion, that is received on the tongue, distributed by the hands of a priest being of the same order. Bugnini would call these little things "gross accretions and evident distortions." You may not like it but you have no argument to offer in opposing these barbarians within the sanctuary. But after all, the sanctuary itself is of ecclesiastical immemorial tradition and according to your insights can be summarily dispensed with as the Novus Ordo Church has done.

Quote from: PAX

You fail to distinguish between these non-immemorial customs (which any pope can change) and the ACTUAL immemorial rubrics of the mass, such as are described in books like “How Christ said the First Mass”, which details the similarities/fulfillment of the mass with the Jєωιѕн liturgy. Such customs/rubrics which are of Jєωιѕн origin (and there are many) cannot/should not be changed since they are “immemorial”. All other customs/rubrics can be changed, in theory.

I own and have read this book. It is very interesting but is without docuмentation. It does make a good case that the general structural form of all liturgies was established at the Last Supper. But your opinion that "immemorial" is exclusive limited to divine or apostolic tradition is sorely mistaken. You are confusing the term "immemorial" with divine and/or apostolic tradition. They may overlap but they are not identical. You also do not recognize that ecclesiastical tradition is not necessarily the work of men but that of God and for that reason cannot be summarily dispensed with without grave reason.

Why don't you purchase Dom Gueranger's The Liturgical Year. You should read it daily for several years. Slowly and almost imperceptibly you will gain an insight into what immemorial tradition is and how it is given to the Church. Divine worship is and has always been the work of God and God's providential direction can be clearly seen in hindsight.

Lastly, with your conception of liturgy, it is impossible to oppose Bugnini and any of his liturgical reforms. You can offer no intelligible argument for stopping at 1962. The only complaint you can make is that it's not your style and they will reply, 'So what'!

Drew

drew · « **Reply #222 on:** February 01, 2019, 09:10:43 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 01, 2019, 08:02:12 PM

If we can’t use the 62 missal without sinning by accepting the new mass, and if we can’t use an earlier missal because it’s a sin to use an illegal missal (since John XXIII abrogated all missals pre-62), then there are only 2 logical conclusions.

1.). John XXIII isn’t the pope since he didn’t have the power to create/approve the 62 changes....Pius XII is also not a pope since his changes are wrong being they came from Bugnini as well.

Or 2.) Pius XII and John were popes but There’s no missal anyone in the Roman rite can use. The 62 is immoral and all others illegal.

I previously posted:

Quote

When Pope Nicholas II ordered the suppression of the Ambrosian Rite, he was opposed by the Catholics of Milan who refused his order. This order was subsequently overturned by Pope Alexander II who declared it to have been “unjust.” Further, human law, even the highest form of human law imposed by the pope, has all the limitations of every human law. That is, it must be a promulgation of reason, by the proper authority, promoting the common good, and not in any way opposed to Divine or natural law. As St. Thomas has said, an ‘unjust law is not a law.’ St. Thomas lists three principal conditions which must be met for any human law to be valid: 1) It must be consistent with the virtue of Religion; that is, it must not contain anything contrary to Divine law, 2) It must be consistent with discipline; that is, it must conform to the Natural law; and 3) It must promote human welfare; that is, it must promote the good of society (Fr. Dominic Prummer, Moral Theology). These criteria, required for the validity of any human law, make the suppression of immemorial tradition all but impossible to legitimately effect. The pope has no authority to bind an unjust law and therefore the Catholics of Milan were completely within their rights to refuse the order of Pope Nicholas II. And we are, like them, within our rights to refuse any of liturgical innovations that overturn immemorial custom.

Drew

John XXIII has no authority to corrupt the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite with Bugnini's corruptions. No one historically suggested that Pope Nicholas II was therefore not the pope because he attempted the unjust suppression of the immemorial Ambrosian rite. This line of thinking is like the sedevacantists who argue that pope is the rule of faith and he must necessarily be obeyed in everything he says because he is personally infallible and personally indefectible. This is untenable.

The faithful Catholic is free to reject the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal on the grounds of immemorial custom alone. But, the Catholic can also appeal to Quo Primum which says:

Quote

“…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. … Accordingly, no one whatsoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, direction, will, decree and prohibition. Should any person venture to do so, let him understand he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

Pope St. Pius V, Papal Bull, QUO PRIMUM

Your second objection presupposes that the pope can make the immemorial "received and approved" Roman rite "illegal." This is just fantastic. I am reposting the previously provided quote from Msgr. Klaus Gamber and Fr. Kramer. Read them carefully.

Quote

"However, the term disciplina in no way applies to the liturgical rite of the Mass, particularly in light of the fact that the popes have repeatedly observed that the rite is founded on apostolic tradition (several popes are then quoted in the footnote). For this reason alone, the rite cannot fall into the category of 'discipline and rule of the Church.' To this we can add that there is not a single docuмent, including the Codex Iuris Canonici, in which there is a specific statement that the pope, in his function as the supreme pastor of the Church, has the authority to abolish the traditional rite. In fact, nowhere is it mentioned that the pope has the authority to change even a single local liturgical tradition. The fact that there is no mention of such authority strengthens our case considerably.
"There are clearly defined limits to the plena et suprema potestas (full and highest powers) of the pope. For example, there is no question that, even in matters of dogma, he still has to follow the tradition of the universal Church-that is, as St. Vincent of Lerins says, what has been believed (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab ominibus). In fact, there are several authors who state quite explicitly that it is clearly outside the pope's scope of authority to abolish the traditional rite."

Msgr. Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy

Quote

The Tridentine Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV, Iniunctum Nobis, prescribes adherence to the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of the sacraments.” The “received and approved rites” are the rites established by custom, and hence the Council of Trent refers to them as the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments (Sess. VII, can XIII). Adherence to the customary rites received and approved by the Church is an infallible defined doctrine: The Council of Florence defined that “priests…. must confect the body of the Lord, each one according to the custom of his Church” (Decretum pro Graecis), and therefore the Council of Trent solemnly condemned as heresy the proposition that “ the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be changed into other new rites by any ecclesiastical pastor whosoever.”

Fr. Paul Kramer, The ѕυιcιdє in Altering the Faith in the Liturgy

Pope Pius XI, in Divini cultus, quotes Celestine I who refers to ‘lex orandi, lex credendi’ as a “canon of faith,” that is, a dogma.

The aphorism “lex orandi, lex credenda” has been interpreted to mean the ‘law of belief determines the law of prayer’ which is actually an inversion of the original meaning. Dr. Geoffrey Hull, a linguistic expert, said in his book, Banished Heart:

Quote

Considering much of what has taken place in the sanctuaries of the Latin Church since Mediator Dei, Pius XII’s reversal in that encyclical of the historical principle “legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi, i.e. let the rule of prayer establish the rule of belief”, is no less disturbing:

Quote
“Indeed if we wanted to state quite clearly and absolutely the relation existing between the faith and the sacred liturgy we could rightly say that the law of our faith must establish the law of our prayer:”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei

This liberty taken with a theological tradition going back to apostolic times has been considered by some a most serious flaw in an otherwise excellent exposition of Catholic teaching on the liturgy.

The maxim quoted above was first expressed in the fifth century by Prosper of Aquitaine in an anti-Pelagian treatise entitled Indiculus de gratia Dei, and it is commonly shortened to the aphorism “lex orandi, lex credenda” ...

The basic meaning of the teaching is that in the traditional liturgy we have the oldest witness to what the Church believes, since Christians were worshipping God in public well before the first theological treatises were composed. Living tradition is bipartite, its two aspects distinct yet interrelated. ‘The rational aspect of Catholic Tradition consists of the Magisterium which interprets Sacred Scripture and apostolic teaching, while the sacred liturgy constitutes its symbolic and mystical aspect, and the latter has a chronological primacy over the former. Given, therefore, that the sacred liturgy is not something arbitrarily devised by theologians but theologia prima, the ontological condition of theology, the Church’s teachings must always be in harmony with the beliefs that the traditional liturgical texts express. This is of course very different from George Tyrrell’s modernistic abuse of Prosper’s maxim, by which doctrines are valid only insofar as they are found in the liturgical texts and have produced practical fruits of charity and sanctification.

However, given the normative and testimonial nature of the liturgical tradition whose historical growth had its own dynamic, there can be absolutely no question of artificially restructuring sacred rites to make them reflect new doctrines or new doctrinal emphases, which is precisely the Protestant approach to liturgy.

Dr. Geoffrey Hull, Banished Heart: Origins of Heteropraxis in the Catholic Church

Doctrinal truth is established upon the law of prayer. The the liturgy cannot have less authority than the doctrine it establishes. If liturgy is merely a matter of discipline, then doctrine has no greater authority than being the work of man. But this is not so and explains why the acceptance of immemorial ecclesiastical traditions, particularly the "recieved and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments" are an object of Dogma and have been incorporated in the Tridentine profession of faith.

Drew

Stanley N · « **Reply #223 on:** February 04, 2019, 12:27:58 AM »

Quote from: drew on January 31, 2019, 10:11:13 PM

Your hypothetical question is of no interest to us. It is immaterial to the discussion because it presupposes an expertise and authority that we do not claim to possess. What is a fact is that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal has been reduced to an Indult and a grant of legal privilege tied to unacceptable conditions for faithful Catholics. This constitutes prima facie evidence that it cannot be the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite of Mass. You cannot dismiss this evidence as Pax has done by calling "trickery."

It is unfortunate that it is of no interest. This explores the consequences of your argument.
If there were an indult from Rome to use some other, older missal (for example, the 1949 missal), would that be "prima facie evidence" that that older version could not be the immemorial rite of Mass?

drew · « **Reply #224 on:** February 04, 2019, 02:49:37 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on February 04, 2019, 12:27:58 AM

It is unfortunate that it is of no interest. This explores the consequences of your argument.
If there were an indult from Rome to use some other, older missal (for example, the 1949 missal), would that be "prima facie evidence" that that older version could not be the immemorial rite of Mass?

The question is still of no interest and it has nothing to do with the consequences of the argument. It is not possible for the “received and approved” immemorial Roman rite to be reduced to the status of an Indult or grant of legal privilege regardless of the conditions. It becomes even more unpalatable when the conditions are morally and doctrinally repugnant. The 1949 Roman Missal is clearly the “received and approved” rite because there is no evidence or argument to think otherwise. This is not the case with the 1962 Missal which is appropriately called the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal. This Missal is a transitional Missal that existed during the changing of the “received and approved” rite into another new rite. Where one ends and other begins is a matter of dispute and can only be determined by competent authority, but the legal status of the 1962 as an Indult, then grant of legal privilege is presumptive evidence against it being the “received and approved” rite. That being the case, in the administration of the sacraments, a doubtful opinion, even if probable, may not be followed especially when it is possible to act with certainty.

There is a historical example of a pope declaring a “received and approved” rite illegal and this “law” was overturned and declared to have been unjust, that is, it was declared to not have been a law at all. Therefore, should the pope attempt this act he need not be obeyed. He does not possess the authority to overturn the dogmatically established rites or the authority to enact laws that are contrary to right reason and against the common good. This is fully consistent with what Msgr. Gamber said which I previously posted, and it is fully consistent with Catholic moral theology, which I also previously posted.

If the Resistance is to have any hope, it must be established upon solid dogmatic and liturgical grounds. Truth is the only weapon against an abusive authority. Dogma must be proclaimed as the proximate rule of faith, and from this, the "received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments" can be defended.

Drew