Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei  (Read 11383 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Neil Obstat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18152
  • Reputation: +8242/-631
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
« Reply #30 on: January 03, 2019, 04:19:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    When Newrome grants "permission" for anything, they tacitly reserve the possibility of revoking said permission in the future.
    .
    Catholic priests don't need Newrome's "permission" to celebrate the TLM, because Quo Primum guarantees irrevocable permission FOREVER.
    .
    Case closed.
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4321
    • Reputation: +1982/-289
    • Gender: Female
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #31 on: January 03, 2019, 04:44:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 1.  How can the sspx "continue as they are" with only one bishop?  Will one bishop do all the confirmations?  Of course not.  Novus Ordo bishops will be called in to "help".

    As of right now, no there is no agreement between the SSPX and the Vatican. Therefore any the idea of any 'novus ordo' bishop 'helping out' is out of the question.
    Novus Ordo "bishops" are already helping out with respect to SSPX marriages:

    http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2017/04/04/0218/00485.html#ing


    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. - Council of Trent


    Offline Mr G

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 446
    • Reputation: +320/-35
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #32 on: January 03, 2019, 12:21:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Novus Ordo "bishops" are already helping out with respect to SSPX marriages:

    http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2017/04/04/0218/00485.html#ing
    Notice that Card. Muller italicized "for the time being" and admits to  "initiatives have been ongoing in order to bring the Society of St. Pius X into full communion". 

    'Your Eminence,
     Your Excellency,


    As you are aware, for some time various meetings and other initiatives have been ongoing in order to bring the Society of St. Pius X into full communion. Recently, the Holy Father decided, for example, to grant all priests of said Society the faculty to validly administer the Sacrament of Penance to the faithful (Letter Misericordia et misera, n.12), such as to ensure the validity and liceity of the Sacrament and allay any concerns on the part of the faithful.

    Following the same pastoral outlook which seeks to reassure the conscience of the faithful, despite the objective persistence of the canonical irregularity in which for the time being the Society of St. Pius X finds itself, the Holy Father, following a proposal by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, has decided to authorize Local Ordinaries the possibility to grant faculties for the celebration of marriages of faithful who follow the pastoral activity of the Society, according to the following provisions." etc.

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1324
    • Reputation: +1282/-89
    • Gender: Female
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #33 on: January 03, 2019, 01:26:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • .
    When Newrome grants "permission" for anything, they tacitly reserve the possibility of revoking said permission in the future.
    .
    Catholic priests don't need Newrome's "permission" to celebrate the TLM, because Quo Primum guarantees irrevocable permission FOREVER.
    .
    Case closed.

    NOT for the 1962 Bugnini missal. That needs permission precisely because it's not the Immemorial Rite. For the Pre Bugnini, yes. That's why I cannot understand the SSPX Resistance still using it. They should formally adopt the older Missal now before the  1962 "Extraordinary Form" of the Novus Ordo is formally abrogated.
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3590
    • Reputation: +2231/-1072
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #34 on: January 03, 2019, 01:36:00 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • Quote
    NOT for the 1962 Bugnini missal. That needs permission precisely because it's not the Immemorial Rite. For the Pre Bugnini, yes. That's why I cannot understand the SSPX Resistance still using it. They should formally adopt the older Missal now before the  1962 "Extraordinary Form" of the Novus Ordo is formally abrogated.
    Wait a minute.  The 1962 missal was a legal revision of the 1955 missal, which was a legal revision of multiple others, going back to Quo Primum in the 1500s.  So, the 1962 missal is a legal "child" of Quo Primum, according to the legal documents (all of which I've read).
    Do you disagree?  If so, why?


    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1324
    • Reputation: +1282/-89
    • Gender: Female
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #35 on: January 03, 2019, 04:10:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Wait a minute.  The 1962 missal was a legal revision of the 1955 missal, which was a legal revision of multiple others, going back to Quo Primum in the 1500s.  So, the 1962 missal is a legal "child" of Quo Primum, according to the legal documents (all of which I've read).
    Do you disagree?  If so, why?

    The second half of this open letter should answer your questions. Why do you suppose the Vatican asked ABL to agree to always do the 1962 missal? Or, why are all the indult communities regulated by it and their priest ordained to do that missal? Also, if you have a 1962 missal published by the SSPX, it's not the actual 1962 missal. It's a hybrid of the pre Bugnini and the Bugnini. I have a birthday celebration to attend. Please read the footnotes.

    http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Culture%20Wars%20reply%20for%20web%20posting%209-10.htm

    Why the SSPX Cannot Effectively Defend Catholic Tradition

    Open Letter to E. Michael Jones, editor of Culture Wars Magazine in Reply to his article entitled, “Traditionalism at the End of its Tether.”
    (http://www.culturewars.com/2010/Tether.htm)

    Note: This letter is in reply to the feature article published in Culture Wars Magazine in the September 2010 issue.  That published article is broader and more detailed than the web page edited version that is provided in this posting.  An edited version of this reply letter was published in the November 2010 issue of Culture Wars Magazine.


    Dr. Jones,

    Traditionalism is not “at the end of its tether.”  Maybe the SSPX is but not traditional Catholicism.  The appellation, “traditional” has only become necessary in the modern age to distinguish Catholics from liberal Catholic modernists and the conservative Catholic dupes who profess Church membership.  If the SSPX is at the end of its tether it is because they have failed to effectively articulate the current doctrinal and liturgical defense of traditional Catholicism with sufficient understanding and clarity.  It may prove a tragedy that at this critical historical period they are taken by you and others as the spokesman for Catholic tradition.

    If I did not know better I might get the impression from your article that you have never heard of the condemned heresy of Modernism.  The word “modern” and its cognates appears 17 times in your edited web page version yet not once in your article is it identified as a heresy.  Not even when you quote Cardinal Ottaviani’s maxim, “Always the same,” and dismiss it as a “theological version of Groundhog Day” is the heresy of modernism mentioned.  Truth does not change and maybe if you reflect upon that fact you could, like the character in Groundhog Day, enter upon the work of developing the virtue of fortitude which more often than not requires the patient standing of our ground.

    It is, as you say in your concluding remarks to Bishop Richard Williamson that “There is no third way” between what he identifies as “the two extremes of either Truth or Authority.”  But to see the problem as a negotiation between “Truth or Authority” is to misstate the problem.  Every Catholic is firstly subject to Truth, including those Catholics in Authority.  The response to Truth is assent of the intellect and the will.  The response to Authority is obedience.  Obedience is owed to Authority by the virtue of Justice but Obedience is not the first subsidiary virtue of Justice.  That distinction belongs to the virtue of Religion.  It is the virtue of Religion that determines whether an act of Obedience is a virtue or a sin.  Any good book on moral theology will list the acts of the virtue of Religion and there is not an act of the virtue of Religion that has not been trampled upon since the close of Vatican II by liberal Catholics who have brought along their conservative Catholic confederates by the leash of Authority.  

    Reflecting upon the virtue of Religion what stands out is that they are for the most part physical acts that are quantifiable.  The Catholic religion is an incarnational religion.  The Faith is not something that is only held in the internal forum but must necessarily be expressed by acts of the virtue of Religion.  This obligation to express our religion in the public forum by acts of the virtue of Religion is a duty imposed by God and therefore the acts of the virtue of Religion embodied in the Immemorial Ecclesiastical Traditions that are perfectly consonant with our Faith are necessary attributes of that Faith and are possessed as a right by every Catholic.  That is why St. Pius X, in his condemnation of Modernists in Pascendi Dominid Gregis, defended our ecclesiastical traditions by saying:

    They (the Modernists) exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of Tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority.  But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those “who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind.... or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church”; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: “We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by every one of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.” Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: “I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church” (emphasis mine).

    Ecclesiastical Tradition is founded upon Divine Tradition and human nature, both of which are immutable, and that is why there are elements of Ecclesiastical Tradition that are immutable so that in the Tridentine profession of faith, we dogmatically declare as an article of Divine and Catholic Faith that we “most steadfastly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions, and all other observances and constitutions of the same Church.”  The SSPX does not understand this.  They follow the 1962 transitional Bugnini Indult extra-ordinary form of the Novus Ordo because they regard the liturgy as purely a matter of Church discipline that is the proper subject matter for “liturgical committees” stuffed with “liturgical experts.”[ii]  They have entered into the argument as “liturgical experts”, not with the intent of defending tradition, but to make their own liturgical opinions prevail.  They have made themselves the judge of what liturgical changes are doctrinally sound and what are not.  They cannot object to the Novus Ordo or the Reform of the Reform in principle.  If they had simply adhered to the immemorial Roman rite of the Mass as their right they could have confronted Authority with Truth on the liturgical question just as the Catholics of Milan did when Rome attempted to suppress the Ambrosian Rite.[iii]
     
    If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches, whomsoever, to other new ones, let him be anathema.
    Council of Trent, Session VII, On the Sacraments, Canon 13
     
    On the question of dogma, the SSPX, like the Modernists, err regarding the nature of dogma, which they treat as the proper subject for theological exposition to gain new interpretative insights unfettered by the restrictive literal meaning of the words.  St. Pius X in Pascendi condemns the heresy of Modernism and the Modernist’s rejection of dogma. The word dogma and its cognates appear 36 times in the encyclical. In Pascendi St. Pius X says that dogmas are not "symbols" of the Truth but "absolutely contain the Truth." Again in Pascendi, St. Pius X says:
     
    On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new - we find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence the sense, too, of the sacred dogmas is that which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.
    St. Pius X, Pascendi
     
    In Lamentabili Pope St. Pius X condemns the proposition that, "The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself." Again in the same document St. Pius X condemns the error that holds that, "The dogmas of the faith are to be held only according to a practical sense, that is, as preceptive norms for action, but not as norms for believing."
     
     This last condemnation is important to understand. There are linguistic clues to the nature of dogma that help make the comments of St. Pius X more intelligible. All dogma is expressed in the form of categorical universal propositions that are in the order of truth-falsehood. They remain either true or false regardless of time, person, place or circumstances. Once a doctrine is dogmatically defined it becomes a formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith. A heretic is a baptized Catholic who refuses to believe an article of Divine and Catholic Faith.
     
     Commands, injunctions, laws, orders, precepts, etc. are in the order of authority-obedience. All commands, injunctions, laws, orders, precepts etc. are hierarchical, they do not bind in cases of necessity or impossibility such as invincible ignorance, they have no power against a conscience that is both true and certain, and they must be in accord with natural law and Divine positive law. None of these restrictions apply to dogma.
     
     Time and again and again and again Catholics apply the restrictions that govern commands, injunctions, laws, orders, precepts, etc. to limit the universality of dogmatic truths. They treat dogmas as “preceptive norms for action, but not as norms for believing.”  The following two quotations by Pope John Paul II are examples of this corruption of language and truth.
     
    Normally, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour.
     John Paul II, The Seeds of the Word in the Religions of the World, September 9, 1998


     For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ's redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her.

    John Paul II, General Audience, May 31, 1995
     
    Modernists are really linguistic deconstructionalists. They begin by transferring dogmatic truths from the order of truth-falsehood to the order of authority-obedience and then use authority as a weapon against truth. They end up denying the intentionality of language and then the meaning begins to change with the wind.
     
    This novel doctrine of ‘salvation by implicity’ was formulated in the 1949 Letter sent from Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani in the Holy Office to Cardinal Richard Cushing of Boston (Protocol No. 122/49) condemning Fr. Leonard Feeney’s defense of the traditional teaching on the necessity of the Church membership for salvation.[iv]
     
    This 1949 Letter, first published in 1952, has come to be the doctrinal foundation for new Ecumenical Ecclesiology that has entirely replaced St. Robert Bellarmine’s definition that the Catholic Church “is the society of Christian believers united in the profession of the one Christian faith and the participation in the one sacramental system under the government of the Roman Pontiff.” It is this Ecumenical Ecclesiology that is the underpinning for the destruction of nearly every Ecclesiastical Tradition in the Latin rite since Vatican II, the most important of which is the traditional Roman rite of the Mass.
     
    This Letter of the Holy Office is heretical. But before addressing that question, it should be remembered that this Letter was never entered formally in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis and therefore it has no greater authority than a private letter from one bishop to another. The Letter was included in the 1962 edition of Denzinger’s, not by virtue of the authority of the document, but rather by the modernist agenda of the editor, Rev. Karl Rahner. This Denzinger entry was then referenced in a footnote in the Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium.
     
     The 1949 Letter was written to address Fr. Feeney’s defense of the dogma that there is “no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.” Fr. Feeney did not formulate his theological teaching on ‘baptism of desire’ until several years after this Letter was written. So it is an error to say as some have said that the 1949 Letter “condemns Fr. Feeney’s teaching on Baptism.”
     
     The 1949 Letter says that people can gain salvation by an “implicit” membership in the Catholic Church. The material cause of this “membership” and salvation is the “good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.” This is a form of Pelagianism. The 1949 Letter denies the defined dogmas of the Catholic Church that an explicit Faith is necessary for salvation, that the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, and that being subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. No quote from Scripture, father, doctor, saint, council, magisterial document or accepted tradition affirms this belief of ‘salvation by implicity’. Since supernatural Faith is believing “what God has revealed on the authority of God,” there is no explanation provided how there can be “supernatural faith” if someone does not know if God has revealed anything or what, if anything, God has revealed. The people who think this Letter is orthodox should be asked to try their hand at writing a Credo of implicit Catholic Faith.
     
     The 1949 Letter further undermines all dogma by its modernist affirmation that, “dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.” The truth of the matter is that the dogmatic formulation is the “sense in which the Church herself understands” divinely revealed truth. It is the Church giving “explanation (to) those things that are contained in the deposit of faith” It is the dogma itself that is infallible and dogma is not subject to theological refinement but itself is the formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith. To say, “dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it,” is to claim for the theologian an authority that belongs to the dogma itself. When this modernist proposition is accepted, there is no dogmatic declaration that can be taken as a definitive expression of our faith for it will always be open to theological refinement.
     
    On September 1, 1910, one-hundred years ago this month, St. Pius X published his Motu Proprio, Sacrocrum Antistitum, containing the Oath Against Modernism which was made both by the author and the recipient of the 1949 Letter.  In that oath they swore to almighty God, that they would “wholly reject the heretical notion of the evolution of dogmas, which pass from one sense to another alien to that the Church held from the start” and that they “likewise condemn every error whereby is substituted for divine deposit, entrusted by Christ to His spouse and by her to be faithfully guarded, a philosophic system or a creation of the human conscience, gradually refined by the striving of men and finally to be perfected hereafter by indefinite progress.”  

     The 1949 Letter as published also contained a critical mistranslation of a passage from the encyclical, Mystici Corporis, by saying that non-Catholics "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," The words “related to” are a mistranslation of the Latin which should read “ordained toward.” Also the Latin original is in the subjunctive mood expressing a wish or desire, and not a condition of fact.  It is properly translated as “may be ordained towards” and not, as was done, in the indicative mood as “related to.” It is evident that this mistranslation entirely changes the meaning of what Pius XII said.
     
    Archbishop Lefebvre accepted the 1949 Letter as an orthodox expression of Catholic faith as evidenced by his own writings. The society he founded does so as well.
     
    The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
     The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.

    Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics
     
     
    And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.
    Bishop Bernard Fellay, The Angelus, A Talk Heard Round the World, April, 2006
     
    The 1949 Letter is the theological foundation for modern ecumenism, and ecumenism is the theological foundation for the Novus Ordo and the justification for the overturning of nearly every single Ecclesiastical Tradition in the Roman rite since Vatican II. It is, and should be, a problem for every traditional Catholic that quotations of Archbishop Lefebvre and statements made by Pope John Paul II, the Great Ecumenist, on this question of salvation are in such close agreement because they are in principle agreeing with modern Ecumenical Ecclesiology that presupposes that there are many invisible “Catholics” among the heretics, schismatics, infidels, and pagans of the world and that the Church of Christ in fact “subsists” in the Catholic Church and is not, in this world, co-extensive with its visibly baptized members who profess the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith.
     
     The SSPX’s disagreement with the Vatican on Ecumenism can only be with the means employed and not the ends, a disagreement of degree and not one of kind. Since ecumenism is the overarching theological justification for the transmutation of every Ecclesiastical Tradition since Vatican II, and since the SSPX regards Ecclesiastical Traditions as purely disciplinary matters, and not as necessary integral elements of our Faith, they can only argue questions of policy and not principle.  With ‘salvation by implicity’, there can be no meaningful argument against Ecumenism or Religious Liberty. The accusation of schism becomes meaningless.  Pope John Paul II’s prayer meeting at Assisi makes perfect theological sense. After all, if the Holy Ghost dwells within the souls of many pagans, infidels, heretics, Jews, Muslims, even atheists and agnostics who are in the state of grace and secret members of the Mystical Body of Christ, why should we refuse to pray with them?

     Pope Benedict XVI, in December of 2005 addressing the Roman Curia on his “hermeneutics of reform,” emphasized that there is a need for “distinguishing between the substance and the expression of the faith.” That is, he holds that there is a disjunction between Catholic truth and dogmatic formulations. The SSPX expresses a similar opinion with regard to the dogmatic declarations on necessity of the sacraments in general and the sacrament of baptism in particular for salvation, as well as the dogmatic declarations on the necessity for salvation of being a member of the Catholic Church, of professing the Catholic Faith explicitly, and of being subject to the Roman Pontiff. The SSPX argues against a strict literal reading of these dogmatic formulations. Here they are in agreement with the modern Church that dogmatic formulations are open to theological refinement not necessarily in agreement with the literal meaning of the words.
     
     
    The SSPX discussions with the Vatican on doctrinal and liturgical questions can go nowhere because the SSPX has taken liturgical and doctrinal positions that in principle are indistinguishable from the Modernists. Their liturgical position, grounded in the Bugnini 1962 transitional extra-ordinary form of the Novus Ordo Missal, will make it impossible to resist the Reform of the Reform. The doctrinal position that holds that dogma is not a definitive expression of our Faith, a formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith, but rather a human expression open to endless theological refinement, will undermine any possible opposition to Ecumenical Ecclesiology.  

     The common end of all Modernist activity is the destruction of dogma.  The SSPX in their negotiations with Rome cannot defend the Catholic Faith against Modernist errors because the only defense is the immutable universal truth of defined Catholic dogma. In accepting the 1949 Letter as normative, they have stripped themselves of the only weapon against a corrupted authority. They cannot effectively complain about the prayer meeting at Assisi because they have accepted its theological justification.
     
     
    Hilaire Belloc said, ‘Europe is the Faith and the Faith is Europe.’ It sums up the core principle of our cultural heritage.  There is no real defense of our culture without defending the Faith.  Belloc’s contempt for G. G. Coulton was because he was a medievalist who did not understand, and in fact hated, the first principle of medievalism.  Like Coulton you are publishing a magazine entitled “Culture Wars” and you cannot defend the faith, the very heart of our culture, because you do not see its necessary relationship to the Ecclesiastical Traditions that make the faith known and communicable and thus, the heresy of Modernism is invisible to you.  You cannot see the problem beyond a question of “schism.” The analogy between the situation of the SSPX and the priest sex scandal is inappropriate and only demonstrates a belief that the Church’s relation to the culture is more as a victim of its corruption than its mother and guardian. Leo XIII said in Inscrutabili Dei Consilio, “Religious error is the main root of all social and political evils.”  The Vatican II, a pastoral council that has proven itself to be a pastoral failure, binds no Catholic conscience on questions of faith.    
     
    D. M. Drew
    Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission
    York, PA


    Footnotes:
       Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, an alleged Mason, directed the liturgical reform from 1948 until 1976.  The 1962 Missal, issued at the mid-point of his liturgical tenure, existed only about 2½ years.  It was regarded by Bugnini, who took credit for its authorship, as only a transitional Missal toward his ultimate goal of the Novus Ordo.  Pope Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificum said that the relationship of the 1962 Missal to the Novus Ordo is one of organic development, that “They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.”
       This is true statement for Bugnini said in his book, The Reform of the Liturgy, 1948-1976, that the first principles of liturgical reform adopted by his commission, first principles that were novel, artificial ideological constructs, guided his work and remained absolutely consistent throughout his entire tenure.  The first principles guiding the formation of the 1962 Missal are the same principles that would give us the Novus Ordo.  When Bugnini was asked if the 1962 Missal represented the end of his liturgical innovations he said, “Not by any stretch of the imagination. Every good builder begins by removing the gross accretions, the evident distortions; then with more delicacy and attention he sets out to revise particulars.  The latter remains to be achieved for the Liturgy so that the fullness, dignity and harmony may shine forth once again” (The Organic Development of the Liturgy by Fr. Alcuin Reid).  Thus such feasts as the Solemnity of St. Joseph, the Chair of St. Peter at Rome, the Finding of the True Cross, St. John before the Latin Gate, and many, many other liturgical changes, considered “gross accretions and evident distortions” by those who would eventually give the Church the liturgical “fullness, dignity and harmony” of the Novus Ordo, were done away with in the 1962 Missal.
       It is a fact that the 1962 Missal has never been afforded the standing of Immemorial Tradition by Rome.  Every papal document touching upon this Missal treats it entirely as a subject of Church discipline governed entirely by human positive law first under the norms of Ecclesia Dei as an Indult and now under the restrictive legal stipulations of Summorum Pontificum as a grant of privilege by positive law.  At no time in the history of the Church has an immemorial liturgical tradition been reduced to the status of an Indult, which is the permission to do something that is not permitted by the positive law of the Church.  This constitutes presumptive proof that Rome does not regard the 1962 Missal as the Immemorial Roman Rite.  
       The 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal was adopted by the SSPX in 1983 as their liturgical standard.
     
     
     
    [ii]   It perhaps one of the greatest errors of the last century that Catholics have regarded the Liturgy as entirely a matter of Church discipline and forgotten its essential relationship with Catholic dogma.  This error is refuted by the following quotations:

       "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 document, 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
     
       "Liturgy and faith are interdependent.  That is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the bias of the new (modernist) theology”.  
    Msgr. Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy

         Further evidence that the immemorial Roman Rite, our “received and approved” rite, is not a matter of simple discipline:
       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 Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy

         Pope Pius XII  said regarding the error of liturgists:

       “They wander entirely away from the true and full notion and understanding of the Sacred Liturgy, who consider it only as an external part of divine worship, and presented to the senses; or as a kind of apparatus of ceremonial properties; and they no less err who think of it as a mere compendium of laws and precepts, by which the ecclesiastical Hierarchy bids the sacred rites to be arranged and ordered."
    Pope Piux XII, Mediator Dei
     
       “‘Lex orandi, lex credendi’ -- the law for prayer is the law for faith”, and, “In the sacred liturgy we profess the Catholic faith explicitly and openly”….. “The entire liturgy, therefore, has the Catholic faith for its content, inasmuch as it bears public witness to the faith of the Church.”  
    Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei
     
       Pope Benedict XVI, said in his book, Spirit of the Liturgy:
       The Liturgy cannot be compared to a piece of equipment, something made, but rather to a plant, something organic that grows and whose laws of growth determine the possibilities of further development.  In the West there has been, of course, another factor involved.  This was the Papal authority, the Pope took ever more clearly the responsibility upon himself for the liturgical legislation, and so doing foresaw in a juridical authority for the forth setting of the liturgical development.  The stronger the papal primacy was exercised, the more the question arose, just what the limits of this authority were, which of course, no-one had ever before thought about.  After the Second Vatican Council, the impression has been made that the Pope, as far as the Liturgy goes, can actually do everything he wishes to do, certainly when he was acting with the mandate of an Ecumenical Council.  Finally, the idea that the Liturgy is a predetermined ''given'', the fact that nobody can simply do what he wishes with her, disappeared out of the public conscience of the Western [Church].  In fact, the First Vatican Council did not in any way define that the Pope was an absolute monarch!  Au contraire, the first Vatican Council sketched his role as that of a guarantee for the obedience to the Revealed Word.  The papal authority is limited by the Holy Tradition of the Faith, and that regards also the Liturgy.  The Liturgy is no ''creation'' of the authorities.  Even the Pope can be nothing other than a humble servant of the Liturgy's legitimate development and of her everlasting integrity and identity.

    Pope Benedict XVI, Spirit of the Liturgy
     
     
     
    [iii]   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.
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline poche

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14305
    • Reputation: +553/-1511
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #36 on: January 03, 2019, 11:06:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Novus Ordo "bishops" are already helping out with respect to SSPX marriages:

    http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2017/04/04/0218/00485.html#ing
    That would only be if the SSPX priest cooperates.

    Offline poche

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14305
    • Reputation: +553/-1511
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #37 on: January 03, 2019, 11:16:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Notice that Card. Muller italicized "for the time being" and admits to "initiatives have been ongoing in order to bring the Society of St. Pius X into full communion".

    'Your Eminence,
     Your Excellency,


    As you are aware, for some time various meetings and other initiatives have been ongoing in order to bring the Society of St. Pius X into full communion. Recently, the Holy Father decided, for example, to grant all priests of said Society the faculty to validly administer the Sacrament of Penance to the faithful (Letter Misericordia et misera, n.12), such as to ensure the validity and liceity of the Sacrament and allay any concerns on the part of the faithful.

    Following the same pastoral outlook which seeks to reassure the conscience of the faithful, despite the objective persistence of the canonical irregularity in which for the time being the Society of St. Pius X finds itself, the Holy Father, following a proposal by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, has decided to authorize Local Ordinaries the possibility to grant faculties for the celebration of marriages of faithful who follow the pastoral activity of the Society, according to the following provisions." etc.
    I hear rumors of that, but where I live I have seen no evidence of that. If you are seen as associating with them where I live then you are called a non Catholic.


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3590
    • Reputation: +2231/-1072
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #38 on: January 04, 2019, 09:03:14 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • Quote
    The second half of this open letter should answer your questions. Why do you suppose the Vatican asked ABL to agree to always do the 1962 missal? Or, why are all the indult communities regulated by it and their priest ordained to do that missal?
    Your questions and the letter offer circumstantial evidence for a conspiracy which everyone knows exists, and has already been proven - the plan to destroy Tradition gradually.  But, as a matter of law, the 1962 missal is a lawful revision of the previous missal, i.e. Quo Primum.  The intention of Bugnini to destroy the liturgy is irrelevant because the 1962 missal, if one looks at the changes in it, are non-essential changes to the liturgy.  His intention doesn't matter because the changes don't reflect his intention; he only made SUBSTANTIAL changes starting in 1965.

    The changes of 1962 to Holy Week, the calendar of the saints, the solemnity of feast days, the changes in fast days, etc - all of these changes are part of the Church's human laws and God gave St Peter the power to "bind and loose" such things.  The only change which is arguably wrong is the addition of St Joseph to the canon, which I know many priests ignore.  But outside of the St Joseph issue, all the other changes are given to the pope to change, even if such changes are bad decisions (from a pious and faith-promoting aspect).


    Quote
    Also, if you have a 1962 missal published by the SSPX, it's not the actual 1962 missal. It's a hybrid of the pre Bugnini and the Bugnini.
    Not sure what this means.

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1324
    • Reputation: +1282/-89
    • Gender: Female
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #39 on: January 04, 2019, 01:20:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1


  • PV,

    The changes to the 1962 missal were not organic. The word canon means unchangeable. The 1962 broke from the tradition of only adding martyrs to the Canon by adding the name of St. Joseph after which nothing was left untouched. When the same request was made of Leo XIII, (who had the vision which prompted him to write the original Prayer to St. Michael), he replied: “I’m only the Pope”. Our friend Fr. Casimir Peterson, R.I.P, a canon lawyer in the diocese of Baltimore, had the reference but unfortunately died 3 yrs. ago.

    Pius XII was warned by O.L. of Fatima through Sister Lucy about “The Suicide of altering the faith in her Liturgy”, but ignored it and commissioned Msgr, Bugnini. Obviously, O.L. of F. did not regard the Liturgy as a matter of simple "discipline" or the pope as "the master of the Liturgy" which the SSPX has called him.

    The Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews was changed in 1962. The second Confiteor before Communion was also done away with in the 1962 missal.

    Many Feasts such as the Chair of St. Peter at Rome, The Finding of the True Cross, St. John before the Latin Gate (celebrating his martyrdom though miraculously preserved), St. Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church were done away with and St. Joseph's replaced with “St. Joseph the Worker”, also the Additional Collects, most of the Vigils for Feasts, 12 out of 15 Octaves… It would be an easy search to compare the two missals. I see it constantly at our chapel in York, were the 1954 (or earlier) missal is used. Yesterday we celebrated the Octave of St. John and today, the Octave of the Holy Innocents. If you have the actual (true) 1962 missal you wouldn’t know for example that the IHM Feast is the Octave of the Feast of the Assumption.

    All of the above were considered “gross accretions and evident distortions".

    What I mean about the SSPX own missal is that for decades they have published an unauthorized missal in which they kept some of the Feasts , left the second Confiteor…If you remember, previous to Summorum Pontificum, Fr. Peter Scott did a fundraising to print the Actual 1962 missal to sell to indult communities. Rome had Baronius Press and another publisher do their own printing and advertised it as the “only authorized 1962 Missal” and the Angelus Press was left with a ton of Missals they could not sell because the SSPXrs had no use for it.

    The SSPX’s Missal, again, is a Hybryd of pre-Bugnini and the actual 1962. Their faithful don't know the extent of the changes. The 1962 missal IS regulated by Human Law: Summorum Pontificum, Ecclessiae Universae and all the changes have been authorized though these Motu Proprios to bring the 1962 missal back to the Novus ordo while still calling it "the 1962 missal". Don't take my word, read the documents and that is why Rome will be giving only the SSPX and exemption to keep (temporarily) the 1962 missal to force the indult communities who don't want the "new 1962 missal" coming soon, to join the SSPX.

    The purpose of Summorum Pontificum was not to "liberate" the 1962 missal but to give it (as a priest stated) its proper burial. Its the most restrictive of indults because for the first time we have to accept the Novus Ordo in order to have the right to use it and accept the N.O. as the "Ordinary Form" while the 1962 Bugnini version is the "Extraordinary Form".

    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3590
    • Reputation: +2231/-1072
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #40 on: January 04, 2019, 02:25:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • All the changes you mentioned in the 62 missal are non-essential changes, which the pope can make and permit.  The pope is only prevented from making substantial changes to the Mass.  If you accept that John XXIII was pope, then the 1962 missal was legally authorized and acceptable.


    Quote
    The 1962 missal IS regulated by Human Law: Summorum Pontificum, Ecclessiae Universae and all the changes have been authorized though these Motu Proprios to bring the 1962 missal back to the Novus ordo while still calling it "the 1962 missal". 

    The 1962 missal is regulated by Quo Primum, which makes the additional laws of Ecclessiae Dei and Summorum Pontificum irrelevant.


    Quote
    Don't take my word, read the documents and that is why Rome will be giving only the SSPX and exemption to keep (temporarily) the 1962 missal to force the indult communities who don't want the "new 1962 missal" coming soon, to join the SSPX. 
    Rome's reasons for "why" they want the 1962 missal to be used are irrelevant.  The 62 missal is the ONLY missal that ANY catholic is allowed (and commanded) to be used because this is order of law from Quo Primum.  A future pope can legally change the 62 missal back to the pure liturgy but until that happens, we are stuck with it.  Even though it is not perfect, it is substantially pure because only its "trimmings" are defective, not its essence.


    Quote
    The purpose of Summorum Pontificum was not to "liberate" the 1962 missal but to give it (as a priest stated) its proper burial. Its the most restrictive of indults because for the first time we have to accept the Novus Ordo in order to have the right to use it and accept the N.O. as the "Ordinary Form" while the 1962 Bugnini version is the "Extraordinary Form".
    Yes, I agree this was the purpose of both indults (the 80s and Benedict's) but these indult laws are illegal, because they attempt to restrict that which Quo Primum does not allow to be restricted.  Quo Primum is like the Constitution of the US and these indult laws are like a local law passed by a city.  The Constitution overrules a city law and such local laws are null and void.  Just like with everything post-V2, new-rome cares not if their laws are legal or binding - they only care if the people *think* such laws are legal/binding.  New-rome only cares about the end result - which both indults have accomplished - that most catholics stay away from Tradition under the false idea that we are disobedient and extremists, even though the law is surely on our side, both Divine Law and Church law.


    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 356
    • Reputation: +1053/-220
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #41 on: January 04, 2019, 04:43:59 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • All the changes you mentioned in the 62 missal are non-essential changes, which the pope can make and permit.  The pope is only prevented from making substantial changes to the Mass.  If you accept that John XXIII was pope, then the 1962 missal was legally authorized and acceptable.


    The 1962 missal is regulated by Quo Primum, which makes the additional laws of Ecclessiae Dei and Summorum Pontificum irrelevant.

    Rome's reasons for "why" they want the 1962 missal to be used are irrelevant.  The 62 missal is the ONLY missal that ANY catholic is allowed (and commanded) to be used because this is order of law from Quo Primum.  A future pope can legally change the 62 missal back to the pure liturgy but until that happens, we are stuck with it.  Even though it is not perfect, it is substantially pure because only its "trimmings" are defective, not its essence.

    Yes, I agree this was the purpose of both indults (the 80s and Benedict's) but these indult laws are illegal, because they attempt to restrict that which Quo Primum does not allow to be restricted.  Quo Primum is like the Constitution of the US and these indult laws are like a local law passed by a city.  The Constitution overrules a city law and such local laws are null and void.  Just like with everything post-V2, new-rome cares not if their laws are legal or binding - they only care if the people *think* such laws are legal/binding.  New-rome only cares about the end result - which both indults have accomplished - that most catholics stay away from Tradition under the false idea that we are disobedient and extremists, even though the law is surely on our side, both Divine Law and Church law.

    You are arguing that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal is the "received and approved" Roman rite and therefore the treating of it as an Indult and/or grant of legal privilege is itself  "illegal".  You may be right but I do not think so and, more importantly, neither does Rome.  The implications are very important.  What is accepted as a grant of legal privilege or as an Indult cannot be later claimed as a right, and the grant can be nullified at the will the legislator without legal recourse.  
     
    The 1962 Missal (and the 1955 changes) are the work of Bugnini as secretary of the Pian Commission.  This commission, following the inversion by Pius XII in Mediator Dei of what Celestine I called a dogma of faith, 'lex orandi, lex credendi', adopted entirely artificial man-made principles of liturgical development which Msgr. Klaus Gambler described as absolutely ruinous to true liturgical development.  These principles adopted by the Pian Commission never changed were applied uniformly to all liturgical changes from 1948 until 1976 according to Bugnini. The same principles that gave us the 1956 Missal, the 1962 Missal, the 1965 Missal, are the same principles that gave us the 1969 Missal and later changes to that Missal.  In fact, the Bugnini principles mean that there will never be liturgical stability.  Liturgy must by subject to continuous evolution.  In fact, the 1965 Missal only differs from the 1962 Missal in minor details and affords more options.  Archbishop Lefebvre used 1965 Missal and later amended changes to that Missal in Econe for many years before 1983.  An interesting aside, Bishop Williamson many years ago defending the adoption of the 1962 Missal (he personally did so only after 1983) when confronted by a liturgical expert from England could not answer the question as to what in the 1965 liturgical edition was harmful to the faith and thus justified its rejection. 
     
    The 1962 Missal is not the "received and approved" Roman rite and the proof of this is in the fact that Rome has never treated the 1962 Missal as the "received and approved" rite reducing it an Indult and/or grant of legal privilege.  This constitutes prima facie evidence against the 1962 Missal as being the "received and approved" rite until clearly overturned by other evidence and competent authority.  Not likely to happen anytime soon.  The claim that the liturgy has been reduced to a matter of mere discipline it supported by canon law arguments by such as the former Rev. John Huels, OSM, JCD who argued that this was done by Quo Primum.  The recent declaration by the Italian bishops conference that Summorum Pontificum is itself illegal is in the same vein.  Huels' argument is important.  The presupposition is that Quo Primum itself is a merely disciplinary decree that reduced the liturgy to matter of mere discipline.  This is why the document was still included in the 1962 Missal with other subsequent documents.  When others argued against this, the document was dropped in later revisions.
     
    There is a wealth of evidence that liturgy is not and has never been a matter of mere discipline.  But unquestionably the strongest is that the "received and approved" rites were dogmatized at Trent and included in the Tridentine profession of faith which said: 

    Quote
    "I most steadfastly admit and embrace Apostolic and Ecclesiastical Traditions and all other observances and constitutions of the Church… I also receive and admit the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of the sacraments." 
    Pope Pius IV, Tridentine Profession of Faith

     
    I will not address other substantial evidence but it should be understood that liturgy is grounded in dogma and for those who hold dogma as their proximate rule of faith, the obvious answer to the problem is to return to the unquestionable "received  and approved" Roman rite before Bugnini and the Pian commission, that is, the Missal used 1955 and before. 
     
    The great problem with defending traditional Catholicism is that Archbishop Lefebvre did not hold dogma as the proximate rule of faith and regarded the liturgy as a matter of mere discipline.  Those he formed hold the same opinion including the sedevacantists who were expelled in 1983 and use the pre-1956 Missal.  They both argue that the pope is the "master of the liturgy" and can do whatever he wants as long as he does not injure the faith.  Both have made themselves the judge of what or what does not constitute injury to the faith.  Neither appeal to dogma.  It is a no win argument. 
     
    The liturgical changes in the 1962 Missal are significant.  Once it is understood that the liturgical changes overseen by Bugnini are a variation of the heresy of Iconoclasm, the damage done to the faith in the 1962 Missal becomes more evident.  Such changes as the removal of St. Peter's Chair at Rome, the removal of saints because their only evidence were miracles, or the removal of liturgical celebrations grounded upon miracles, such as the finding of the body of St. Stephen, St. John before the Latin Gate, etc., destruction of most octaves and vigils, that addition of a non-martyr to the canon (St. Joseph), and all the Holy Week changes from 1956 that embodied numerous changes seen in 1969 Novus Ordo Missal.  Iconoclasm was manifested by 1962.
     
    There are only two arguments that can be offered.  You can try to stick to the 1962 Missal (which was not then or is not now a stable liturgical form) that Rome holds as a matter of mere discipline OR you can appeal to dogma and rights of every Catholic to the "received and approved" rites of the Church.  These rights are derived from the duty that every Catholic has to worship God according to what is certainly the "received and approved" rite.   
     
    Drew
      

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3590
    • Reputation: +2231/-1072
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #42 on: January 04, 2019, 05:20:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    You are arguing that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal is the "received and approved" Roman rite and therefore the treating of it as an Indult and/or grant of legal privilege is itself  "illegal".  You may be right but I do not think so and, more importantly, neither does Rome.

    Yes, Rome does think that, and admitted it, though indirectly.  In the 2007 "motu", Pope Benedict said that (paraphrasing) - the law which created the 1962 missal (i.e. Quo Primum) was never abrogated, therefore the old rite (i.e. True Mass) was always permitted (i.e. the "indult laws" which implied that the True Mass was outlawed and thus the indult law was necessary to "bring it back" are illegal).

    This is the same conclusion reached by a commission in the early 80s, as ordered by JPII, who wanted to know if, legally speaking, the True Mass was outlawed by Paul VI's Apostolic Constitution which created the new mass.  Result - the commission said that Paul VI's law did not outlaw the 1962 missal.  Therefore, by extension, it means that Quo Primum is still in force.

    The only people who consistantly argued that the "old mass" was outlawed, banned and replaced were the bishops/cardinals, who do not have any legal standing or ability to legally rule on this question.  Rome has consistantly and officially said that Quo Primum is still in force, though they said it indirectly (because they don't want to draw attention to Quo Primum), by admitting that the 1962 missal is valid.

    Quote
    The 1962 Missal is not the "received and approved" Roman rite and the proof of this is in the fact that Rome has never treated the 1962 Missal as the "received and approved" rite reducing it an Indult and/or grant of legal privilege.
    Not true.  See above.  The 62 missal requires no indult, as Pope Benedict admitted.

    Quote
    There is a wealth of evidence that liturgy is not and has never been a matter of mere discipline.
    I agree, it is not just a matter of discipline.  But the 62 missal is essentially the same as the 1955 missal and the same as Pius V's 1500s missal, going all the way back to Pope Gregory the Great's missal of the 400s, therefore its revisions are allowed to be made by a valid pope and are not contrary to the Faith (even if many of the changes are not promoting piety or religious ferver).

    Quote
    The liturgical changes in the 1962 Missal are significant.  Once it is understood that the liturgical changes overseen by Bugnini are a variation of the heresy of Iconoclasm, the damage done to the faith in the 1962 Missal becomes more evident.  Such changes as the removal of St. Peter's Chair at Rome, the removal of saints because their only evidence were miracles, or the removal of liturgical celebrations grounded upon miracles, such as the finding of the body of St. Stephen, St. John before the Latin Gate, etc., destruction of most octaves and vigils, that addition of a non-martyr to the canon (St. Joseph), and all the Holy Week changes from 1956 that embodied numerous changes seen in 1969 Novus Ordo Missal.  Iconoclasm was manifested by 1962.
    The changes may be significant, from a historical perspective, but are not ESSENTIAL changes, theologically or doctrinally.  Getting rid of a feast day or an octave is not a denial that the saint existed.  The changes to the 62 missal do NOT affect doctrine or dogma ESSENTIALLY.  They are not a denial of the Faith.  They are not a new theology.  Not in the same degree as the novus ordo of 69, which is totally anti-Trent.
    Were there seeds planted which eventually sprouted into heresies in 1969?  Yes.  But such seeds of 62 are not a denial/change/subversion to an extreme degree.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3590
    • Reputation: +2231/-1072
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #43 on: January 04, 2019, 05:54:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • From the "motu": 
    http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum.html


    In the course of the centuries, many other Roman Pontiffs took particular care that the sacred liturgy should accomplish this task more effectively.  Outstanding among them was Saint Pius V, who in response to the desire expressed by the Council of Trent, renewed with great pastoral zeal the Church’s entire worship, saw to the publication of liturgical books corrected and “restored in accordance with the norm of the Fathers,” and provided them for the use of the Latin Church.

    “It was towards this same goal that succeeding Roman Pontiffs directed their energies during the subsequent centuries in order to ensure that the rites and liturgical books were brought up to date and, when necessary, clarified.  From the beginning of this century they undertook a more general reform.” [2]  Such was the case with our predecessors Clement VIII, Urban VIII, Saint Pius X [3], Benedict XV, Pius XII and Blessed John XXIII.

    It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy.

    ---

    Letter from Benedict XVI accompanying his "motu":
    http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html

    As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. 

    ---

    Summary:  Saint Pope Pius V codified the mass' liturgy though the Quo Primum law.  The revisions to the law were the following missals (all of which are ESSENTIALLY the same missal as Pius V's missal and the same one that Christ gave the Apostles):  Clement, Urban, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XII and John XXIII.  Ergo, the 1962 missal is a legally valid missal of Quo Primum.  This missal was never outlawed, never replaced and Quo Primum, the law which governs the True Mass was never outlawed and never replaced.  Therefore, the 62 missal IS THE missal of the roman rite.

    Unless you argue that John XXIII wasn't the pope, then the true missal would be the 1955 missal.  But if John XXIII was the pope, then the 62 missal is the official Quo Primum missal, per law.


    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 356
    • Reputation: +1053/-220
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #44 on: January 04, 2019, 07:20:13 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Yes, Rome does think that, and admitted it, though indirectly.  In the 2007 "motu", Pope Benedict said that (paraphrasing) - the law which created the 1962 missal (i.e. Quo Primum) was never abrogated, therefore the old rite (i.e. True Mass) was always permitted (i.e. the "indult laws" which implied that the True Mass was outlawed and thus the indult law was necessary to "bring it back" are illegal).

    This is the same conclusion reached by a commission in the early 80s, as ordered by JPII, who wanted to know if, legally speaking, the True Mass was outlawed by Paul VI's Apostolic Constitution which created the new mass.  Result - the commission said that Paul VI's law did not outlaw the 1962 missal.  Therefore, by extension, it means that Quo Primum is still in force.

    The only people who consistantly argued that the "old mass" was outlawed, banned and replaced were the bishops/cardinals, who do not have any legal standing or ability to legally rule on this question.  Rome has consistantly and officially said that Quo Primum is still in force, though they said it indirectly (because they don't want to draw attention to Quo Primum), by admitting that the 1962 missal is valid.
    Not true.  See above.  The 62 missal requires no indult, as Pope Benedict admitted.
    I agree, it is not just a matter of discipline.  But the 62 missal is essentially the same as the 1955 missal and the same as Pius V's 1500s missal, going all the way back to Pope Gregory the Great's missal of the 400s, therefore its revisions are allowed to be made by a valid pope and are not contrary to the Faith (even if many of the changes are not promoting piety or religious ferver).
    The changes may be significant, from a historical perspective, but are not ESSENTIAL changes, theologically or doctrinally.  Getting rid of a feast day or an octave is not a denial that the saint existed.  The changes to the 62 missal do NOT affect doctrine or dogma ESSENTIALLY.  They are not a denial of the Faith.  They are not a new theology.  Not in the same degree as the novus ordo of 69, which is totally anti-Trent.
    Were there seeds planted which eventually sprouted into heresies in 1969?  Yes.  But such seeds of 62 are not a denial/change/subversion to an extreme degree.

    The immemorial "received and approved" rite of Mass cannot be abrogated.  Any discussion as whether or not it has been done presupposes that it can be done. Therefore, it is already treating the 1962 Missal as a matter of mere discipline which cannot be done to the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite.  What is worse, it presupposes that Quo Primum (QP) is therefore merely a disciplinary document which it most certainly is not.  But to understand the status of QP you must first understand dogma.  QP appeals to dogmas of Trent in its introduction from which all its arguments flow.

    But the whole purpose of Summorum Pontificum (SP) was not to "free" the Missal but to restructure the "reform of the reform."  Those who accepted the "freeing" of the 1962 Missal from SP also accepted the legitimacy of the entire liturgical reform in principle and acknowledged that the 1962 Missal and the 1969 Missal were two forms of one rite as necessary conditions for its use.  This last claim is in fact true since both were products of Bugnini's reform principles.

    By the way, after Benedict published SP he then revoked additional liturgical reform documents specifically the two that brought about the 1965 changes.  The whole thing was therefore a legal scam and the Italian Episcopate may have a valid legal argument.  

    You are currently witnessing the revoking of Ecclesia Dei and the Italian Episcopal conference declaring SP illegal.  The argument you are making is not built upon anything more stable than legal opinion.  Even if I were to grant your claim that Benedict was correct and JPII was in error by treating the 1962 Missal as Indult, it makes no difference.  Benedict treated it as a grant of legal privilege.  In fact, SP imposed new requirements on the use of the 1962 Missal that did not exist before.  All those using the 1962 Missal have at least implicitly accepted all these conditions.  It really makes no difference between the two because a "received and approved" immemorial rite grounded upon dogma can no more be a grant of legal privilege than can it be an Indult.  Either way, it reduces the Missal to matter of mere discipline.  As I said in the previous post, Rome has treated the 1962 Missal as a matter of mere discipline from 1962 until this present day without exception.  

    A lengthy book could easily be written on the changes in the 1962 Missal and the damage they have done to the faith.  The primary damage is most certainly the relegation of the Missal to a matter of mere discipline.  Still, whether or not the 1962 Missal is the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite would be moot because it can only be proved by competent authority.  Since "competent authority" is not accessible you and others who adopt the 1962 Missal have taken a position that is liturgically and legally indefensible at this time.

    In York PA the local ordinary offered us to become an Indult community.  It was refused because as said to him more than ten years ago, what is granted by an indult or legal privilege cannot be claimed by right and can be revoked by the free and independent will of the legislator.  The bishop was told that if in the future Rome should declare that the 1962 Missal is the "received and approved" rite of Mass in its normative form than that is the Missal we would use.  Until that time, we use a Missal that is unquestionably the "received and approved" rite without any doubt whatsoever.

    The 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal that existed less than two years and was never at any time regarded as a stable liturgical form did tremendous damage to worship and consequently to the faith.  It was not Bugnini's first or last liturgical Iconoclasm but that is what the 1962 Missal is, liturgical Iconoclasm.  It may have been an incomplete Iconoclasm that did not perhaps shatter the image but it did in fact horribly mutilate it.

    Aristotle said that the purpose of dialogue was to arrive at opinion.  The Vatican II church, the church of the New Advent, could be called the Church of Dialogue.  Opinion has replaced dogmatic truth.  Unfortunately for Catholics faithful to tradition Bishop Fellay entered not into "doctrinal discussions" with Rome but dialogue with the Church of the New Advent.  Trying to defend the 1962 Missal as the immemorial Roman rite will just be another round of dialogue and empty opinions that will make any concerted defense of true worship impossible.

    Drew




     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16