Author Topic: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei  (Read 13997 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stanley N

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 511
  • Reputation: +153/-213
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
« Reply #45 on: January 04, 2019, 08:35:53 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!5
  • 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.   
    Straw-man much?
    Archbishop Lefebvre had a doctorate in theology and his writings display a good understanding of the liturgy and doctrine, including lex orandi lex credendi. He is not infallible, but it's amusing to watch people with much less understanding try to argue that the Archbishop was fundamentally wrong.

    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 368
    • Reputation: +1084/-231
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #46 on: January 04, 2019, 10:46:28 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!2
  • Straw-man much?
    Archbishop Lefebvre had a doctorate in theology and his writings display a good understanding of the liturgy and doctrine, including lex orandi lex credendi. He is not infallible, but it's amusing to watch people with much less understanding try to argue that the Archbishop was fundamentally wrong.

    Straw-man? Not only have you not identified the "straw-man" in the argument, you have replied only with the appeal to human authority, the weakest of all arguments.  Nice to hear you affirm that Archbishop Lefebvre theoretically "is not infallible" and then profess your "amusement" when a specific practical examples of fallibility are pointed out. 
     
    I have simply stated two facts regarding Archbishop Lefebvre.   It is a fact that Archbishop Lefebvre did not hold dogma as the proximate rule of faith.  This is best exemplified by his belief that any Hindu as a Hindu, Moslem as a Moslem, Jew as a Jew, Protestant as a Protestant, etc., could be a secret member of the Church, in a state of sanctifying grace, a temple of the Holy Ghost, and heir to heaven without believing in any revealed truth of the Catholic faith, without receiving any sacrament, without being a member of the Church, and without being subject to the Roman pontiff.  Everyone of these dogmatic truths were re-casted as mere axiomatic preceptive norms and summarily set aside because of assumed invincible physical or psychological impediments.
     
    He also held the liturgy as a matter of mere discipline.  All you have to do to confirm this fact is read the defense offered by the SSPX for the adoption of the 1962 Missal in 1983 after expelling the Nine who were sedevacantists.  The argument was essentially a test for accepting papal authority to do as he willed regarding liturgical changes.  The only caveat offered is that these changes cannot be "harmful to the faith".   It was Fr. Williamson who wrote the defense of the SSPX against the Nine.  Fr. Richard Williamson affirmed that the pope was the "master of liturgy".  The Nine agreed with this argument but rejected the pope.  When Fr. Williamson (and Fr. Laisney as well) was asked by "Rubricarias", the English publisher at St. Lawrence Press who prints the pre-1956 Ordo which Bishop Williamson used before 1983, how the 1965 liturgy was harmful and the 1962 liturgy was not, no reply offered.  When asked if the 1965 liturgy was not necessarily harmful, how could two papal documents (reforms mandated by Sacram Liturgiam and Inter Oecumenici by Paul VI) imposing those 1965 liturgical changes be ignored if the pope is the "master of the liturgy", no reply.  Before 1983, the 1965 Missal and later changes were routinely used at Econe.  What happened in 1983 to make Archbishop Lefebvre reject all post 1962 changes that had been previously accepted?  This is eighteen years after the fact.  When you claim the liturgy is a matter of mere discipline and the pope is the "master of the liturgy", you have a serious problem because you become the person judge of the liturgical changes determining what is and what is not "harmful to the faith".  That argument is for losers as we see played out every day.
     
    So you think this is amusing?  The SSPX has already betrayed Catholic tradition because they did not know how to defend it.  They claimed to be entering "doctrinal discussions" with Rome, but not holding to the dogma as their rule of faith, they never got beyond the exchange of opinions which it the end of dialogue.  They have utterly failed to understand the nature of dogma or see the relationship between dogma and liturgy.  The Resistance is not going to do any better unless they come to terms with these two essential problems.  Both  these positions held by Archbishop Lefebvre are wrong.  Dogma is the proximate rule of faith and the liturgy is not a matter of mere discipline. 

    And I have already proved these two propositions.  Dogma as the proximate rule of faith is proven by the definition of heresy necessarily.  And the Tridentine Profession of Faith cited in the previous post is sufficient to prove that liturgy cannot be a matter of mere discipline.

    Lastly, I have a lot sympathy for Archbishop Lefebvre.  There has been a significant number of important liturgical publications since 1990 that he may have benefitted from.  But that was nearly thirty years ago.  We are surrounded by a massive failure of traditional Catholic structures by those who should have known better.  
     
    Drew



    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 511
    • Reputation: +153/-213
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #47 on: January 05, 2019, 01:00:58 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Straw-man? Not only have you not identified the "straw-man" in the argument, [....]

    [....] And the Tridentine Profession of Faith cited in the previous post is sufficient to prove that liturgy cannot be a matter of mere discipline.
    I quoted some straw in my first reply.
    You assert Archbishop Lefebvre thought the liturgy was a matter of "mere discipline" as if no dogma was involved. That's a straw man.
    I think Archbishop Lefebvre understood the relation between liturgy and dogma better than you.

    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 368
    • Reputation: +1084/-231
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #48 on: January 05, 2019, 06:35:49 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • I quoted some straw in my first reply.
    You assert Archbishop Lefebvre thought the liturgy was a matter of "mere discipline" as if no dogma was involved. That's a straw man.
    I think Archbishop Lefebvre understood the relation between liturgy and dogma better than you.

    I have provided evidence for my claim that Archbishop Lefebvre did not regard dogma as his rule of faith and therefore, could not see the relationship between liturgy and dogma.  If you think this is a "straw-man" then you must refute the evidence with your own to support your accusation.

    I might add that Rome is currently destroying conservative Catholic groups with traditional sentiments while herding traditional Catholic groups into a common corral for the purpose of control and/or destruction.  If the Resistance is to have any success it must first recognize dogma as the proximate rule of faith and then see and defend the necessary relationship between dogma and liturgy.  From a foundation of Catholic dogmatic truth they can work to establish loose confederations of resistance chapels as focal points of confrontation to local ordinaries. 

    Drew

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 511
    • Reputation: +153/-213
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #49 on: January 05, 2019, 08:38:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!5
  • I have provided evidence for my claim that Archbishop Lefebvre did not regard dogma as his rule of faith and therefore, could not see the relationship between liturgy and dogma.  If you think this is a "straw-man" then you must refute the evidence with your own to support your accusation.
    No, I do not need to do that. If you have a claim, it is your job to prove it.

    What you have done is say that Archbishop Lefebvre did not subscribe to your version of EENS. From there you go to the broad claim he "did not regard dogma as the proximate rule of faith". Perhaps your "evidence" doesn't support your claim, because, for instance, your claim is too broad.

    Frankly, you could work on communication. Try defining the terms you use, so that it does not appear that you are using them in different senses in different places.


    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 368
    • Reputation: +1084/-231
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #50 on: January 06, 2019, 07:05:51 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • No, I do not need to do that. If you have a claim, it is your job to prove it.

    What you have done is say that Archbishop Lefebvre did not subscribe to your version of EENS. From there you go to the broad claim he "did not regard dogma as the proximate rule of faith". Perhaps your "evidence" doesn't support your claim, because, for instance, your claim is too broad.

    Frankly, you could work on communication. Try defining the terms you use, so that it does not appear that you are using them in different senses in different places.


    I am sorry.  Let's begin by improving "communication" with definition.
     
    Catholic faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God the revealer and since God is the revealer these revealed truths are believed with divine faith.  These revealed truths are found in Scripture and Tradition.  Thus Scripture and Tradition constitute the remote rule of faith.  The Magisterium is the teaching of the Church grounded upon the Church's attributes of Authority and Infallibility.  The Magisterium can only ultimately be engaged by the pope in either the ordinary and universal OR the extra-ordinary mode of operation.  When the Magisterium defines an article of revealed truth from Scripture and Tradition that defined truth is called a DOGMA and then this revealed truth becomes a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.
     
    These defined truths are as St. Pius X said, "Truths fallen from heaven."  They are irreformable in both their form and matter, that is, irreformable in both their meaning and manner of expression.  As Vatican I said:

    Quote
    "Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding." Vatican I

    Dogmas constitute the proximate rule of faith and this can be demonstrated by the definition of heresy.  Heresy is the defined by St. Thomas as, "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas."  This offers an essential definition (the best of all definitions) of a heretic which definition gives the genus and species.  The genus is those who "professed the faith of Christ" and the species difference is between those who keep dogma as their rule of faith and those who do not. A heretic fails to keep dogma as his rule of faith.  The faithful are those who do.
     
    Archbishop Lefebvre believed that a Jew as "good-willed" Jew, a Hindu as a "good-willed" Hindu, a Moslem as a "good-willed" Moslem, a Buddhist as a "good-willed Buddhist, a Protestant as a "good-willed" Protestant, etc., are in a state of grace, temples of the Holy Ghost, members of the Church, and heirs to heaven because of their "goodness" which God sees and rewards. 

    Quote
    "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

    Compare this to what Pope John Paul II believed:
     
    Quote
    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

    Not a dime's worth of difference between +Lefebvre and the JPII the Great Ecumenist regarding the Catholic doctrine of soteriology.  This belief logically brought JPII to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi and those who defend the +Lefebvre's belief have not been able to explain why in principle he found it an abomination, and as a consequence of it, consecrated the four as bishops.  
     
    Now I won't quote the dogmas that touch upon the doctrine of Catholic soteriology.  Everyone on this forum knows them and you can look them up yourself. But, consider this, the "good-willed" Buddhist as a Buddhist does not believe in a single article of revealed truth from God, he has not received any sacrament, he is not subject to the Roman pontiff and yet he is a member of the Church and on his way to heaven.  This belief directly contradicts several Catholic dogmas.  The only way around the problem requires the corruption of dogma.  The most common manner in corrupting dogma is to not regard it as a "truth fallen from heaven" but a man-made axiom, that is, a general guideline that is situationally determined.  Another way is to treat dogma not as a "truth fallen from heaven" but perceptive norm which any physical or psychological burden can excuse.
     
    St. Pius X quoting Benedict XIV said:

    Quote
    Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’ 
    Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis

    But corruption of dogma is typically proceeded by corruption of the mind.  No matter what a man believes it will always be found to rest upon first principles that cannot be formally demonstrated.  The Communist believes that nothing exists beyond matter and movement; the Hindu believes that everything perceived by the senses is an illusion; and this is true for every religious or philosophical system.  The faithful Catholic is grounded upon the first principles of the understanding: a thing is what it is, a thing is not what it is not, necessity for sufficient cause, necessity for sufficient reason, etc.  These first principles are infused in man's nature who is made in the 'image and likeness of God'.  Modern philosophy, turning its back on God, is grounded upon an attempt to overthrow the first principles.  That is essentially what Descartes tried to do.  Modernism (and Neo-modernism) as a heresy is, according to St. Pius X grounded upon the philosophy of Kant.  That is, in my opinion, why all modern philosophy is nominalistic with all the destruction that flows from that error.  It is from Descartes and Kant that all modern atheism is grounded.
     
    I bring this to you attention because the natural wisdom is characterized by the habit of the first principles.  The world we live in today denies them, usually not directly, but the denial suffuses everything they say and do.  It is the water we are swimming in and it will invariably effect everyone unless they are militant in their opposition.  Neo-modernism is the current style and as the current style is invisible to those who wear it. 
     
    Now we can speculate on what method Archbishop Lefebvre used to overturn the literal meaning of dogma but that fact that he did overturn it cannot be disputed.  If you agree with Archbishop Lefebvre that the "good-willed" Buddhist is a member of the Church simple say so.  And then you can offer your own definition of dogma.
     
    Drew

    Offline Mr G

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 629
    • Reputation: +425/-43
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #51 on: January 07, 2019, 10:26:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Straw-man much?
    Archbishop Lefebvre had a doctorate in theology and his writings display a good understanding of the liturgy and doctrine, including lex orandi lex credendi. He is not infallible, but it's amusing to watch people with much less understanding try to argue that the Archbishop was fundamentally wrong.

    Beware of the straw-man!

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4559
    • Reputation: +2772/-1261
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #52 on: January 07, 2019, 10:57:11 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote
    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.

    Agree, the True Mass cannot be abrogated.  I never said it had.

    I'm saying that the 1962 is ESSENTIALLY, SUBSTANTIALLY and NON-ACCIDENTALLY the same as St Pius V's missal, which is the same as Pope St Gregory's missal of the 400s and which is the same (in all essentials) as what Christ taught the Apostles.

    If you are arguing that the 1962 missal has serious, substantial changes to it, then please be specific.


    Quote
    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.  
    All the indult laws are superfluous, contradictory and illegal.  Your points above, while great points, are irrelevant to my argument.  The 1962 missal existed LONG before the indult laws, so these are irrelevant.


    Quote
    A lengthy book could easily be written on the changes in the 1962 Missal and the damage they have done to the faith.
     Please explain in detail.  I disagree.


    Quote
    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.
    The competant authority is Pope John XXIII, if you believe he was pope.  If you don't believe he was pope, then I see why you would reject the 62 missal.  What is your stance?


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4559
    • Reputation: +2772/-1261
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #53 on: January 07, 2019, 11:13:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is an article written by Fr Wathen over 10 years ago.  He's not infallible, obviously, but being that his background and training were before V2 and were "normal" (compared to most Trad priests), I would say his opinion carries more weight than Trad priests of our day, who are younger have little to no connection to a diocesan seminary training and the "normal", orthodox Catholic operations of developing priests.



    The 1962 Missal
    By Fr James F Wathen

    "The reader should know that popes periodically have found reason to issue new Missals; Pope St. Pius X did so in 1910. The obvious reason is that, as time goes by, saints are canonized and feast days are assigned to them. In addition, the popes are free to establish new feasts for whatever reason. Pope Pius XII established the feasts the Queenship of Mary (May 31) and St. Joseph the Workman (May 1). All editions of the Missale since 1570 have been essentially the same as the Missale Romanum issued that year, but all of them have been different in that they followed different Calendars. The Missale's Calendar indicates not only what Mass is to said on all the days of the year, but "ranks" the feasts, the highest being a Mass of the First Class with a Privileged Octave."




        Now and then I get a question about the 1962 Roman Missal. My response is that there is nothing wrong with this Missal, in fact, it is an excellent Missal, and there is no reason why a priest should not use it.

      Pope John XXIII did three good things, one was the publication of the encyclical, Veterum sapientia, the second was the reformed Breviary, the third was the 1962 Missale Romanum.

      The Encyclical was a eloquent defense and encomium of Latin as the proper language of the Roman Rite, which alone could serve adequately for the Church's prayers to God. This letter was issued in the year 1961. At the time, there was some discussion about it among priests and and in Catholic publications. We may easily conclude that it was not written by Pope John, but some member of the Roman Curia, one of the conservative cardinals perhaps, who was alarmed at the increasingly loud clamor in favor of the vernacular, particularly in the Mass and the other Sacramental rites. Pope John put his name to the letter, but did nothing to implement it; he probably knew that it was a "dead letter" (no pun intended), as he knew what schemes were "in the works." As a consequence, the Encyclical was all but forgotten. During the 1960s, the vernacular began to be introduced and with time won the day completely. Nothing was done in defense of Latin. Every word in Veterum sapientia has proved to have been well-chosen and prophetic. When the Church is reformed, Latin will be restored.

      Before he died, Pope Pius XII ordered that both the Missale Romanum and the Roman Breviary should be revised. (The Breviary, also called "the Divine Office," is the official prayer book of the Roman Rite, from which every priest was obliged to recite certain prayers every day.) Pius did this in 1955. The new Breviary was published early in the reign of Pope John XXIII, 1960, the Missal in 1962. It was natural that these two tasks be done as one project, in order that both follow the same liturgical calendar; the "Office of the day" is meant to be an extension of the Liturgy of the day. This means that if the Mass is in honor of the Nativity of Our Lady, the Office of the day should be the same.

      Curiously, some Traditionalist priests disturb lay people about the 1962 Missal, for who knows what purpose? Their favorite argument is that the Missal was fathered by Masons in the Vatican, possibly Msgr. Annibale Bugnini. Whether this is true or not--and there is no evidence in the Missal itself that it is--there is no reason why a priest should not use this Missal, if he chooses to. We have one such Missal here at St. Paul's Chapel, and I say Mass here in the same way that I do elsewhere using older Missals.

      The reader should know that popes periodically have found reason to issue new Missals; Pope St. Pius X did so in 1910. The obvious reason is that, as time goes by, saints are canonized and feast days are assigned to them. In addition, the popes are free to establish new feasts for whatever reason. Pope Pius XII established the feasts the Queenship of Mary (May 31) and St. Joseph the Workman (May 1). All editions of the Missale since 1570 have been essentially the same as the Missale Romanum issued that year, but all of them have been different in that they followed different Calendars. The Missale's Calendar indicates not only what Mass is to said on all the days of the year, but "ranks" the feasts, the highest being a Mass of the First Class with a Privileged Octave.

      In introducing the New Breviary, Pope John indicated that the main goal of the revision was a simplification, which meant eliminating certain unnecessary prayers and dropping certain feasts. There is nothing in the 1960 Breviary with which anyone should have any complaint. For the same reason, because the 1962 Missal was part of the same project, the changes to be found in it are altogether unobjectionable, even well-advised.

     Those who revised the Missal must have been reading the same liturgical essays we were reading in the seminary in the 1950s. Not all liturgists were revolutionaries. There were those who called attention to certain things that ought to be changed, because, not surprisingly, through the years since the last edition of the Missal (1925), and before, certain changes had been introduced which were out of keeping with the spirit and tradition of the Roman Rite. Both the Breviary of 1960 and the Missale of 1962 conform closely to this tradition. Most certainly, there is nothing in either of these works which suggests subversion or Liberalism.

      The reason I speak approvingly of the 1962 Missal is that its Calendar is a decided improvement on that of the Missale issued before it, that of Pope Benedict XV. Some of the reasons the Calendar is better are that:

    1. The ranking of the feasts is simpler. Before, there were feasts described as Simple, Semiduplex, Duplex, etc. Now there were only six grades of feasts: Simple, Double, Second Class, First Class, First Class feast with a Non-privileged Octave, Christmas, and First Class feast with a Privileged Octave, Easter and Pentecost. If there is no special Mass on a certain day, it is called a "Ferial Day."

    2. Now all Sundays are Second Class feasts; if another Second Class feast falls on Sunday, the Sunday Liturgy takes precedence. The purpose of this change is to make sure that the Sunday is given its due prominence. The Sunday Mass is part of the Christological cycle in the Liturgical year, as distinct from the Sanctoral cycle, and it is right that the Sunday Liturgy center on Christ our Savior. Other days in the Christological cycle are all the days of Lent and the Ember Days.
     
    3. All the octaves except the three feasts mentioned above were dropped. There were too many octaves, so that the Masses of certain feasts were repeated pointlessly. At times there were two octaves running concurrently (the Octave of St. Stephen during the Christmas Octave).
     
    4. The older Missals called for at least two additional Orations (and Secret Prayers and Postcommunion Prayers). Sometimes there was a fourth. During the Second World War, Pope Pius XII commanded that the Prayer for Peace and the Prayer to Our Lady be added at all Masses. Their inclusion caused that sometimes there were as many as four Orations. The 1962 Missal rescinded this accretion, and prescribed that there never be more that two additional Orations. There is no reason not to accept this rescission, as it is contrary to the spirit of the Liturgy to multiply prayers in this manner. The Roman Liturgy avoids anything verbose, sentimental, florid, repetitious, or superfluous; these are reasons why our Liturgy is so substantial, commanding, and admirable.
     
    5. Some of the feasts of Saints were dropped completely. There was no harm in this. Some people were greatly alarmed by this, as if the Church was thereby pronouncing that the individuals who, as they amusingly put it, "got the axe," were not in Heaven. It helps to remember that the Saints and Angels are members of the Church, members of the Church Triumphant. The Church is greater than they and the Church in no way diminishes their glory by reducing the rank of their feast days. (You can be sure none of the Saints lose sleep or needed counseling when this happens.)The Saints don't sleep, Dummy! Oh! You’re right. I wasn't thinkin'.)
     
    6. The introduction of the name of St. Joseph in the Canon was not new with this Missal. In the first session of the Council, Liberal bishops (probably coached by their more Liberal periti (advisors) began to make a great to-do about the fact that the name of St. Joseph was not in the Canon of the Mass. Their arguments were patently untheological, and patently shallow. They suggested that it was shameful that, after all these centuries, St. Joseph was still missing, as if this was an unpardonable oversight and disparagement toward the Foster Father of Christ, and the Spouse of our Lady--as if to say that our forefathers in the Faith deserved reprimand for such an omission. The reason why St. Joseph's name had never been included thus is obvious: Our Liturgy has its roots in the Church of the city and diocese of Rome. The names included in the Canon were the key personages in the devotion of the first Christians of the Eternal City: The Virgin Mary, St. John the Baptist, the Apostles, the first popes after St. Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clement, and Sixtus, and the great martyr heroes and heroines, who gave their lives for the Faith in Rome. The early Christians did not include the name of St. Joseph in the Mass because he did not take part in the public ministry of Christ and in the great redemptive acts of the Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension, as Mary and the Apostles did, nor in the establishing of the Church in Rome. Through the centuries, the Church gave St. Joseph special recognition and named him the Protector of the Universal Church, but there is still no reason to name him in the Canon.
     
        At the Council, the debate went for many days, when, toward the end of the First Session, Pope John, by his own authority included the name in the Canon. We know now that all the indignant protesting was not inspired by a genuine devotion to St. Joseph, because since the Council, less and less attention has been given to St. Joseph and all the other saints. The whole purpose of the demonstration was to "break the seal" of the sacred Canon of the Mass, to violate that which by its very name was meant to remain sacrosanct, untouchable, and inviolable. We priests who remember those days in 1961 cannot read the Communicantes at Mass without recalling that the adding of the name of St. Joseph was nothing but an irreverent and hypocritical tactic. We have had time to see that those who trashed the ancient Liturgy care nothing for the honor of St. Joseph, his most chaste Spouse, the Mother of our Savior, nor for our Savior Himself. Regardless, there is no point of argument now. No harm is done by omitting St. Joseph's name, or including it. The Church will settle this matter in a saner day.
     
    7. The 1962 Missal contains the "Restored Order of Holy Week," which was introduced by Pope Pius XII in 1956. It is markedly different from the 1962 Missal and was a harbinger of what might have been expected in a future liturgical reform. It is acceptable, but faulty, because it contains signs of Modernist/Liberal influence; it is meant to condition the faithful for things to come. The 1962 Missal was discarded with the introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae in 1969; the Restored Order of Holy Week is still very much with us.
     
        A glaring example of the Modernist mindset in the Holy Week Ritual is to be found in the Great Prayers of Good Friday. One of these Prayers, the eighth, is "For the Conversion of the Jews." In older Missals, the Prayer refers to the Jews as "perfidious" ("Oremus et pro Judaeis perfidis"). In the "Restored Order of Holy Week," the word perfidis is omitted.
     
        Moreover, the eighth Prayer is exceptional in the following respect: The other eight Prayers are for various intentions--the Church as a whole, the Catholic faithful, catechumens, those in false religions (who are referred to as heretics and schismatics), etc. Between the Invocation, that is, the invitation to pray for the following intention and why, and the Prayer itself, the priest (or deacon) invites the people: Oremus. Flectamus genua. (Let us pray. Let us genuflect.) The subdeacon, or the choir, or the people, respond: Levate. (Rise). In the old Liturgy, at the eighth Prayer, these words and this genuflection were conspicuously omitted. A prayer was offered for the conversion of the Jews, but this point of difference called attention to the experience that the Church has had with the Jews through the centuries, particularly to the tens of thousands of Jews who, during various epochs and in multiple places, entered the Church not to save their souls, but either for their personal, earthly gain, or for the sake of subverting it, or seizing control of it. The New Holy Week Liturgy prescribes that the Oremus, Flectamus genua, etc. be included, that the exception be removed. In such a seemingly inconsequential alteration, the revisers of the Liturgy gave vent to their opinion that, in effect, the centuries-old exception was improper, unchristian, and reprehensible, thus suggesting that the Church had been wrong in this rubric. It is due to this kind of thinking that while the clergy, led by the Pope, grovel in penitence and apology at the manner in which the Church found it necessary to deal with the impenitent "offspring of the Pharisees" through the centuries, the Church defaces and disfigures and deforms itself, and the Talmudic onslaught on all things Catholic, Christian, and supernatural proceeds in a rush. It is no exaggeration to say that the Church has been most orthodox and fruitful, when it has manifested true understanding of the Jews as Christ's and its own worst human enemies.


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4559
    • Reputation: +2772/-1261
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #54 on: January 07, 2019, 11:16:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • deleted





    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 368
    • Reputation: +1084/-231
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #55 on: January 07, 2019, 10:41:44 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • PAX
    Quote
    Quote: Drew
    Quote
    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.

    Agree, the True Mass cannot be abrogated.  I never said it had.

    I'm saying that the 1962 is ESSENTIALLY, SUBSTANTIALLY and NON-ACCIDENTALLY the same as St Pius V's missal, which is the same as Pope St Gregory's missal of the 400s and which is the same (in all essentials) as what Christ taught the Apostles.

    If you are arguing that the 1962 missal has serious, substantial changes to it, then please be specific.

    The 1962 Missal is the mid-point of liturgy reformation under the direction of Bugnini.  You are arguing  that his work produced liturgical improvement until 1962 and somehow, liturgical ruination thereafter.

    This is contrary to what Bugnini said himself.  Bugnini says in his own book that the liturgical reformers adopted principles of liturgical reform at the very beginning of their work in 1948 and those principles remained unchanged and were uniformly and consistently applied throughout his tenure. You are claiming that these principles produced liturgical perfection until 1962 and then liturgical ruination until the publication of the Novus Ordo.  In my opinion this is impossible.

    It is not possible to regard the liturgical principles of reform adopted by the Bugnini commission in 1948 as good in themselves but were unfortunately improperly applied after 1962, like a medication in a limited dose is beneficial and in an excessive dose may become toxic.  The principles determine the end for which the act is directed. The end of giving a medication is not the medication itself but the health of the patient.  The Novus Ordo as an end in itself is well visualized in the reformers from the beginning. In Pius XII Mediator Dei lists and censors numerous explicit liturgical acts that the reformers were already, not just contemplating, but implementing by the early 1950 in liturgical experimentation.


    PAX
    Quote
    Quote: Drew
    Quote
    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.  
    All the indult laws are superfluous, contradictory and illegal.  Your points above, while great points, are irrelevant to my argument.  The 1962 missal existed LONG before the indult laws, so these are irrelevant.

    You and Fr. Wathen may consider the 1962 Missal as a legitimate organic liturgical development but I strongly disagree.  All the evidence is against this opinion.  What Bugnini produced was not organic development but rather the implementation of artificial that according to Msgr. Gamber produced nothing but disaster from the very beginning.  But the argument is moot.   This may be your opinion and it is not my opinion.  But so what?  The question can only be settled when there is a restoration of the “received and approved” rite established by custom by legitimate Church authority.

    To say that “all the indult laws are superfluous, contradictory and illegal” is a useless claim even if were true.  Bugnini is the real author of the 1962 transitional Missal and Bugnini and those who commissioned his work considered the liturgy exclusively as a subject of Church discipline.  The laws that produced the 1962 Missal and those that did away with it by Paul VI are all of the same nature.   Those who have enacted these laws and those using the 1962 Missal regard these laws as valid and have accepted the use the 1962 Missal under these legal stipulations.  This, and this alone, is sufficient reason by itself to reject it because the “received and approved rite” cannot be a matter of mere discipline.  This argument will not work because everyone who now uses the 1962 Missal uses it as a grant of legal privilege or Indult. b


    PAX
    Quote
    Quote: Drew
    Quote
    A lengthy book could easily be written on the changes in the 1962 Missal and the damage they have done to the faith.
    Please explain in detail.  I disagree.

    In detail would take a lengthy book.  Hardly a week passes that you cannot see Bugnini’s hand tampering with the holy liturgy in the 1962 edition of his reform.  A compilation of these changes can easily be found with an internet search but the implications require some reflection.  In light of the Novus Ordo as its end, consider why were the following feasts abolished by Bugnini: St. Peter's Chair in Rome, Finding of the Holy Cross, St. John Before the Latin Gate, Apparition of St. Michael, St. Anacletus, St. Peter in Chains, Finding of St. Stephen, and others? He called them “gross accretions a and evident distortions”.
    In light of the Novus Ordo as its end, consider why Bugnini would end all but three Octaves and destroyed the liturgical relationship that existed between the feast day and its octave day?  There are many examples that I could give but I will limit myself to just a few.  Jesus Christ appeared to St. Margaret Mary and told her that he wanted the Church to establish a feast day in honor of His Sacred Heart.  Jesus Christ said the feast day must be celebrated following the “octave of Corpus Christi”.  There is a liturgical and theological relationship between the Sacred Heart and the Blessed Sacrament that Jesus Christ liturgically established and Bugnini destroyed.  The feast of the Visitation was established following the octave of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist for a specific reason.  The octave day is the day that St. John was circumcised and given his name.  It is the day the St. Zachery tongue was loosened and he prophesized his Benedictus, “To enlighten them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death; to direct our feet into the way of peace.”  The liturgical relationship concerns the prayers of the Church to end the Western Schism. There is specific relationship between the Assumption and the Feast of the Immaculate Heart; between Epiphany with the Magi and its octave the Baptism of Christ in the Jordan by St. John; between Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Feast of her Seven Sorrows.  Why do you suppose Bugnini with the Novus Ordo as his end in mind would want to destroy these liturgical relationships?  And for Christmas, Christ born in Bethlehem (city of bread) and laid in a manger (a feeding trough), where Bugnini kept the octave, he destroyed the relationship by ending the feast of the Circumcision which is the first shedding of the Precious Blood.

    Consider the vigils before great feasts such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption and all the Apostles.  Almost all of them were destroyed by Bugnini whose end was the Novus Ordo.  Or the feast for the dedication of Churches that the “received and immemorial” rite has always held in such esteem celebrating them in a season when they would always be celebrated on a common Sunday.

    Take the simple removal of the Benedicamus Domino which was said in Masses where the Gloria was not recited.  It is a tradition that can be traced back to at least the third century for the purpose of simply offering praise of God.  Why do you suppose the philistine Bugnini with the Novus Ordo in mind would want to end this tradition?  

    Bugnini eliminated the commemorations which included the prayers in honor of the Blessed Virgin, the saints, the pope or the Church, the repose of the poor souls from common Sundays.  He eliminated the second Confiteor before the communion for the faithful. He eliminated several details in rubrics such bowing the head to the tabernacle and crucifix whenever the holy name of Jesus is said, the use of the voice audible only to those serving in the sanctuary.  Why would Bugnini with the Novus Ordo as his end do all this?

    Many important feasts were not eliminated but downgraded so that they would never be celebrated on a common Sunday.  Why would Bugnini make the recitation of the Dies Irae optional at high masses?

    The litany of saints in the canon of the Mass has been limited to martyrs and the Church teaches that this is matter of Apostolic tradition.  St. Joseph is not a martyr.  Why do you suppose Bugnini with the Novus Ordo as his end would tamper with the canon of the Mass?  While addressing St. Joseph, his greatest feast was the Solemnity of St. Joseph which was replaced by Bugnini with St. Joseph the Worker.

    Fr. Bugnini argued that in “some countries there are popular non-Christian feasts that can be Christianized by celebrating some great Christian feast on the same day: for example, the feasts of St. Joseph” that would “achieve new brilliance if it were coordinated with the concrete exigencies of a particular culture.”  So, Karl Marx was an admitted Satanist, and his followers chose May 1st because it is the most important ancient pagan festival celebrated in honor of the demon known as “Beltaine” in the British Isles and by other names throughout Europe.  The name is believed to literally mean Bel-Fire, lord or god of light. It is the worship of the scriptural demon known as Baal in a pagan rite once requiring ritual human sacrifice.  Why do you suppose the Bugnini with the Novus Ordo as his end dump the Solemnity of St. Joseph for St. Joseph the Communist Worker?

    I have said nothing about the changes in Holy Week which can be found in their full development in the Missal of 1969.


    PAX
    Quote
    Quote: Drew
    Quote
    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.
    The competant authority is Pope John XXIII, if you believe he was pope.  If you don't believe he was pope, then I see why you would reject the 62 missal.  What is your stance?

    The same question could be asked about Paul VI.  "If you don't believe he was pope, then I see why you would reject the 65 Missal".  After all it was the Missal used at Econe before 1983.  If you like SSPX consider the liturgy a matter of mere discipline ant the pope is the "master of the liturgy" as Fr. Richard Williamson said, then why not accept these changes?  

    Yes John XXIII was the pope but liturgy is not a matter of mere discipline.  When Pope Leo XIII was asked to add the name of St. Joseph to the canon he replied that he was ‘only the pope’.  The liturgy is grounded upon dogma and John XXIII was the great neo-modernist.  Neo-modernism is a variant of Modernism.  The end of both heresies is to overthrow dogma.  Neo-modernism does it indirectly by positing a disjunction between dogmatic truth and the words by which the dogma is formulated.  In his opening address to Vatican II John XXIII announced that the purpose of the council was to reformulate Catholic truth for modern man.  The council was directed to neo-modernism from the opening bell.

    The 1962 liturgy is a Bugnini transitional Missal that existed less than two years.  It is now and has always been completely regarded as a subject of mere discipline.  It was created by positive law and replaced by positive law.  Those who control it and those who use it today regard it as a matter of mere discipline governed by the free will of the legislator as either an Indult or grant of legal privilege.  It is impossible to argue that any Catholic has a right to the “received and approved” rite of Mass while clinging to 1962 Missal.  

    Drew



    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1368
    • Reputation: +1322/-128
    • Gender: Female
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #56 on: January 08, 2019, 01:48:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • Quote

    6. The introduction of the name of St. Joseph in the Canon was not new with this Missal. In the first session of the Council, Liberal bishops (probably coached by their more Liberal periti (advisors) began to make a great to-do about the fact that the name of St. Joseph was not in the Canon of the Mass. Their arguments were patently untheological, and patently shallow. They suggested that it was shameful that, after all these centuries, St. Joseph was still missing, as if this was an unpardonable oversight and disparagement toward the Foster Father of Christ, and the Spouse of our Lady--as if to say that our forefathers in the Faith deserved reprimand for such an omission. The reason why St. Joseph's name had never been included thus is obvious: Our Liturgy has its roots in the Church of the city and diocese of Rome. The names included in the Canon were the key personages in the devotion of the first Christians of the Eternal City: The Virgin Mary, St. John the Baptist, the Apostles, the first popes after St. Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clement, and Sixtus, and the great martyr heroes and heroines, who gave their lives for the Faith in Rome. The early Christians did not include the name of St. Joseph in the Mass because he did not take part in the public ministry of Christ and in the great redemptive acts of the Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension, as Mary and the Apostles did, nor in the establishing of the Church in Rome. Through the centuries, the Church gave St. Joseph special recognition and named him the Protector of the Universal Church, but there is still no reason to name him in the Canon.
      
         At the Council, the debate went for many days, when, toward the end of the First Session, Pope John, by his own authority included the name in the Canon. We know now that all the indignant protesting was not inspired by a genuine devotion to St. Joseph, because since the Council, less and less attention has been given to St. Joseph and all the other saints. The whole purpose of the demonstration was to "break the seal" of the sacred Canon of the Mass, to violate that which by its very name was meant to remain sacrosanct, untouchable, and inviolable. We priests who remember those days in 1961 cannot read the Communicantes at Mass without recalling that the adding of the name of St. Joseph was nothing but an irreverent and hypocritical tactic. We have had time to see that those who trashed the ancient Liturgy care nothing for the honor of St. Joseph, his most chaste Spouse, the Mother of our Savior, nor for our Savior Himself. Regardless, there is no point of argument now.

    From PV
    last post quoting Fr. Wathen



    But he continues:

    Quote
    "No harm is done by omitting St. Joseph's name, or including it. The Church will settle this matter in a saner day. "


    :confused: Why not just wait until "the Church settles this matter in a saner day", and in the meantime do as St. Vincent of Lerins says: "Cleave unto antiquity" and go back to the 1954 Missal?

    We have a divine warning:


    Quote
    I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy...
    Pius XII Devant L'Histoire

    And Our Lady's warning of "Apostasy" from the top. Not to mention a Secret that was to be revealed by 1960 for obvious reasons and still has not been done.






    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

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4559
    • Reputation: +2772/-1261
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #57 on: January 08, 2019, 01:50:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    The 1962 Missal is the mid-point of liturgy reformation under the direction of Bugnini.  You are arguing  that his work produced liturgical improvement until 1962 and somehow, liturgical ruination thereafter.
    No, I'm arguing that Bugnini's liturgical changes were not ESSENTIAL changes up until 1962.  Once 1969 came around, with the novus ordo, the changes were so grave, serious and essential that the SUBSTANCE of the mass was changed in its liturgy, theology and doctrine.

    I've asked for specifics and you can provide none.  Instead, you are making a generalized argument, which is not logical.

    1.  Bugnini was a modernist heretic that wanted to destroy the mass and liturgy of the Faith.
    2.  Bugnini started his changes in the 40s/50s and the end result was in 1969 with the anti-catholic novus ordo.
    3.  Therefore, the changes starting with the 40s/50s/60s were evil because that was the intent of the author.

    This is incorrect logic because there are 2 sins involved and you are combining them erroneously.  The first sin is that of Bugnini's INTENT to destroy the mass.  The second sin involves the ACT of changing the liturgy, regardless of Bugnini's intent.  In other words, the ACT of changing the liturgy could be a venial sin or a mortal one, or none at all - it depends on what was changed.  To analyze this, one has to look at the actual missals themselves, and I say that the 1962 missal does NOT contain essential corruptions/changes to the missal.  It is BASICALLY the same missal as Pope St Pius V's missal, therefore it is still valid and legal.

    To use your logic above, let's apply it to a different moral situation and see how it is flawed:

    1.  John Doe was an alcoholic who lost his job and decided to go to a bar and get stone-cold drunk.
    2.  John Doe started drinking and ended up having 12 beers by the end of the night and was absolutely intoxicated.
    3.  Therefore, John Doe committed a mortal sin of drinking after his 1st beer because his intent was to keep drinking.

    The above conclusion is faulty moral reasoning.  Just like in the Bugnini example, there are 2 sins involved - one of a mortal sin of INTENT, which John Doe committed when he went to the bar and decided (in his mind) to get drunk.  But the ACTUAL sin of getting drunk was not committed until (I'm guessing) he had drank the #7 or #8 beer.  The time between the 1st and 7th beer was not a mortal sin but just a venial sin of excess, since it's not a mortal sin to get "buzzed".

    Just like the Bugnini situation, even though the 1962 missal was part of a liturgical "process" or "plan", that doesn't mean that the changes AT THAT TIME, in the middle of the process, were MAJOR, SUBSTANTIAL changes to the mass.  Until you provide specific examples, you can't argue that the 1962 missal is different from the missal of St Pius V.  The evidence says otherwise.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4559
    • Reputation: +2772/-1261
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #58 on: January 08, 2019, 02:05:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    You and Fr. Wathen may consider the 1962 Missal as a legitimate organic liturgical development but I strongly disagree.  All the evidence is against this opinion.  
    Whether or not the liturgical developments were organic or not is irrelevant.  What matters are two questions: 
    1) were the changes up until 1962 major changes to the mass?  Did they change the theology or doctrine inherent in the mass?  Did they change the mass itself?  Answer:  No.

    2) Did the pope approve such changes lawfully.  Answer: Yes.

    The pope has the power to "bind and loose".  The mass has both Divine (i.e. essential) and human (non-essential) parts.  The pope can NEVER change the Divine/essential elements but he can change the human/non-essential elements, of which the 1962 missal are an exercise of this power.

    Quote
    To say that “all the indult laws are superfluous, contradictory and illegal” is a useless claim even if were true.  Bugnini is the real author of the 1962 transitional Missal and Bugnini and those who commissioned his work considered the liturgy exclusively as a subject of Church discipline.  
    Doesn't matter what Bugnini's intent was, it matters what the Pope said in his law which revised Quo Primum (for the 8th time in 500 yrs) and issued a new revision in 1962.

    Quote
    The laws that produced the 1962 Missal and those that did away with it by Paul VI are all of the same nature.
      They absolutely ARE NOT similar at all.  Have you read these laws?  They couldn't be more different.  John XXIII said his missal was a revision of Quo Primum and was governed by this law and was a legal extension of it.

    Paul VI created a new missal, apart and separate from Quo Primum, and this was both highly unusual and legally unprecedented.


    Quote
    Those who have enacted these laws and those using the 1962 Missal regard these laws as valid and have accepted the use the 1962 Missal under these legal stipulations.  This, and this alone, is sufficient reason by itself to reject it because the “received and approved rite” cannot be a matter of mere discipline.  This argument will not work because everyone who now uses the 1962 Missal uses it as a grant of legal privilege or Indult.
    No, this isn't true.  The 1962 missal requires no indult (which Benedict XVI admitted in his "motu") and it still doesn't because Quo Primum is the ULTIMATE, PERMANENT and FOREVER version of the indult.  Those who choose to follow the lie of the ecclesia dei/motu laws do so because they are unaware that Quo Primum's legal protections outweigh a simple papal indult.



    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4559
    • Reputation: +2772/-1261
    • Gender: Male
    Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #59 on: January 08, 2019, 02:19:50 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • All the changes you listed concerning reduction of feasts and octaves, etc are not changes to the mass but to the calendar.  The changes to the mass were minor (if you don't include the addition of St Joseph to the canon, then the changes to the mass are almost nothing).

    Quote
    The same question could be asked about Paul VI.  "If you don't believe he was pope, then I see why you would reject the 65 Missal".  After all it was the Missal used at Econe before 1983.  If you like SSPX consider the liturgy a matter of mere discipline ant the pope is the "master of the liturgy" as Fr. Richard Williamson said, then why not accept these changes?
     Paul VI's 1965 changes were done outside of Quo Primum and, if you read the document, were not obligatory nor under penalty of sin.  Just like the novus ordo of 1969, these changes were not ordered by the pope's apostolic authority but were made "due to V2 documents".  No one has to accept these changes and they have no legal authority to bind because the pope did not say they did.

    Quote
    Yes John XXIII was the pope but liturgy is not a matter of mere discipline.  
    Agree.  But the pope can make changes to the human/non-essential parts of the mass, breviary, calendar of saints, liturgy, etc, etc.

    Quote
    When Pope Leo XIII was asked to add the name of St. Joseph to the canon he replied that he was ‘only the pope’.  The liturgy is grounded upon dogma and John XXIII was the great neo-modernist.  Neo-modernism is a variant of Modernism.  The end of both heresies is to overthrow dogma.  Neo-modernism does it indirectly by positing a disjunction between dogmatic truth and the words by which the dogma is formulated.  In his opening address to Vatican II John XXIII announced that the purpose of the council was to reformulate Catholic truth for modern man.  The council was directed to neo-modernism from the opening bell.
    Agree, but what matters is when do the changes cross the line into ESSENTIAL changes?  When is the Faith/mass actually changed into something non-catholic?  Before this point, the pope/Church has the power to make changes because the mass is both disciplinary (i.e. human laws) and doctrinal (i.e. Divine origin). 

    Quote
    The 1962 liturgy is a Bugnini transitional Missal that existed less than two years.  It is now and has always been completely regarded as a subject of mere discipline.
     Wrong.  The 1962 missal is essentially the same missal as St Pius V's missal.  This was made clear in the law which created it, it was made clear by the pope and is clear based on any method of comparing the 2 missals, side-by-side.

    Quote
    It was created by positive law and replaced by positive law.  Those who control it and those who use it today regard it as a matter of mere discipline governed by the free will of the legislator as either an Indult or grant of legal privilege.  
    It doesn't matter what people THINK about the 1962 missal, it matters what is - and this is based on the law.  If you read the law which created the 62 missal, it VERY CLEARLY says that it is a revision of Quo Primum and it intends to be the same missal except for updates of a minor nature.

     

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