CathInfo.com

You have no grounds whatsoever to insist that the 1962 liturgical Bugnni reforms must be accepted because they are legally binding by John XXIII in his Motu Proprio, Rubricarum Instructum and refuse to be legally bound by the 1965 liturgical Bugnini reforms of Paul VI in Sacram Liturgiam and Inter Oecuмenici.

Ok, I found some english translations of these 2 docuмents:

1.  Sacram Liturgiam  -  http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/motu_proprio/docuмents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19640125_sacram-liturgiam.html

There is nothing in this docuмent which affects the celebration of Mass.  Over 50% of the changes refer to the Divine Office.  About 33% refer to the sacraments of Matrimony and Confirmation.  The rest have to do with teaching the liturgy in seminaries and schools.

Legally, these changes are made at the request of Vatican 2, by the authority of the pope.  These changes DO NOT replace the 1962 missal, nor the 1962 rites.  This law (a "motu proprio" is a legal docuмent) does not revise, overturn or even mention John XXIII's missal or law.  Therefore, these changes are parallel to, or along side of the 1962 missal, which remains intact and is not affected by this law in any way.  If Paul VI had wanted to change the 1962 missal, he would've had to mention it by name and to say that these new changes are REPLACING the 1962 rubrics.  (This is what John XXIII did, when he replaced St Pius X's Divina Afflatu).  But Paul VI did NOT name or revise the 1962 missal, so these changes are the start of the "parallel rites" of V2.

2.  Inter Oecuмenici -  http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocuмentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/16/DocuмentIndex/378

All these docuмents just list out all the changes from V2.  There is nothing here that 1) binds any catholic to follow these changes, 2) tells us who these changes apply to, 3) what penalties are incurred for ignoring the changes, and 4) revises, overrules or ends the law which created the 1962 missal OR the law of Quo Primum.


The "diabolical disorientation" and satanic cleverness of the Modernists is such that they knew that they could never outlaw the True Mass, because to do so would mean that hell would prevail over the Church.  So, they decided to introduce confusion and trickery by creating a "parallel false rite" in the church, which the pope would approve of creating, but which, legally speaking, the pope did not, nor could not, force or order any catholic to attend.  The task of getting the people to accept the new rites was left to the bishops, who lied, decieved and confused the laity into thinking that the new rites had "replaced" the True Mass.  The pope was silent on the matter, while the bishops repeated the lie that True Mass was outlawed and outdated.  This went on for 50 years.  But no V2-pope or legal docuмent has EVER said this, and there is NO legal proof that the True Mass/62 missal was outlawed or revised.  The indults are an attempt to "legalize" what was never illegal.  They were meant to keep alive the lie that the True Mass was outlawed.  Benedict confirmed these were all lies in 2007 when he said that the 62 missal was never abrogated/outlawed.  This is all the legal proof we need as Traditional Catholics to continue our course.

PAX

Quote

Drew
I know of no historical record that docuмents a specific king who on a specific date decided to genuflect at the Credo but I do not question the legend.  If a king is inspired to genuflect during the Credo and this practice becomes a universal custom throughout the rite, the pope does not possess the authority to suppress it.  Why? Because the act was inspired by God and approved by God.

Who made the practice a "universal custom" except the pope?  Therefore, another pope can suppress it.  Human laws can be changed; I'm sorry, but that's a fact.

The pope is not the creator of universal custom.  He is the material cause by which it is given to the universal Church.  He also has the responsibility to guard and protect custom so that it does not become degraded or perverted. 

PAX

Quote

Drew
Established custom is source of law and the interpreter of law.  The purpose of the custom as an outward sign that is a profession of faith and adoration of the Incarnation.  The act is an outward sign that is an image of the true faith.  St. Thomas says that the faith can be denied in word or in act.  The act of genuflecting at the Credo cannot be suppressed without damaging the faith and the pope has no authority to damage the faith.  It would be an act of Iconoclasm.  He could only suppress an immemorial custom that became clearly abusive.

When Pope St Pius V codified the latin rite, he suppressed a plethora of rites which had been around for over a 100 years.  Some rites which were over 200 years also disappeared, voluntarily.  So who decides what is "established custom" and what isn't?  The pope does, because what the Church has added, can be deleted.

Pope St. Pius V established the term of 200 years for the determination of immemorial custom.  He made no attempt to suppress such customs because he had no right to do so.  What could not demonstrate a custom of 200 years was considered a novelty and not subject to the Church laws regarding the standing of custom.

You believe that the liturgy is a matter of mere discipline.  You have no grounds whatsoever to prevent you from fully supporting the Novus Ordo.  But the liturgy is not a matter of mere discipline.  If dogma were your rule of faith, then you might be able to rise above mere legalism.

I posted a nice quote from Msgr. Gamber referring to papal authority regarding liturgy.  If you read it before, read it again because it certainly needs to be reflected upon.  Msgr. Gamber was complimented by Benedict/Ratzinger as one of the few liturgists worthy of the name. 

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 faithful Catholics today are, like them, within our rights to refuse any of liturgical innovations that overturn immemorial custom.  That means we have right to refuse obedience to any applications of the Bugnini Pian Commission that intentionally conspired to overthrow the "received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments."

PAX

Quote

Drew
To argue that the pope has the authority to suppress this act of adoration is to presume that the liturgy is the work of man and therefore to presume that it is a matter of mere ecclesiastical faith and discipline that the pope created and the pope can do away with.  This is Bugnini’s presupposition that underlies all liturgical innovation that has done so much damage to the Church.
  
 If you accept that the pope can suppress the genuflection of the faithful during the Credo that you can offer no argument against any of the Bugnini liturgical innovations, not a single one of them.

 
Some parts of the liturgy ARE a work of man.  No matter how old a man-made liturgical custom is, it can NEVER become infallible, untouchable or of Divine-origin.  Sorry.

You believe that the pope can end any immemorial custom because they are of mere ecclesiastical faith and therefore a matter of mere church discipline.  The pope becomes your proximate rule of faith but that honor belongs to dogma.

If you re-read the quote previously provided from Msgr. Gamber, you will learn the Roman "received and approved" rite is and has always been regarded as a matter of Apostolic Tradition.  The implications of this explains why the "received and approved" rites are a formal object of Catholic dogma.  Remember, only objects of divine faith can be objects of dogma.

In principle, you have no real disagreement with Bugnini who was a liturgical Philistine.
 

PAX

Quote

Drew
The Motu Proprio of John XXIII, Rubricarum Instructum, has nothing to do, contrary to what you have claim, with Quo Primum or Divino Affatu, and therefore must be accepted.

Wrong.  It says it right in the law, in black and white.

John XXIII appeals exclusively to the work started by Pius XII, that is, the liturgical innovations of the Bugnini Pian Commission.  John XXIII is continuing the implementation of the plan to destroy the "received and approved" rite of Mass.  He may have been ignorant of what he was doing but that has no bearing on what was done. 

The only claim that you can make to Quo Primum from this liturgical reform is that it the docuмent is included in the preface of the Missal.  My answer to that is twofold: firstly, the docuмent was in all the 1962 revised editions through most of 1965.  If this is your argument then you must accept all this Bugnini innovations that I have previously docuмented including the Missal seen in the link previously provided showing pictures of the 1962 Missal in a 1964 edition that was in the vernacular.  And secondly, as explained above by Fr. Prummer, no law is valid that overthrows divine law, the general discipline, or contrary to the common welfare, which was the intention of the Bugnini Pian Commission from the beginning. 

PAX

Quote

Drew
What you had better give so thought to this.  The SP did not “free” the 1962 Missal.  He moved it from being an Indult to a grant of legal privilege.  This constitutes additional prima facie evidence that the 1962 Missal is not the “received and approved” immemorial Roman rite because the immemorial “received and approved” rite could no more be a grant of legal privilege than it could be an Indult. 

The 1962 missal was not "freed" by SP, I agree.  It didn't NEED to be freed because Quo Primum always allowed it, as (contradictorily) Pope Benedict admitted.  SP did not change Quo Primum's permissions, penalties or commands in any way.  The 80s indult laws didn't affect Quo Primum in any way.  Quo Primum is still law and it's missal (the 1962) is still the ONLY missal of the latin rite that can be used.

PAX, even if you are correct this is an argument for losers.  You argue in circles.  You claim SP proves that 1962 Missal has never been abrogated and then conclude from this it is therefore the "received and approved" rite of Quo Primum and everything after 1962 is therefore the Novus Ordo.  You cannot do this.  You cannot have it both ways. You cannot use SP to prove the 1962 Missal has not been abrogated and refuse to accept SP's teaching that the Novus Ordo and the 1962 Missal are one and the same rite.  The only possible reconciliation of these two claims is if the 1962 and the 1969 are both Bugnini Missals sharing a common provenance and, therefore, the 1962 Missal was never abrogated but rather obrogated by continued incremental Bugnini liturgical reforms. 

 

PAX

Quote

Drew
In accepting your grant of legal privilege you have made a profession of faith in the Novus Ordo and thus the entire liturgical reform; you have accepted the belief that liturgy is a matter of mere discipline; you have acknowledged that the 1962 Missal (whatever that is) can be outlawed; you have identified the Novus Ordo with the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal share a common provenance; you will have no legal or moral standing to complain when the 1962 Missal is changed; and you will have no legal or moral standing when your grant of legal privilege is modified or entirely withdrawn. 

How many times do I have to say this, until you get the point I'm trying to make?  Quo Primum is like the US Constitution and the indult laws (all of them) are like a state law which is contrary to the Constitution, therefore these lessor laws are null and void.  It took 50 years for rome to admit that Quo Primum is still in force, which Benedict did, when he said that the 1962 missal "was never abrogated, and thus always permitted."
 
 If the 62 missal was never abrograted/outlawed, then guess what?  The 80s indult laws that "allowed it" again were unnecessary and a waste of time!  Why?  Because Quo Primum is the law which grants a permanent permission to the true latin missal.  Thus all these indult laws are just "smoke and mirrors" and a way to confuse the people and control the True Mass.  It's all legal mindgames and trickery.

It does not matter how many times you say it.  If if is not true, repetition will not make it so.  Your claim that the John XXIII version of the Bugnini transitional Missal in 1962 is a based upon Quo Primum is pure baseless.  You take what you like for SP and ignore what you do not like.  And then you take what you like a draw ridiculous conclusions that do not necessarily follow.  What makes you so sure Benedict/Ratzinger was correct and John Paul II was in error?  Anyway, as stated before, the "received and approved" Roman rite of Mass can never be a grant of legal privilege any more than it can be in Indult.  The 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal has the unique distinction of having been both.
 

PAX

Quote

Drew
I think you and Bugnini have a lot more in common than you might think.

Really?  Are you unable to calm down and have a civil discussion without getting so bent out of shape?  You're a very smart guy and you've made some good points (which I will research and get back with you) but if you can't have a debate without hurling insults at me, then this is a waste of my time, because we need to just stick to the facts.  Getting off topic by acting like i'm trying to destroy catholicism is just ridiculous.  You're better than this.

Bugnini began with the inversion of what Celestine I called a dogma of faith.  The liturgy for his is a matter of mere discipline and therefore a matter of law.  Your replies are in the same vein, nothing but legalisms, efforts to find some legal loop hole that justifies what you want to do.
 
But as already said, even if were correct, they are worse than useless because the only defense against an abuse of authority is TRUTH and there is nothing of this in your posts.  I have heard the legal arguments before from experts.  Do you really thing this legal quibbling will win a canonical case or convince anyone?  All you have offered is your legal opinions which are worth less than nothing.  I consider it a waste.  You will never be able to defend Catholic worship.
 
Herein lies the great error of the SSPX.  Not only did they disregard dogma as the rule of faith, they reduced liturgy to mere discipline and therefore, legalisms.  In the very best case scenario, the SSPX will only be a conservative voice at the Reform of the Reform table.  They have refused to defend Catholic truth. If the Resistance is to bear any good fruit these error must be corrected.
 
Drew

How do you explain Pope Pius V suppressing several local customs and variants in the pre-Tridentine liturgy? The liturgical reform at that time removed many sequences from the Mass (leaving the few we have today, plus one was added later, well after Trent). It also stopped specifically a common Marian trope to the Gloria.

One might argue that authority has been overemphasized in the West - some Eastern Catholic theologians have suggested as much - but you seem to be going too far in the opposite direction.

Stanley,

I do not have a definitive answer to these questions.  I can offer educated opinion from a layman who has been reading and reflecting on these questions for nearly fifty years, but I make no pretensions to being a liturgical expert and I certainly do not have directive authority.  Furthermore, many of these questions are clouded.  We can clearly see that the Mass offered in 1950 is different in kind from that of 1970 but where one definitively ended and the other began is a matter of speculation.  This corruption has been effect by an abusive authority and the only weapon against an abusive authority is Truth, not opinion.  

My argument is very simple.  We know with divine and Catholic faith that the "received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments" CANNOT BE "changed into other new rites by any of the pastor of the churches whomsoever."  We know that the Bugnini Pian Commission intended from its beginning in 1948 the destruction of the "received and approved" rite.  We know by divine and Catholic faith that the liturgy CANNOT be a matter of mere discipline.  We know by divine and Catholic faith that we are obligated by God to believe what He has revealed, profess this faith publicly, and to worship God in the external forum.  We known by divine and Catholic faith that we possess a right to the "received and approved" rite because they are the necessary means to fulfill our obligations to God.  We known by divine and Catholic faith that Iconoclasm is a heresy and that Iconoclasm is the destruction of the images of our faith.  We have a grave obligation to profess and defend our faith even at the cost of our lives.  This profession and defense is impossible without the images by which our faith can be known and communicated to others.  

The Bugnini liturgical reform was intended as its end the destruction of the "received and approved" Roman rite, and in its place to propose a replacement whose images reflect a different faith.  His intent from the beginning was liturgical Iconoclasm.  In the practical order the end is first in intention and last in execution.  The execution of the liturgical destruction was carried out incrementally beginning in the 1955 Holy Week reform and continued until the 1969 Novus Ordo Missal and beyond.

It is useless to argue petty legalisms as to when the Bugnini reforms constituted a formal break.  That must be left to the authority of the Church in a more sober moment.  The only possible position that is certain is the return to the "received and approved" rite before Bugnini ever touched it and leave the legal quibbling alone. Then you won't have to consider the question of "going too far in the opposite direction".  The "opposite direction" of truth is falsehood.  

Drew