Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: nottambula on December 26, 2018, 02:59:45 PM

Title: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: nottambula on December 26, 2018, 02:59:45 PM
THEY REPORT THAT THE POPE HAS DECIDED TO DELETE THE COMMISSION "ECCLESIA DEI"


(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-m8--waQjWoo/XCPNJ4X8WKI/AAAAAAAAD7k/oMxS0jxf1YYwlVLHrLPx4nnVtVLqZm1pQCLcBGAs/s400/ecclesia-dei-logo.jpg) (https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-m8--waQjWoo/XCPNJ4X8WKI/AAAAAAAAD7k/oMxS0jxf1YYwlVLHrLPx4nnVtVLqZm1pQCLcBGAs/s1600/ecclesia-dei-logo.jpg)



ATTENTION: THIS COULD BE A STEP FOR THE REGULARIZATION OF THE FSSPX.


SOURCE: Messa in Latino (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=http://blog.messainlatino.it/2018/12/il-s-padre-sopprime-la-commissione.html&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhhtd7sR0q5DOQLiRC6toWW3AAhrKg) (Abstract, underlined added by NP) This information has beenconfirmed by Marco Tosatti in his blog (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=https://www.marcotosatti.com/2018/12/26/ecclesia-dei-liquidata-voci-credibili-speriamo-di-no/&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhiLJoGNrLZYzEH0uHsNuM_WvVXmjw) .

Unfortunately, reliable sources tell us, from different places and for several days, that the Pope has decided to dissolve the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission, which, in a very short period of time - it seems that at the beginning of the year or during January -, it would be indiscriminately Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, of which it was already a part, but with its own identity and its own functions, which , with the Summorum Pontificum and the Universae Ecclesiae, have been considerably expanded compared to the original, substantially limited competences to the return of priests linked to the Tradition and in some way connected to the SSPX (see below).

We must ask ourselves some questions:

(https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=https://www.blogger.com/null&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhjMncNEQoN6O5l5BejKL6iDMKFRtQ)one. Will it be a mere administrative / organizational reorganization within the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or will the intervention also extend to the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum and the Universae Ecclesiae, which explicitly foresee the existence of the Commission and assign specific tasks to it?

two. To whom will the stable groups go in the future to obtain the protection granted to them by the Motu Proprio and the Application Instruction?

3. Who will be appealed if the Bishops do not correctly apply the Motu Proprio?

Four. To whom will the faithful and the priests direct their doubts about the liturgical questions related to the ancient rite?

5. On whom will depend the Institutes that until now were called, precisely, "Ecclesia Dei"?

6 What will happen to the staff of the Commission?

7 Monsignor Guido Pozzo (67 years old today, my best wishes for Excellence), what new function will he have? Will he have it or will he end up as Card. Muller?


8
Who will be in charge of the relations with the FSSPX ?

9. Who will be in charge of the hundreds of priestly and religious vocations, of the numerous convents and monasteries that are still in process of creation, of the new religious groups, of the hundreds of thousands of the faithful and, in general, in the midst of the rupture? of the vocations, of the offerings and frequencies of the Masses- of the flowering of the new Catholic vocations?

The abolition of the Ecclesia Dei Commission responds to an old wish expressed by the SSPX, which has always seen the Commission as guarantor of the traditional "rival" groups in communion with Rome. The FSSPX prefers to deal directly with the CDF instead of a Commission under its authority. It seems that the Holy See considers it appropriate to comply with these requests ...

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com%2F&langpair=auto%7Cen&hl=en
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: nottambula on December 26, 2018, 10:51:05 PM
LAST INFORMATION OF TOSATTI ABOUT "ECCLESIA DEI"

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yNnQ_5tR8m8/XCQ3AidCREI/AAAAAAAAD7w/8PFMYurwdy8GKaSsKT1yPX5ybej-rhb2wCLcBGAs/s320/tosatti.jpg) (https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yNnQ_5tR8m8/XCQ3AidCREI/AAAAAAAAD7w/8PFMYurwdy8GKaSsKT1yPX5ybej-rhb2wCLcBGAs/s1600/tosatti.jpg)


Quote taken from the site (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=http://www.marcotosatti.com/2018/12/26/ecclesia-dei-pronto-il-motu-proprio-diventa-un-ufficio-alla-fede/&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhjk6mMbuNsC7Do1ouu4dMBXwXjP_g) of the Vaticanist Marco Tosatti:

"The Motu Proprio, which establishes the end of Ecclesia Dei as an independent commission and its integration as an Office in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is ready, signed by the Pontiff, and should have been published last Thursday. reasons why the document has not yet been published.

It is a fairly short legal text, in which it is said that the pastoral emergency linked to the celebration of the Vetus Ordo, which led to the creation of the Ecclesia Dei Commission thirty years ago, has come to an end ; and as a result, the Commission, too, in its current form, no longer has any reason to exist. " 
________________________

RELATED TICKETS:

FRANCISCO WOULD PRETEND TO USE THE FSSPX AS A CAGE FOR THE TRIDENTINE MASS (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2017/07/francisco-pretenderia-usar-la-fsspx.html&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhiTWlbbLRwgrK9u8juaRBKnm7ng-g)

THE HONEY JAR (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2018/12/el-tarro-de-miel.html&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhiJWaClTPRYI0uq7tXbSmN-7JVNgw)

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com%2F2018%2F12%2Fultimas-informaciones-de-tosatti-acerca.html&langpair=auto%7Cen&hl=en
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Regina on December 26, 2018, 11:24:41 PM
From the above link:

FRANCISCO WOULD PRETEND TO USE THE FSSPX AS A CAGE FOR THE TRIDENTINE MASS (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2017/07/francisco-pretenderia-usar-la-fsspx.html&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhiTWlbbLRwgrK9u8juaRBKnm7ng-g)

RUMORS IN THE VATICAN: POPE FRANCIS PRETENDS TO END THE MASS IN LATIN

ROME, July 26, 2017 ( LifeSiteNews (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=2&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-rumblings-pope-francis-aiming-to-end-latin-mass-permission&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhg1KkMQUSl5F20M_LWi55DswL4u7Q) ) : Vatican sources suggest that Pope Francis wants to end universal permission for priests to celebrate Pope Benedict's Traditional Latin Mass, also known as the "Extraordinary Form of the Mass." " While the line of action would be in tune with the expressly repeated disdain of Pope Francis for the Traditional Mass especially among young people, there has not been an open discussion of this to date.

Sources in Rome told LifeSite last week that the liberal prelates within the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, were casually overheard discussing a plan attributed to the Pope to abolish Pope Benedict's famous document that gives priests the freedom to offer the ancient rite of the Mass.

Traditionalist Catholics have just celebrated the tenth anniversary of the document, Summorum Pontificum. Pope Benedict issued it in 2007, giving all Latin Rite priests permission to offer the Traditional Mass without seeking the permission of their bishops, undoing the restriction imposed on priests after the Second Vatican Council.

The motu proprio outraged the liberal bishops, since it took away the power to prohibit the traditional Mass, as many did. Previously the priests needed the permission of their bishop to offer this Mass.

Additionally, Summorum Pontificum stated that wherever a group of faithful requested the Traditional Mass, the parish priests should gladly accept their request.  The plans that were heard are almost identical to the comments of a leading Italian liturgist in an interview published by La Croix earlier this month. Andrea Grillo, a lay professor at the Pontifical Athenaeum of San Anselmo in Rome, described by La Croix as "close to the Pope", is intimately familiar with Summorum Pontificum. In fact, Grillo published a book against Summorum Pontificum even before the papal document was published.

Grillo told La Croix that Francisco is considering abolishing Summorum Pontificum. According to Grillo, once the Vatican erects the Fraternity of St. Pius X as a Personal Prelature, the Roman Rite will be preserved only within this structure. "But [Francisco] will not do it while Benedict XVI lives."

The plan, as reported to LifeSite, involves making an agreement with the FSSPX and, with the agreement established, to confine Catholics who want the Traditional Mass to the SSPX. For most, this would take away their access to the Traditional Mass as there would not be enough SSPX priests to serve Catholics who want the Traditional Mass all over the world.

Furthermore, the LifeSite source suggested that the plan could explain the May 20, 2017 letter by the recently dismissed Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Müller. Although Cardinal Müller wanted the FSSPX to be completely reconciled to help fight Modernists in the Church, the letter of May 20 seemed to sink the agreement between Pope Francis and the SSPX, which would see them gain a personal prelature . The letter includes provisions that have long been completely unacceptable for the SSPX, thus nullifying the understanding that the FSSPX leader, Bishop Bernard Fellay, thought was imminent.

The LifeSite source suggested that Müller's letter of May 20 was perhaps written because he knew what Francisco was up to and wanted to prevent the plan to bury the Summorum Pontificum with Pope Benedict. "It is directed not so much against Fellay but against the agreement," the source said. "Pope Francis was very angry that the document came from Cardinal Müller, and some say that's why he made the decision to dismiss him."  
https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2017/07/francisco-pretenderia-usar-la-fsspx.html&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248
###

This announcement needs to be broadcast worldwide.
When Rome approves the SSPX, this means that no more Latin Masses will be allowed anywhere else, so the SSPX will have a monopoly.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: 2Vermont on December 27, 2018, 07:40:40 AM
It also looks like they are waiting for Bennie to die.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Regina on December 27, 2018, 01:27:46 PM
It also looks like they are waiting for Bennie to die.
It would not surprise me if Bennie were to be assassinated.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: 2Vermont on December 27, 2018, 01:42:19 PM
It would not surprise me if Bennie were to be assassinated.
What doesn't make sense to me is that Bennie doesn't seem to give a darn what they do, so why wait until he dies?  I mean, honestly.  Does anyone really think if they put this through while he was still alive that he was going to condemn Francis for it??  :laugh1:
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: nottambula on December 27, 2018, 03:35:29 PM
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/farewell-pontifical-commission-ecclesia-dei

Farewell Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’?

The Vatican body aimed at keeping traditional Catholics united with the Successor of Peter looks likely to be suppressed, but sources suggest it could actually be a positive development.

Edward Pentin (http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin)

Pope Francis is expected to issue a papal decree in the coming weeks that will effectively dissolve the pontifical commission charged with bringing separated traditionalist Catholics back into full communion.

Various reliable sources have confirmed to the Register that the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’ is to be abolished and its work absorbed into the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, of which the commission is already a part.

The Pope’s “motu proprio” authorizing the change is allegedly still in its drafting stages, but is expected to be published in January.

Although some have voiced concern about the move, sources within the Vatican and elsewhere sympathetic to the commission are more sanguine, telling the Register that the structural change could be positive and actually facilitate regularization of the breakaway Society of St. Pius X.  

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre founded the SSPX in 1970 in response to errors he believed had entered into the Church following the Second Vatican Council. Pope St. John Paul II set up the Pontifical Commission in 1988 in response to Archbishop Lefebvre’s decision that year to consecrate four bishops without papal permission, a schismatic decision according to the Vatican which led to Archbishop Lefebvre’s excommunication along with those of the four bishops. Benedict XVI lifted the four bishops' excommunications in 2009.

The commission’s role was primarily to care for Archbishop Lefebvre’s followers who wished to remain united with the successor of Peter, serving as the chief Vatican body in overseeing efforts to regularize the SSPX and bringing them back into full communion with Rome.

The commission has also had the task of regularizing canonical situations of other religious communities of a traditionalist nature, giving them a canonical form corresponding to their charism.

Added to this, the commission has had the responsibility of working with local bishops to facilitate Mass in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (according to the 1962 Missal) for those faithful who request it, especially after Pope Benedict XVI’s 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum which fully liberalized celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass if a “stable group” of faithful asks for it.

But according to the French traditionalist website L’Homme Nouveau (https://www.hommenouveau.fr/2738/politique-societe/la-fraternite-saint-pie-x-voudrait-la-suppression-brde-la-commission-ecclesia-dei.htm), the SSPX has viewed the Pontifical Commission as an obstacle to its negotiations with the Vatican and would prefer to deal directly with the prefect of the CDF, currently Cardinal Luis Ladaria Ferrer, rather than having to go through the current president of the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’, Archbishop Guido Pozzo. After years of talks between Archbishop Pozzo and the Society, few if any achievements have been made, the article says.

The rumored restructuring may therefore serve to address these concerns which the newly elected superior general of the SSPX, Father Davide Pagliarini, discussed with Cardinal Ladaria at a Nov. 22 meeting at the Vatican.

In a statement issued after those talks, Father Pagliarini stressed that for the SSPX the “fundamental problem is actually doctrinal” which “remains absolutely essential,” and that similarly for the Holy See, no canonical status can be established for the Society “until after the signing of a doctrinal document.”

“This restructuring is more likely a concession to the SSPX who aren’t interested in dealing with a structure like Ecclesia Dei,” said an informed Church source, adding that “what is central at the moment is discussion of doctrine rather than practical aspects.”
 
Part of Curial Reform?

Another possible reason for the suppression of the Pontifical Commission could be to do with the reforms of the Roman Curia. A new apostolic constitution, Predicate Evangelium (Preach the Gospel), is expected to be published in the first of months of the new year, and much of it is about streamlining curial offices and making them more cost-efficient. At the moment, Ecclesia Dei has a separate budget, so ending the structure and having its staff absorbed into the CDF could help achieve that as part of the curia-wide restructuring.

It could also ensure that various aspects of the commission’s work related to liturgy and religious life are kept within the arguably more sympathetic confines of the CDF rather than delegated to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, where the interests of the SSPX and traditional Catholics in general are likely to receive a less favorable hearing among officials in both of those dicasteries (CDW prefect Cardinal Robert Sarah notwithstanding).

Much of the alarm about the rumored changes stems from recent reports (http://blog.messainlatino.it/2018/11/cei-va-abrogata-la-messa-antica-papa.html) of some opposition to Summorum Pontificum within the Italian bishops’ conference, and a general belief — yet to be concretely proven — that Pope Francis wishes to repeal it and is opposed to the SSPX. Francis, however, has previously made a number of conciliatory gestures toward the Society, most notably granting all of its priests faculties to hear valid confessions during and after the Jubilee Year of Mercy.

Benedict XVI was the first to integrate the commission into the CDF when in 2009 he made the Congregation’s prefect the ex officio head of Ecclesia Dei rather than a cardinal president, which was the case until then.

For all these reasons, the general approach among sources both within the Vatican and among traditional Catholics is to “keep calm” and to wait and see what the final motu proprio communicates.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: nottambula on December 27, 2018, 03:39:11 PM
SYNTHESIS OF THE NOVELTIES ABOUT "ECCLESIA DEI" (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2018/12/sintesis-de-las-novedades-con-ecclesia.html&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhhDLOnGbTsfWe4GRk0CbdRCboEesw)

(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-b8xI02gTB00/XCTe6OrR15I/AAAAAAAAD78/_eWG4ZMwBtUUNPOvHVBwE-lpk5AEQd3bwCLcBGAs/s400/Congregation_for_the_Doctrine_of_the_Faith.jpg) (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-b8xI02gTB00/XCTe6OrR15I/AAAAAAAAD78/_eWG4ZMwBtUUNPOvHVBwE-lpk5AEQd3bwCLcBGAs/s1600/Congregation_for_the_Doctrine_of_the_Faith.jpg)
The headquarters of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to which the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei belongs

Quote from Vaticanist Marco Tosatti: "It is not a mystery that the reigning pontiff and a good part of his power group (in particular the prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, Cardinal Stella, one of the many Beria of the Vatican) , love, like the smoke in your eyes, everything that reminds you of the tradition, but that you have decided to push the Catholics to fill the churches of the SSPX, killing the liturgy Vetus Ordo seems really surreal. "A Cryptolefebvrist pontiff? ! " (from the article "Ecclesia Dei liquidada? Credible voices, we hope not." (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=https://www.marcotosatti.com/2018/12/26/ecclesia-dei-liquidata-voci-credibili-speriamo-di-no/&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhiLJoGNrLZYzEH0uHsNuM_WvVXmjw) ). 

Tosatti and, in general, the conservatives who value the Tridentine mass, think that the objective of the suppression or transformation of the pontifical commission Eclessia Dei, would be to restrict severely or, in fact, to prohibit the celebration of the mass according to the vetus ordo; what would cause that the faithful who at the moment attend the tridentine Masses celebrated according to the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum , are forced to emigrate en masse to the SSPX. Fearing this attack on the Tridentine mass, Tosatti expresses his hope that the suppression or transformation of Ecclesia Dei will not take effect.

Others, however (see here (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2017/07/francisco-pretenderia-usar-la-fsspx.html&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhiTWlbbLRwgrK9u8juaRBKnm7ng-g) and here (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2018/12/el-tarro-de-miel.html&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhiJWaClTPRYI0uq7tXbSmN-7JVNgw) ), maintain, for some time now, that Pope Francis intends to "kill two birds with one stone": restrict the vetus ordo and control the SSPX, giving it the great Greek gift of a sort of world monopoly on the celebration of the "extraordinary rite" (which necessarily involves the regularization of the Fraternity).

Another very important quote from Tosatti: "The Motu Proprio that establishes the end of Ecclesia Dei as an independent commission ... says that the pastoral emergency linked to the celebration of Vetus Ordo has come to an end, which led to the creation of the Commission Ecclesia Dei thirty years ago, and as a result, also the Commission, in its current form, no longer has any reason to exist. " ( source (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=http://www.marcotosatti.com/2018/12/26/ecclesia-dei-pronto-il-motu-proprio-diventa-un-ufficio-alla-fede/&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhjk6mMbuNsC7Do1ouu4dMBXwXjP_g) ) What was that "pastoral emergency"? For the existence of a congregation that, outside the control of liberal and modernist Rome, was able to attract to itself the Catholics who wanted to continue fighting in defense of the Catholic faith. According to the same Monsignor Lefebvre, this is the true purpose of Ecclesia Dei: it is, he said, a "Roman commission that is responsible for the recovery of the traditionalists to submit them to the Council" ( source (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2017/08/la-verdadera-mision-de-la-comision.html&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhhiOqPhWI7iSzaFyFt75d5oBbi8sA) ) . That is why some reasonably assume that the regularization of the SSPX is close.

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com%2F2018%2F12%2Fsintesis-de-las-novedades-con-ecclesia.html&langpair=auto%7Cen&hl=en
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on December 28, 2018, 12:00:41 PM

It all boils down to what Una Voce Malta reported in October 2017. The SSPX Prelature is around the corner with all the indult communities under the SSPX or they will have to accept the changes to the missal but remember that even the SSPX exemption will be only temporary.  

It's about time the Resistance damp the 1962 Missal. It was only transitional in 1962 and is still transitional in 2018 to bring the SSPX and indult communities back to the Novus Ordo.

 (http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2017/10/breaking-news-massive-liturgical.html)
Quote
http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2017/10/breaking-news-massive-liturgical.html (http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2017/10/breaking-news-massive-liturgical.html)
 
Sunday, October 8, 2017
Breaking News: Massive liturgical changes expected in 2018!

Reliable sources close to the Holy See have indicated that sometime in the second half of 2018, the Novus Ordo Lectionary and Calendar are to be imposed upon the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Mass.

The new Roman Missal will become available on the First Sunday of Advent 2018 but the Vatican will allow a two-year period to phase it in. These changes are expected to be much more drastic than what was envisaged in Universae Ecclesiae (http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com.mt/p/universae-ecclesiae.html) that states:
25. New saints and certain of the new prefaces can and ought to be inserted into the 1962 Missal, according to provisions which will be indicated subsequently. (emphasis ours)

The Vatican approved societies and institutes, such as the Fraternity of Saint Peter and the Institute of Christ the King, will likely apply for exemptions, but all requests are expected to be turned down. The only exception seems to be the SSPX, which might be granted a temporary exemption, to ensure that an agreement is reached between the SSPX and Rome.  However, if the exemption granted will be of a temporary nature, more SSPX priests are expected to join the so-called Resistance (formerly known as SSPX-SO) under Bishop Richard Williamson (http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com.mt/2012/12/the-sspx-is-de-facto-split.html) and more will go independent.This would make the traditional Catholic movement more fragmented than ever before.

(some emphasis mine), original link provided.



Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on December 28, 2018, 12:14:14 PM
Good, get rid of the whole "ecclesia dei" commission/law/motu proprio, which is a distraction and a subversion of the only law that matters (and which is still in effect): Quo Primum.

Let +Francis gut the traditional movement and see how the younger generations react - many of whom have discovered the TLM and see the emptyness of the novus ordo.  Let all the "conservative" catholics in the novus ordo truly see the evil and anti-catholic aims of the V2 hierarchy and what V2's real purpose was - destruction of the true faith.  Then, maybe they'll wake up!  Maybe they'll leave the V2 church!

Meanwhile, Quo Primum remains in effect, it's permissions to say the TLM remain, it's command to ONLY use the TLM missal remains and it's obligation for catholics to avoid any other missals, still stand in force, under penalty of sin.  Getting rid of the "ecclesia dei" fiasco will just make the battle lines clearer.

Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: poche on January 01, 2019, 01:16:54 AM
From the above link:

FRANCISCO WOULD PRETEND TO USE THE FSSPX AS A CAGE FOR THE TRIDENTINE MASS (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2017/07/francisco-pretenderia-usar-la-fsspx.html&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhiTWlbbLRwgrK9u8juaRBKnm7ng-g)

RUMORS IN THE VATICAN: POPE FRANCIS PRETENDS TO END THE MASS IN LATIN

ROME, July 26, 2017 ( LifeSiteNews (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=2&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-rumblings-pope-francis-aiming-to-end-latin-mass-permission&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhg1KkMQUSl5F20M_LWi55DswL4u7Q) ) : Vatican sources suggest that Pope Francis wants to end universal permission for priests to celebrate Pope Benedict's Traditional Latin Mass, also known as the "Extraordinary Form of the Mass." " While the line of action would be in tune with the expressly repeated disdain of Pope Francis for the Traditional Mass especially among young people, there has not been an open discussion of this to date.

Sources in Rome told LifeSite last week that the liberal prelates within the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, were casually overheard discussing a plan attributed to the Pope to abolish Pope Benedict's famous document that gives priests the freedom to offer the ancient rite of the Mass.

Traditionalist Catholics have just celebrated the tenth anniversary of the document, Summorum Pontificum. Pope Benedict issued it in 2007, giving all Latin Rite priests permission to offer the Traditional Mass without seeking the permission of their bishops, undoing the restriction imposed on priests after the Second Vatican Council.

The motu proprio outraged the liberal bishops, since it took away the power to prohibit the traditional Mass, as many did. Previously the priests needed the permission of their bishop to offer this Mass.

Additionally, Summorum Pontificum stated that wherever a group of faithful requested the Traditional Mass, the parish priests should gladly accept their request.  The plans that were heard are almost identical to the comments of a leading Italian liturgist in an interview published by La Croix earlier this month. Andrea Grillo, a lay professor at the Pontifical Athenaeum of San Anselmo in Rome, described by La Croix as "close to the Pope", is intimately familiar with Summorum Pontificum. In fact, Grillo published a book against Summorum Pontificum even before the papal document was published.

Grillo told La Croix that Francisco is considering abolishing Summorum Pontificum. According to Grillo, once the Vatican erects the Fraternity of St. Pius X as a Personal Prelature, the Roman Rite will be preserved only within this structure. "But [Francisco] will not do it while Benedict XVI lives."

The plan, as reported to LifeSite, involves making an agreement with the FSSPX and, with the agreement established, to confine Catholics who want the Traditional Mass to the SSPX. For most, this would take away their access to the Traditional Mass as there would not be enough SSPX priests to serve Catholics who want the Traditional Mass all over the world.

Furthermore, the LifeSite source suggested that the plan could explain the May 20, 2017 letter by the recently dismissed Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Müller. Although Cardinal Müller wanted the FSSPX to be completely reconciled to help fight Modernists in the Church, the letter of May 20 seemed to sink the agreement between Pope Francis and the SSPX, which would see them gain a personal prelature . The letter includes provisions that have long been completely unacceptable for the SSPX, thus nullifying the understanding that the FSSPX leader, Bishop Bernard Fellay, thought was imminent.

The LifeSite source suggested that Müller's letter of May 20 was perhaps written because he knew what Francisco was up to and wanted to prevent the plan to bury the Summorum Pontificum with Pope Benedict. "It is directed not so much against Fellay but against the agreement," the source said. "Pope Francis was very angry that the document came from Cardinal Müller, and some say that's why he made the decision to dismiss him."  
https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2017/07/francisco-pretenderia-usar-la-fsspx.html&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248
###

This announcement needs to be broadcast worldwide.
When Rome approves the SSPX, this means that no more Latin Masses will be allowed anywhere else, so the SSPX will have a monopoly.
I have never thought of the celebration of the TLM as any kind of 'emergency.'
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: nottambula on January 01, 2019, 01:17:57 AM
http://www.mondayvatican.com/vatican/pope-francis-what-if-he-shuts-down-ecclesia-dei

Pope Francis, what if he shuts down Ecclesia Dei?
by ANDREA GAGLIARDUCCI (http://www.mondayvatican.com/author/admin) on 31 DICEMBRE 2018 · LEAVE A COMMENT (http://www.mondayvatican.com/vatican/pope-francis-what-if-he-shuts-down-ecclesia-dei#comments) · in VATICAN (http://www.mondayvatican.com/category/vatican)
(http://www.mondayvatican.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/30700lpr_822ae767609abd0-150x150.jpg) (http://www.mondayvatican.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/30700lpr_822ae767609abd0.jpg)After 30 years, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei might cease to exist. Established by St. John Paul II right after the Lefevbrist schism in 1988 (http://www.mondayvatican.com/ecumenism-2/benedict-xvis-effort-for-unity-what-will-be-of-it), in order to entertain a dialogue with traditionalist parties, the commission was reformed by Benedict XVI with the 2009 instruction Universae Ecclesiae (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/rc_com_ecclsdei_doc_20110430_istr-universae-ecclesiae_it.html). The instruction linked the commission to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, since the issues were now mostly doctrinal. Pope Francis might take it a step further, turning the commission into a mere office of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The news was given with certain concern by the traditionalist blog Messa in Latino on the 26th of December (http://blog.messainlatino.it/2018/12/il-s-padre-sopprime-la-commissione.html). The same blog added these revealing comment to the already published post: “The suppression of the Ecclesia Dei Commission corresponds to a long time wish of the St. Pius X Priestly Fraternity, that has always seen the commission as a guarantor of competitor traditional groups that are in communion with Rome.”

What would Pope Francis’ decision mean?

If Messa in Latino was right, Pope Francis would be showing a preference for the Society St. Pius X, the SSPX, also known as Lefevbrist.

This preference could be seen in many clues. For the Extraordinary Holy Year of Mercy, Pope Francis decreed that confessions and weddings celebrated by SSPX priests were canonically valid. It was a step towards reconciliation. Confessions and marriages need specific authorization to be considered valid, and the effective validity of marriages celebrated by Lefevbrists had been questioned. The Pope made the decision to consider all of them valid. It was 2015.

In that very year, Cardinal Aurelio Poli, archbishop of Buenos Aires, gave the green light to the Argentinian government to register the SSPX as a “diocesan association”. A great SSPX pilgrimage to Lourdes was given permission to have their priests celebrate the Eucharist in the Basilica of Lourdes. Always in 2015, the then SSPX superior Bernard Fellay was appointed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith a judge of first appeal in a case of abuse that involved a SSPX member. The SSPX has always appealed to Vatican authorities in delicta graviora cases (the gravest crimes, that include abuse), but it was the first time the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith appointed Bishop Fellay as a judge.

After the appointment of Fr. Davide Pagliarani as new superior of the Fraternity, Vatican – SSPX talks continued. Pagliarani met on November 22nd with Cardinal Luis Ladaria, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. A SSPX press release after the dialogue stressed, once again, that issues of disagreement are mostly doctrinal.

Pope Francis’ alleged decision to dissolve Ecclesia Dei would follow Benedict XVI’s path: the Pope emeritus linked the pontifical commission to the congregation because the disagreement was mostly doctrinal, as liturgical issues were no longer a problem after 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (http://www.mondayvatican.com/church/bite-and-devour-a-story-of-false-clericalism), which liberalized celebrations according to the old rite.

Benedict XVI rationale was simple: the old rite (vetus ordo) was not suppressed, and so any fundamentalism on celebrations could only generate splits. By overcoming the rite issue, only doctrinal matters remained to be solved.

It is worth remembering that the Holy See presented to the SSPX a doctrinal preamble that the SSPX would have to accept to rejoin the Catholic Church. Those who saw the document said that the preamble was “really the minimum requirements,” and included the society’s acceptance of the Second Vatican Council, which is a controversial issue for the SSPX.

After Benedict XVI had lifted the excommunication to the three bishops illicitly ordained by the SSPX founder, Bishop Lefevbre, the SSPX was also – according to well-grounded rumors – offered the possibility to be a personal prelature. The only personal prelature in the Catholic Church is, for now, Opus Dei.

The talks were conducted by Archbishop Guido Pozzo, president of Ecclesia Dei, but they did not bear fruit. The election of the new SSPX superior re-opened the issue, as Pagliarani is certainly more radical, from a doctrinal point of view, than Bishop Fellay, his predecessor, though Fellay was not easygoing with Rome.

The election of Pagliarani shows how the SSPX is struggling to keep the core of its identity.

It is noteworthy that under Pope Francis, dialogue with the traditionalist world was however more advanced with the SSPX than with other traditionalist labels, even when these were in communion with the Catholic Church.

There is the Fraternity St. Peter, established 30 years ago to welcome those who wanted to leave the Lefevbrist and that carries forward the charism of celebrating the ancient rite.

And there are more traditionalist realities that had problems with Rome during Pope Francis’ pontificate. For example, Familia Christi, a traditionalist group in the Italian archdiocese of Ferrara – Comacchio. Pope Francis recently sent as commissioner Rome’s auxiliary bishop Daniele Libanori (https://www.romasette.it/il-vescovo-libanori-commissario-sulla-fraternita-sacerdotale-familia-christi/).

In the past, the Fraternity of the Saint Apostles in Brussels was ousted by Cardinal Jozef de Kesel (https://www.arcsanmichele.com/index.php/vita-della-chiesa/44-attacchi-alla-chiesa/7440-perche-la-chiesa-di-bruxelles-vuole-privarsi-dei-frutti-magnifici-della-fraternita-dei-santi-apostoli) for unclear reasons (https://www.arcsanmichele.com/index.php/vita-della-chiesa/44-attacchi-alla-chiesa/7440-perche-la-chiesa-di-bruxelles-vuole-privarsi-dei-frutti-magnifici-della-fraternita-dei-santi-apostoli) – formally, because it was a French order, not Belgian. The Fraternity had been previously welcomed by Archbishop André Joseph Leonard, Cardinal de Kesel’s predecessors, and revitalized the St. Catherine’s church in Brussels, which was closed and was going to become a general market.

At the beginning of the pontificate, the case of the Franciscans of the Immaculate broke out. Despite all the allegations and speculations, the Franciscans of the Immaculate were also likely victims of an internal discussion among Franciscan orders.

All of these congregations did not, however, enjoy the same Roman benevolence that the SSPX enjoyed. Obviously, they are all different cases, and each of them requires an in depth analysis. However, the ideological prejudice according to which Pope Francis would punish conservatives and reward progressives does not hold if one considers the bridges the Pope has built with the Lefevbrists.

Once again, Pope Francis’ way of governing is revealed. Why does he act this way, then?

One hypothesis can be advanced. While the Lefevbrists are a well structured and defined reality, and the dialogue with them can be sharp, traditionalist groups within the Church are, in the end, small groups, though the number of their followers is increasing. Pope Francis is likely more concerned of having many small groups within the Catholic Church than of facing a single group outside the Church.

Dialogue with the SSPX will not be possible on theological issues, despite hopes to the contrary. Dialogue on theology with small traditionalist groups within the Church can lead to a dialectic that can undermine unity.

Pope Francis has always stressed that unity need not be uniformity, but he also believes in the Holy Hierarchical Mother Church. For this reason, those who somebody considers “rebel” groups can be more problematic to him than the SSPX.

In addition to that, according to MessainLatino, the Lefevbrists had asked to talk directly with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, showing that they understood Pope Francis design. The Congregation is strengthening, as evident in the appointment of Archbishop Charles J. Scicluna as adjunct secretary (http://www.mondayvatican.com/vatican/pope-francis-three-signs-of-how-the-reform-is-taking-shape). This appointment is part of a wider project which aims at centralizing decisions. In this project, the Congregation is a focal point, especially in tackling the abuse cases.

In the end, all of the indications point to Pope Francis progressively centralizing decision making. Dialogue is addressed from the center to the periphery, and not vice versa. Hence, the decision of sending a commissioner or looking attentively at the various peripheral realities within the Church.

If Pope Francis will carry out the dissolution of Ecclesia Dei, this must be examined. However, Pope Francis’ decision might not come immediately. It could simply be included in the new apostolic constitution on functions and tasks of the Curia offices, that Pope Francis wants to personally revise. Or it could be carried out now and then certified in the reform, according to the model of the reform while walking.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: poche on January 01, 2019, 01:53:12 AM
SYNTHESIS OF THE NOVELTIES ABOUT "ECCLESIA DEI" (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2018/12/sintesis-de-las-novedades-con-ecclesia.html&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhhDLOnGbTsfWe4GRk0CbdRCboEesw)

(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-b8xI02gTB00/XCTe6OrR15I/AAAAAAAAD78/_eWG4ZMwBtUUNPOvHVBwE-lpk5AEQd3bwCLcBGAs/s400/Congregation_for_the_Doctrine_of_the_Faith.jpg) (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-b8xI02gTB00/XCTe6OrR15I/AAAAAAAAD78/_eWG4ZMwBtUUNPOvHVBwE-lpk5AEQd3bwCLcBGAs/s1600/Congregation_for_the_Doctrine_of_the_Faith.jpg)
The headquarters of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to which the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei belongs

Quote from Vaticanist Marco Tosatti: "It is not a mystery that the reigning pontiff and a good part of his power group (in particular the prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, Cardinal Stella, one of the many Beria of the Vatican) , love, like the smoke in your eyes, everything that reminds you of the tradition, but that you have decided to push the Catholics to fill the churches of the SSPX, killing the liturgy Vetus Ordo seems really surreal. "A Cryptolefebvrist pontiff? ! " (from the article "Ecclesia Dei liquidada? Credible voices, we hope not." (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=https://www.marcotosatti.com/2018/12/26/ecclesia-dei-liquidata-voci-credibili-speriamo-di-no/&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhiLJoGNrLZYzEH0uHsNuM_WvVXmjw) ).

Tosatti and, in general, the conservatives who value the Tridentine mass, think that the objective of the suppression or transformation of the pontifical commission Eclessia Dei, would be to restrict severely or, in fact, to prohibit the celebration of the mass according to the vetus ordo; what would cause that the faithful who at the moment attend the tridentine Masses celebrated according to the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum , are forced to emigrate en masse to the SSPX. Fearing this attack on the Tridentine mass, Tosatti expresses his hope that the suppression or transformation of Ecclesia Dei will not take effect.

Others, however (see here (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2017/07/francisco-pretenderia-usar-la-fsspx.html&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhiTWlbbLRwgrK9u8juaRBKnm7ng-g) and here (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2018/12/el-tarro-de-miel.html&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhiJWaClTPRYI0uq7tXbSmN-7JVNgw) ), maintain, for some time now, that Pope Francis intends to "kill two birds with one stone": restrict the vetus ordo and control the SSPX, giving it the great Greek gift of a sort of world monopoly on the celebration of the "extraordinary rite" (which necessarily involves the regularization of the Fraternity).

Another very important quote from Tosatti: "The Motu Proprio that establishes the end of Ecclesia Dei as an independent commission ... says that the pastoral emergency linked to the celebration of Vetus Ordo has come to an end, which led to the creation of the Commission Ecclesia Dei thirty years ago, and as a result, also the Commission, in its current form, no longer has any reason to exist. " ( source (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=http://www.marcotosatti.com/2018/12/26/ecclesia-dei-pronto-il-motu-proprio-diventa-un-ufficio-alla-fede/&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhjk6mMbuNsC7Do1ouu4dMBXwXjP_g) ) What was that "pastoral emergency"? For the existence of a congregation that, outside the control of liberal and modernist Rome, was able to attract to itself the Catholics who wanted to continue fighting in defense of the Catholic faith. According to the same Monsignor Lefebvre, this is the true purpose of Ecclesia Dei: it is, he said, a "Roman commission that is responsible for the recovery of the traditionalists to submit them to the Council" ( source (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2017/08/la-verdadera-mision-de-la-comision.html&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhhiOqPhWI7iSzaFyFt75d5oBbi8sA) ) . That is why some reasonably assume that the regularization of the SSPX is close.

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com%2F2018%2F12%2Fsintesis-de-las-novedades-con-ecclesia.html&langpair=auto%7Cen&hl=en
If there were to be some kind of reorganization could it be that a reorganization would really serve to strengthen teh presence of the TLM in the life of the Church?
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 01, 2019, 12:33:37 PM
New-Rome doesn’t care about the TLM because it cares about the Novus Ordo, which is the complete opposite of the True Liturgy.  New-Rome is waiting, like a spider in its web, for the neo-sspx to sign over their properties and souls, then the TLM will be hidden in a “prelature” and banished from most dioceses.  This prelature will include all the indult masses (FSSP, ICK, etc) and they’ll all be consolidated and controlled together under a few “quasi traditional” bishops.  Slowly and gradually, new-Rome will “update” and “modernize” this prelature until (they demonically hope) the TLM will be an empty shell of itself (just like the post 1962 liturgies were an “updating” and “modernization” of the 1962 missal).

If you deal with new-Rome, you’ll either become a Novus Ordo heretic or a lukewarm “conservative”.  But you’ll never stay a true orthodox catholic.  You can’t play with fire without getting burned. 
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 01, 2019, 12:35:56 PM


Time to trash the 1962 Transitional Missal (Extraordinary Form of the Novus Ordo)
and claim the pre-Bugnini by right.


http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-pact-between-pope-francis-and-society.html#more

Monday, December 31, 2018
A Pact Between Pope Francis and the Society of Saint Pius X for the Isolation of Tradition?

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IM0y6mfb71s/XCp0pQeyydI/AAAAAAAAWEs/s3eV8tSboGM5A-tQPmoMSNvUjSHf2-PFgCLcBGAs/s320/Lefebvrianer-Papst-Franziskus-Ecclesia-Dei-1030x438.jpg) (https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IM0y6mfb71s/XCp0pQeyydI/AAAAAAAAWEs/s3eV8tSboGM5A-tQPmoMSNvUjSHf2-PFgCLcBGAs/s1600/Lefebvrianer-Papst-Franziskus-Ecclesia-Dei-1030x438.jpg)
Is Pope Francis preparing to eliminate the Ecclesia Dei communities with the help of the Pius Brotherhood?

(Rome) More and more voices are dealing with the rumors that the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei is about to be dissolved.

The two authors Fabrizio Cannone and Alessandro Rico see it as a papal maneuver to assassinate tradition from behind. Anzeige Fabrizio Cannone, born in 1974, holds a Doctorate in Church History and Religious Studies, and has written for Corrispondenza Romana, Fides Catholica, Homme Nouveau and numerous other Catholic media. Most recently, he published the book: "The Inconvenient Pope. History and background of the beatification of Pius IX." (1)

Alessandro Rico, born in 1991, studied philosophy at the Sapienza and Political History of Ideas at the LUISS in Rome. In 2017 he published together with Lorenzo Castellani the book "The end of politics? Technocracy, Populism, Multiculturalism". (2) He calls himself a "Catholic, Conservative and Opponent of Political Correctness". Both are close to the Catholic tradition.



In recent days, the rumors have been nearly confirmed that Pope Francis in January 2019 will dissolve the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and their tasks will be transferred to the Congregation of the Faith.


Quote
"It's a decision that could hide a new chapter in the Vatican war between progressives and conservatives. With this step, Francis wants to start another offensive against his adversaries."


The Commission Ecclesia Dei was established in 1988 by John Paul II. It became the roof for the then and later emerging communities of tradition that remained in unity with Rome, when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the newly-consecrated bishops of the Society of St. Pius X (FSSPX) were declared excommunicated by Rome.

With the election of Benedict XVI. in addition, it was entrusted with discussions with the Society in preparation for reconciliation and canonical recognition. The Commission, headed by Curial Archbishop Guido Pozzo as Secretary, is also responsible for questions on the traditional form of the Roman Rite.

"Although Pozzo is not an ultra-conservative," the authors said, he has worked hard to bring the Society back into unity with Rome. "In the past, he rebuked the prelates who opposed the Tridentine Mass, which he regularly celebrates, so that he is a reference point for those who are still attached to the ancient Rite."

Pope Francis' new measure would therefore affect especially Archbishop Pozzo, who "was never disobedient to the Church". The Pope knows that the prelate would also submit to a dismissal from his present task without resistance.

However, Monsignor Pozzo was not only very popular with Pope Francis, but also - albeit for other reasons - with the Society. Both sides do not bother with the person, but with the institution he represents, with which the popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. have institutionalized tradition.  Pope Francis, because he sees neither need for this institutionalization nor understanding of the tradition.

In the past, he spoke of a "temporary fashion" that he could not understand. The Society is struck by this, because it sees itself as the exclusive patron of tradition, recognizing "competition" in the Commission of Ecclesia Dei and the Ecclesia Dei communities. There are resentments that go back to the year 1988, when the Motu proprio Ecclesia Dei was seen as a Roman countermeasure to the Society. This view is still to be found in the Society 30 years later.

The Society has petitioned in Rome its desire to be able to talk directly with the Congregation of the Faith, and not with the subordinate commission Ecclesia Dei.

Quote
"The pope, who finds it hard to bear the clergy and the faithful who are bound to the pre-Conciliar Mass, seized the opportunity to strike a direct blow to the conservative front by marginalizing Archbishop [Pozzo] without giving advantage to the traditional liturgy."

At the same time Francis tries to play the two traditionalist souls against each other. He relied on the desire for revenge by the Society against the resulting "competition" of the Ecclesia Dei communities. The Society, according to the assessment of Francis, also felt "more and more pressure" to come to an agreement with Rome.  Only three bishops have  remained since the expulsion of Richard Williamson, whose ages are 73, 61 and 60. In the Society there is a desire for more bishops.

If everything does not start all over again in 1988, it needs the consent of the ruling Pope. The authors underline that it is understandable in this context that in the circles of the Ecclesia Dei communities, the apparently imminent dissolution of the Ecclesia Dei Commission is understood as a "pact between Lefebvrians and Francis to the detriment of the other communities of tradition".  And further:

Quote
"Progressives are known to aim to free themselves from any remnant of the pre-Conciliar liturgy, even though Mass in its traditional form, attracts more and more believers, in contrast to many flat and disjointed Masses celebrated in our parishes. In November, Msgr. Roberto Maria Radaelli, Bishop of Gorizia, even claimed that Summorum Pontificum, the motu proprio of Benedict XVI, with which the Latin mass was restored, was not valid under Canon Law. "

In 2017, in a RAI interview, the progressive liturgist Andrea Grillo demanded that the traditional Rite be allowed only for a small, well-defined group that was to be strictly defined and controlled. His words were understood by observers as a requirement to create a closely guarded, exotic reserve for the Society of Saint Pius X, while the other communities of tradition now in unity with Rome should be deprived of their right to exist. Rico and Cannone are of the opinion that Pope Francis has made this demand his strategy with the aim of first eliminating the Ecclesia Dei communities with the help of the Society and then putting the Society on a short leash. They conclude with a question which, even after almost six years of Pope Francis' pontificate, has found no real answer:

"But why so much acrimony against the Tridentine Mass? The Catholic Church, shaken by sexual scandals and the plague of homosexual, pedophile priests, has very different concerns to worry about. In the Vatican, however, it still seems to be a priority to punish the Lord's Prayer, the cassock and receiving Communion while kneeling on the tongue. "
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: La Verità (screenshot) ______________________________
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: 2Vermont on January 01, 2019, 07:40:02 PM
So if I'm understanding the last post correctly, the plan is to get rid of the old indults to make way for the new indult: the SSPX?
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 01, 2019, 08:19:27 PM
Apparently +Benedict’s “motu” would be discarded and the TLM for all the dioceses would be stopped.  The only churches where the TLM would be offered would be the new prelature, which would include the sspx, FSSP and all the other indults combined.  It would probably have a new name as well.  

Traditio has long said that they think +Fellay would be in charge of this new, mega-indult “order”.  His “50 pieces of silver” payment for betraying Tradition.  Time will tell.  
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: poche on January 01, 2019, 10:34:30 PM

Time to trash the 1962 Transitional Missal (Extraordinary Form of the Novus Ordo)
and claim the pre-Bugnini by right.


http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-pact-between-pope-francis-and-society.html#more

Monday, December 31, 2018
A Pact Between Pope Francis and the Society of Saint Pius X for the Isolation of Tradition?

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IM0y6mfb71s/XCp0pQeyydI/AAAAAAAAWEs/s3eV8tSboGM5A-tQPmoMSNvUjSHf2-PFgCLcBGAs/s320/Lefebvrianer-Papst-Franziskus-Ecclesia-Dei-1030x438.jpg) (https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IM0y6mfb71s/XCp0pQeyydI/AAAAAAAAWEs/s3eV8tSboGM5A-tQPmoMSNvUjSHf2-PFgCLcBGAs/s1600/Lefebvrianer-Papst-Franziskus-Ecclesia-Dei-1030x438.jpg)
Is Pope Francis preparing to eliminate the Ecclesia Dei communities with the help of the Pius Brotherhood?

(Rome) More and more voices are dealing with the rumors that the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei is about to be dissolved.

The two authors Fabrizio Cannone and Alessandro Rico see it as a papal maneuver to assassinate tradition from behind. Anzeige Fabrizio Cannone, born in 1974, holds a Doctorate in Church History and Religious Studies, and has written for Corrispondenza Romana, Fides Catholica, Homme Nouveau and numerous other Catholic media. Most recently, he published the book: "The Inconvenient Pope. History and background of the beatification of Pius IX." (1)

Alessandro Rico, born in 1991, studied philosophy at the Sapienza and Political History of Ideas at the LUISS in Rome. In 2017 he published together with Lorenzo Castellani the book "The end of politics? Technocracy, Populism, Multiculturalism". (2) He calls himself a "Catholic, Conservative and Opponent of Political Correctness". Both are close to the Catholic tradition.



In recent days, the rumors have been nearly confirmed that Pope Francis in January 2019 will dissolve the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and their tasks will be transferred to the Congregation of the Faith.



The Commission Ecclesia Dei was established in 1988 by John Paul II. It became the roof for the then and later emerging communities of tradition that remained in unity with Rome, when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the newly-consecrated bishops of the Society of St. Pius X (FSSPX) were declared excommunicated by Rome.

With the election of Benedict XVI. in addition, it was entrusted with discussions with the Society in preparation for reconciliation and canonical recognition. The Commission, headed by Curial Archbishop Guido Pozzo as Secretary, is also responsible for questions on the traditional form of the Roman Rite.

"Although Pozzo is not an ultra-conservative," the authors said, he has worked hard to bring the Society back into unity with Rome. "In the past, he rebuked the prelates who opposed the Tridentine Mass, which he regularly celebrates, so that he is a reference point for those who are still attached to the ancient Rite."

Pope Francis' new measure would therefore affect especially Archbishop Pozzo, who "was never disobedient to the Church". The Pope knows that the prelate would also submit to a dismissal from his present task without resistance.

However, Monsignor Pozzo was not only very popular with Pope Francis, but also - albeit for other reasons - with the Society. Both sides do not bother with the person, but with the institution he represents, with which the popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. have institutionalized tradition.  Pope Francis, because he sees neither need for this institutionalization nor understanding of the tradition.

In the past, he spoke of a "temporary fashion" that he could not understand. The Society is struck by this, because it sees itself as the exclusive patron of tradition, recognizing "competition" in the Commission of Ecclesia Dei and the Ecclesia Dei communities. There are resentments that go back to the year 1988, when the Motu proprio Ecclesia Dei was seen as a Roman countermeasure to the Society. This view is still to be found in the Society 30 years later.

The Society has petitioned in Rome its desire to be able to talk directly with the Congregation of the Faith, and not with the subordinate commission Ecclesia Dei.

At the same time Francis tries to play the two traditionalist souls against each other. He relied on the desire for revenge by the Society against the resulting "competition" of the Ecclesia Dei communities. The Society, according to the assessment of Francis, also felt "more and more pressure" to come to an agreement with Rome.  Only three bishops have  remained since the expulsion of Richard Williamson, whose ages are 73, 61 and 60. In the Society there is a desire for more bishops.

If everything does not start all over again in 1988, it needs the consent of the ruling Pope. The authors underline that it is understandable in this context that in the circles of the Ecclesia Dei communities, the apparently imminent dissolution of the Ecclesia Dei Commission is understood as a "pact between Lefebvrians and Francis to the detriment of the other communities of tradition".  And further:

In 2017, in a RAI interview, the progressive liturgist Andrea Grillo demanded that the traditional Rite be allowed only for a small, well-defined group that was to be strictly defined and controlled. His words were understood by observers as a requirement to create a closely guarded, exotic reserve for the Society of Saint Pius X, while the other communities of tradition now in unity with Rome should be deprived of their right to exist. Rico and Cannone are of the opinion that Pope Francis has made this demand his strategy with the aim of first eliminating the Ecclesia Dei communities with the help of the Society and then putting the Society on a short leash. They conclude with a question which, even after almost six years of Pope Francis' pontificate, has found no real answer:

"But why so much acrimony against the Tridentine Mass? The Catholic Church, shaken by sexual scandals and the plague of homosexual, pedophile priests, has very different concerns to worry about. In the Vatican, however, it still seems to be a priority to punish the Lord's Prayer, the cassock and receiving Communion while kneeling on the tongue. "
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: La Verità (screenshot) ______________________________
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
I don't think that is likely to happen. People tend to vote with their feet. What will happen is that more people will be going to the TLM and then they will have to realize that novelties and are going to have to be the thing of the past and there will be more of a move toward reverence for what is holy. 
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 02, 2019, 12:10:48 AM
People have been saying that for 50 yrs
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: poche on January 02, 2019, 01:08:42 AM
This is why I believe that the TLM is here to stay;

In contrast, the “traditionalist” communities, where priests primarily celebrate Mass in the Old Rite, are continuing to grow. La Croix calculates that 20 per cent of new priests this year come from communities classed as “traditional” or “classical”.
These include three ordinations for the Institute of the Good Shepherd, two for the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter (FSSP) and two for the Institute of Christ the King. Younger priests are particularly well-represented among these groups.

https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2018/07/04/58-french-dioceses-have-no-ordinations-this-year/?fbclid=IwAR3kp5llUDsYO5xkFzQN6nhdUMhga5Gy3KYlhfYk9SWETC_jZocdhhoFEgI

These statistics are not counting anything happening in the SSPX.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: 2Vermont on January 02, 2019, 04:36:58 AM
Apparently +Benedict’s “motu” would be discarded and the TLM for all the dioceses would be stopped.  The only churches where the TLM would be offered would be the new prelature, which would include the sspx, FSSP and all the other indults combined.  It would probably have a new name as well.  

Traditio has long said that they think +Fellay would be in charge of this new, mega-indult “order”.  His “50 pieces of silver” payment for betraying Tradition.  Time will tell.  
Did you read this portion of the last update in this thread?  It seems to suggest getting rid of the other indults so that there is only one, the SSPX:


In 2017, in a RAI interview, the progressive liturgist Andrea Grillo demanded that the traditional Rite be allowed only for a small, well-defined group that was to be strictly defined and controlled. His words were understood by observers as a requirement to create a closely guarded, exotic reserve for the Society of Saint Pius X, while the other communities of tradition now in unity with Rome should be deprived of their right to exist. Rico and Cannone are of the opinion that Pope Francis has made this demand his strategy with the aim of first eliminating the Ecclesia Dei communities with the help of the Society and then putting the Society on a short leash.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Mr G on January 02, 2019, 10:21:28 AM
This seems to be the fulfillment of what Bishop Fellay explained back in 2016 in which only Tradition will exist only in the "Super diocese":

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/09/for-record-bishop-fellay-explains-what.html


[ . . . ] Rome is offering us a new structure. At its head will be a
bishop, chosen by the Pope
from a list of three Society members, named
by the Society. He will have authority over priests, over any religious
wanting to join the new structure and over Catholics belonging to the
new structure. These will have an absolute right to receive from Society
 priests all the sacraments, including marriage. This bishop will be
able to set up schools and seminaries, to ordain ( priests ), to
establish new religious Congregations. The structure will be like a
super-diocese, independent of all local bishops. In other words, for you
 faithful, there will be no change from what you are already enjoying
with the Society. The only difference will be that you will be
officially recognized
as Catholics.

"You can easily imagine that
there will be clashes with the local bishops. So we must be prudent, but
 as things stand you cannot imagine anything better than this offer,
which is such that you cannot think it is a trap. It is not a trap , and
 if anyone makes us such an offer it can only be because he wishes us
well .
He wants Tradition to prosper and to flourish within the Church.
It is impossible that such an offer could come from our enemies. They
have many other ways to crush us, but not that way [ . . . ].
(Aug, 24,
2016, Conference New Zealand)
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 02, 2019, 10:26:33 AM

Quote
Did you read this portion of the last update in this thread?  It seems to suggest getting rid of the other indults so that there is only one, the SSPX:

Right, so any priest of the FSSP or the ICK who wants to stay "traditional" will just join the new-sspx.  This new-sspx will be the only TLM game in town.  It will be easier for modernist rome to control and it will be "game over" for the TLM in the local dioceses. 
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 02, 2019, 10:36:48 AM
Quote
Rome is offering us a new structure. At its head will be a bishop, chosen by the Pope from a list of three Society members, named by the Society.

This is the exact scenario that +Lefebvre backed out of, in negotiations with +JPII.  He didn't want Rome to be involved in picking a new bishop because he didn't trust rome to choose someone traditional.

The 3 sspx bishops will retire in 15 years or so.  The new bishop for the sspx will be the only one chosen by rome.  What practical problems will arise in 15 years?  Let's see...

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".

2.  How will the sspx ordain priests with only one bishop?  2 bishops are ususal for ordinations (at least), so other novus ordo bishops will be called in to "help".

3.  When these novus ordo bishops "help", which rite will be used - old or new?  How would the faithful know?

4.  What kind of training will the sspx have at their seminaries?  V2 i'm sure.  Old and new rites, i'm sure.  Tradition and modernism together, i'm sure.  1962 missal and new latin/english hybrid missal training, i'm sure.

Etc, etc, etc.  This list could go on and on and on.

The sspx will be slowly but surely "updated" and improved until, 25 years from now, it will be an empty shell of itself.  That's how communists/freemasons/modernists work.  Slow and steady.  Patiently evil.  Long term demolition planning.  Same blueprint used after V2...
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: poche on January 02, 2019, 11:10:42 PM
Right, so any priest of the FSSP or the ICK who wants to stay "traditional" will just join the new-sspx.  This new-sspx will be the only TLM game in town.  It will be easier for modernist rome to control and it will be "game over" for the TLM in the local dioceses.
The SSPX is not an indult.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: poche on January 02, 2019, 11:26:14 PM
The 3 sspx bishops will retire in 15 years or so.  The new bishop for the sspx will be the only one chosen by rome.  What practical problems will arise in 15 years?  Let's see...

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".

It
looks like the SSPX is at an impasse. As of right now they have not made any agreement with the Vatican although the excommunications promulgated against their bishops have been lifted. They can make an agreement with the Vatican and the Pope will ultimately choose who (most likely from among them) will be ordained to the episcopate and carry on. Or they can decide among themselves who they want to continue on and they could ordain him to the episcopate without a mandate from the Pope, in which case they will all be excommunicated again. Or they could do nothing and the SSPX will die out without any bishop to ordain any of their priests.   
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 02, 2019, 11:30:27 PM

Quote
The SSPX is not an indult.
Right, not currently but we're talking about the future.  After they make a deal with new-rome, they'll have to accept V2 and the new mass and then they'll be an indult, just like all the other TLM/compromisers who are "under (heretical) rome".
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: poche on January 02, 2019, 11:32:58 PM
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. 
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: poche on January 02, 2019, 11:38:16 PM
4.  What kind of training will the sspx have at their seminaries?  V2 i'm sure.  Old and new rites, i'm sure.  Tradition and modernism together, i'm sure.  1962 missal and new latin/english hybrid missal training, i'm sure.

The training in their seminaries would very likely be the same. When there was serious talk about an agreement part of teh agreement was to recognize the particular charism of the SSPX  in the training of priests. I understand that Cardinal Ranjith wanted to bring them with him to Sri Lanka so that they could train his priests there. However, when no agreement was made that plan went nowhere.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: poche on January 02, 2019, 11:39:21 PM
Right, not currently but we're talking about the future.  After they make a deal with new-rome, they'll have to accept V2 and the new mass and then they'll be an indult, just like all the other TLM/compromisers who are "under (heretical) rome".
No one who is part of the SSPX is technically 'under Rome.'
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Neil Obstat on January 03, 2019, 04:19:52 AM
.
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.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: 2Vermont on January 03, 2019, 04:44:22 AM
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


Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Mr G on January 03, 2019, 12:21:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 03, 2019, 01:26:49 PM
.
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.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 03, 2019, 01:36:00 PM
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?
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 03, 2019, 04:10:24 PM
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://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Culture%20Wars%20reply%20for%20web%20posting%209-10.htm#_Traditionalism_at_the)
(http://www.culturewars.com/2010/Tether.htm (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 (http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Culture%20Wars%20reply%20for%20web%20posting%209-10.htm#_edn1) 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] (http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Culture%20Wars%20reply%20for%20web%20posting%209-10.htm#_edn2)  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] (http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Culture%20Wars%20reply%20for%20web%20posting%209-10.htm#_edn3)
 
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] (http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Culture%20Wars%20reply%20for%20web%20posting%209-10.htm#_edn4)
 
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:
 (http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Culture%20Wars%20reply%20for%20web%20posting%209-10.htm#_ednref1)    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] (http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Culture%20Wars%20reply%20for%20web%20posting%209-10.htm#_ednref2)   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] (http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Culture%20Wars%20reply%20for%20web%20posting%209-10.htm#_ednref3)   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.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: poche on January 03, 2019, 11:06:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: poche on January 03, 2019, 11:16:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 04, 2019, 09:03:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 04, 2019, 01:20:53 PM


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".

Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 04, 2019, 02:25:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: drew on January 04, 2019, 04:43:59 PM
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
  
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 04, 2019, 05:20:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 04, 2019, 05:54:59 PM
From the "motu": 
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum.html (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] (http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum.html#_ftn2)  Such was the case with our predecessors Clement VIII, Urban VIII, Saint Pius X (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/index.htm) [3] (http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum.html#_ftn3), Benedict XV (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xv/index.htm), Pius XII (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/index.htm) and Blessed John XXIII (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/index.htm).

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 (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/index.htm) 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 (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.

Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: drew on January 04, 2019, 07:20:13 PM
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



Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Stanley N on January 04, 2019, 08:35:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: drew on January 04, 2019, 10:46:28 PM
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

Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Stanley N on January 05, 2019, 01:00:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: drew on January 05, 2019, 06:35:49 AM
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
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Stanley N on January 05, 2019, 08:38:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: drew on January 06, 2019, 07:05:51 AM
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
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Mr G on January 07, 2019, 10:26:55 AM
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.
(http://www.nurturedevelopment.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/StrawMan2.jpg)

Beware of the straw-man!
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 07, 2019, 10:57:11 AM
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?
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 07, 2019, 11:13:08 AM
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.

Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 07, 2019, 11:16:18 AM
deleted




Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: drew on January 07, 2019, 10:41:44 PM
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

Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 08, 2019, 01:48:52 PM
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.






Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 08, 2019, 01:50:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 08, 2019, 02:05:06 PM
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.


Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 08, 2019, 02:19:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 08, 2019, 02:51:12 PM
Quote
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?

Because not all changes/updates to the missal are wrong; some are very necessary - like adding saints to the calendar or simplifying the feast day hierarchies (both of which the 1962 missal did, as Fr Wathen pointed out).

Pope St Pius X completely overhauled the Breviary 100 years ago?  I mean, the changes he made were DRASTIC.  The breviary/Divine Office today is NOTHING like it was before his changes.  Can we say that Pope St Pius X's changes were anti-Tradition or that what he did was anti-antiquity?  Of course not.

Further, what about the 1954 missal?  What missal came before it?  Why is the 1954 missal allowed to have changes/updates but the 1962 missal cannot?  What are you comparing the changes against, to make your determination of what is acceptable or not?

The only way to have a "litmus test" on missal changes, is 1) to realize that a pope has the power over the liturgy, in all non-essential, non-Divine origin matters and 2) if the prayers/rubrics are of human/Church origin (and not Apostolic/Divine origin) then the Church/pope can change these.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 08, 2019, 03:51:14 PM

We know the 1954 or earlier are "the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church", many Catholics don't have that certainty about the 1962. Not after reading Bugnini's own book. A transitional missal by his own admission. Anyhow, the divine warnings were given after the previous reforms and I believe it won't be long before we learn more about the 1962.
 

Quote
Canon 13, 7th Session of the Council of Trent says:  “If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administrations of the sacraments, may be condemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed by any pastor of the churches whomsoever into new ones; let him be anathema.” 

Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 08, 2019, 04:11:17 PM
Quote
We know the 1954 or earlier are "the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church",

How?  Why can Pius XII make changes to St Pius V's missal but John XXIII cannot?  Didn't Bugnini start his "updates" in the 40s?  


Quote
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.
Drew said the above.  If this is true, then my question is:

Isn't the 1954 missal part of Bugnini's updates, therefore just as wrong as the 1962 missal?  How can you say that Bugnini's updates in 1954 are ok but his updates in 62 are wrong?  Please be specific.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: 2Vermont on January 08, 2019, 05:09:40 PM
How?  Why can Pius XII make changes to St Pius V's missal but John XXIII cannot?  Didn't Bugnini start his "updates" in the 40s?  

Drew said the above.  If this is true, then my question is:

Isn't the 1954 missal part of Bugnini's updates, therefore just as wrong as the 1962 missal?  How can you say that Bugnini's updates in 1954 are ok but his updates in 62 are wrong?  Please be specific.
No Bugmini's influence started with 1955.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 08, 2019, 05:23:16 PM

Correct. AB Bugnini was commissioned in 1948 by Pius XII to head the liturgical reform but the changes were not implemented until 1955.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 08, 2019, 05:53:42 PM
Ok but you still have to show that the changes made to the 1955 and 1962 missal are wrong, are a new theology and/or teach new doctrine.  This is because, even if Bugnini was the re-incarnation of Martin Luther, his changes were reviewed/approved by the pope, who has the authority to make changes to the liturgy.  

How do we know that what Bugnini first proposed in 62 wasn’t super-heretical (like the Novus Ordo) but John XXIII rejected the major changes and just implanted one’s that were minor?  We don’t. Does it matter?  No.  All the matters is the end result - which changes of 62 are not major, even if Bugnini was involved.  

Until you start giving SPECIFIC examples of doctrinal/theological/heretical changes in 1962, then your arguments are baseless.  

You are arguing against Bugnini as if he was caught planning a murder that didn’t take place until later.  I ask, was he guilty of conspiring to kill the liturgy?  Yes. When did he kill the liturgy?  1969.  You would say, What about all the preliminary attempts in 62?    I answer - did anyone die in 62?  No.  So he can only be guilty of conspiracy, he can’t be guilt of murder until 1969.  This is when his plan was realized, not before. 
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 08, 2019, 07:36:34 PM
We know that the 1954 or earlier are "the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church". As my husband explain in the footnote quoted in the link below: " 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 received and approved").

Now there are "massive liturgical changes" coming to the 1962 as approved by Summorum Pontificum and it explanatory letter Universae Ecclessiae (of Benedict XVI, NOT Francis) though "more drastic than what was envisaged" but its purpose has always been to bring the 1962 missal back to the Novus Ordo while still calling it the "1962" missal. The article below is what all the recent  news are about. Does that sound to you as the "received and approved rite of the catholic Church? And if the pope is as the SSPX believes, "the Master of the liturgy" and as you said:  "...even if Bugnini was the re-incarnation of Martin Luther, his changes were reviewed/approved by the pope, who has the authority to make changes to the liturgy." Well Benedict, as the "master of the liturgy" had, in your opinion and the SSPX, "the authority to make changes to the 1962 missal" so why not accept it.

I really believe that the truth about the 1962 missal will be revealed soon. Just wait one or two years when the exeption for the Prelature expires.

 (http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2017/10/breaking-news-massive-liturgical.html)
Quote
http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2017/10/breaking-news-massive-liturgical.html (http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2017/10/breaking-news-massive-liturgical.html)
 
Massive liturgical changes expected in 2018!
Reliable sources close to the Holy See have indicated that sometime in the second half of 2018, the Novus Ordo Lectionary and Calendar are to be imposed upon the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Mass.
 
The new Roman Missal will become available on the First Sunday of Advent 2018 but the Vatican will allow a two-year period to phase it in. These changes are expected to be much more drastic than what was envisaged in Universae Ecclesiae (http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com.mt/p/universae-ecclesiae.html) that states:
25. New saints and certain of the new prefaces can and ought to be inserted into the 1962 Missal, according to provisions which will be indicated subsequently. (emphasis ours)
The Vatican approved societies and institutes, such as the Fraternity of Saint Peter and the Institute of Christ the King, will likely apply for exemptions, but all requests are expected to be turned down. The only exception seems to be the SSPX, which might be granted a temporary exemption, to ensure that an agreement is reached between the SSPX and Rome.
 

[/url]
 (#post__edn1)
Quote
   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.
 
^  footnote of the letter linked below.
http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Culture%20Wars%20reply%20for%20web%20posting%209-10.htm
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: 2Vermont on January 08, 2019, 08:00:07 PM
Ok but you still have to show that the changes made to the 1955 and 1962 missal are wrong, are a new theology and/or teach new doctrine.  This is because, even if Bugnini was the re-incarnation of Martin Luther, his changes were reviewed/approved by the pope, who has the authority to make changes to the liturgy.  

How do we know that what Bugnini first proposed in 62 wasn’t super-heretical (like the Novus Ordo) but John XXIII rejected the major changes and just implanted one’s that were minor?  We don’t. Does it matter?  No.  All the matters is the end result - which changes of 62 are not major, even if Bugnini was involved.  

Until you start giving SPECIFIC examples of doctrinal/theological/heretical changes in 1962, then your arguments are baseless.  

You are arguing against Bugnini as if he was caught planning a murder that didn’t take place until later.  I ask, was he guilty of conspiring to kill the liturgy?  Yes. When did he kill the liturgy?  1969.  You would say, What about all the preliminary attempts in 62?    I answer - did anyone die in 62?  No.  So he can only be guilty of conspiracy, he can’t be guilt of murder until 1969.  This is when his plan was realized, not before.
What about just the changes made to the Good Friday prayer for the Jews?
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 08, 2019, 08:09:26 PM
Quote
 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 Deias an Indult and now under the restrictive legal stipulations of Summorum Pontificum as a grant of privilege by positive law. 
This is just absolutely not true.  Pope John XXIII's law of 1962 is a revision of St Pius V's missal.  It precedes the Ecclesia Dei by over 20 years and "S.P." by 40 years.

You and Drew just keep repeating yourself, with no proof.  Have you ever read the 1962 law change?  I assure you it exists.  

Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: drew on January 08, 2019, 09:13:52 PM
This is just absolutely not true.  Pope John XXIII's law of 1962 is a revision of St Pius V's missal.  It precedes the Ecclesia Dei by over 20 years and "S.P." by 40 years.

You and Drew just keep repeating yourself, with no proof.  Have you ever read the 1962 law change?  I assure you it exists.  

PAX,

Let's try a different approach.

It was, of all people, Ratzinger, who commented that the idea that the liturgy is something that is “received” was done away with by the reformers and in its place developed the concept that the reformers could do whatever they wanted to the liturgy.  This is really the foundation of the Bugnini liturgical reform. It is my opinion that this became the unofficial formal policy after Pius XII in Mediator Dei in which he inverted, what Pope Celestine I called a “dogma of faith”, ‘lex orandi, lex credendi’, the law of prayers determines the law of belief became the ‘law of belief determines the law of prayer’.  

About six months after the publication of Mediator Dei, the liturgical commission was established by Pius XII with Bugnini as its secretary in 1948.  This commission envisioned the Novus Ordo as its end from the beginning of its work and as Bugnini himself said, the principles of liturgical reform adopted in 1948 remained the same and were consistently and uniformly applied throughout his tenure which ended in 1975.  The first application of the Bugnini reform principles to the Missal was implemented in the 1956.  From the changes in 1956 until the edition of the Missal in 1969 there were constant small changes.  Each change was imposed by the same authority of the pope.  By the time the Novus Ordo was imposed in 1969 almost all the liturgical changes had already been implemented excepting the three additional canons.  The typical parishioner accustomed to liturgical innovation found nothing shocking in the Novus Ordo because they were already doing it.

You argue that because the pope implemented these changes they should be accepted unless they are, in your personal judgment, harmful.  Therefore you accept all of Bugnini’s changes until 1962 and reject the Bugnini changes after 1962 because you regard them as harmful.  This is the same argument offered by Fr. Williamson in 1962.  It presupposes, as Fr. Williamson said, that the “pope is the master of liturgy” and he can do with it whatever he wants.  That is, the liturgy is a matter of mere discipline.  The problem with the argument is it makes the individual Catholic the “master of the liturgy” because he judges each individual liturgical change implemented by the pope.  This makes you the “master of the liturgy”.  

Your problem is serious because it is indefensible and makes defending the “received and approved” rites impossible.  I have put before you the same question asked Fr. Richard Williamson in 1983.  On what grounds do you reject the changes of Paul VI that were implemented in 1965 by Sacram Liturgiam and Inter Oecumenici?  These changes were accepted by Archbishop Lefebvre and used in Econe for many years until 1983.  Fr. Williamson offered no reply.  The same question was put to Fr. Laisney and he offered no reply.  I don’t think that you could reply to this question either.  

Unlike yourself, I do not place myself as the judge of the pope and his individual liturgical experimentations.  I attend the immemorial “received and approved” rite of Mass before any of the Bugnini changes were imposed.  I do not argue at what stage the Bugnini reform in act formally corrupted the Mass, at what stage it formally ceased to be the “received and approved” Roman rite.  I have already said to my local ordinary that should Rome at some time recognize the 1962 Missal as the normative edition of the “received and approved” rite of Mass, and declare that all the legislative acts that had reduced it to an Indult or a grant of legal privilege were null and void from their inception, and that everyone of the faithful has a right to the “received and approved” rites, then it is the Missal I would accept.  But until then, I assume that the liturgical principles adopted by Bugnini and the Pian Commission constituted a break in the organic development of the liturgy which resulted in the liturgy being relegated to a matter of mere discipline untethered from its dogmatic moorings.  

But not only has this not been done, it is unlikely to ever be done.  I do not know and neither do you what specific change that occurred between 1956 and 1969 constituted the formal breaking from the “received and approved” rite to the Novus Ordo Missa.  Our opinions are immaterial.  What is most certain is that I am attending the “received and approved” rite because I am attending the Mass that is untouched by Bugnini, and you may not.  What is also certain is that I can defend myself by appealing to dogma for what I do and I can appeal to the manner in which Rome has treated the Missal in its changes since 1956 as a matter of mere discipline open to the free and independent will of the legislator as prima facie evidence that it is not the “received and approved” rite because the “received and approved” rite could never be treated as an Indult or grant of conditional legal privilege.  You cannot.  All you can do is oppose your personal judgment against the current Roman authority as to what is or is not harmful to the liturgy because you have accepted the very first Bugnini principle of liturgical reform.

This first principle has been accepted by nearly all traditional Catholics.  Those who attend the Latin Mass in the 1962 Bugnini transitional edition accept it as a grant of legal privilege and in doing this they will have no legal or even moral argument when it is taken away, or revised in the "reform of the reform" to incorporate the celebrations of Novus Ordo saints, three years liturgical calendar, vernacular usage, etc.

Drew  
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 08, 2019, 10:17:28 PM
Quote
Therefore you accept all of Bugnini’s changes until 1962 and reject the Bugnini changes after 1962 because you regard them as harmful.  
No, I accept the 62 missal because IT IS A LEGAL REVISION OF QUO PRIMUM.  Regardless of the intention of the changes, regardless of the goal of the changes, regardless of who envisioned the changes, the changes themselves WERE NOT SUBSTANTIVE alterations of the St Pius V missal.  Therefore, the revisions are “approved and received” because in non-doctrinal changes, the pope has authority to chnage the liturgy.  In non-essential matters, yes, the liturgy is a matter of discipline because a lot of the Church’s liturgy is of human origin and development.  

The changes post 62 don’t have to be accepted because 1) they were not legally part of a revision of Quo Primum, and the documents never claimed they were. 2) the changes, therefore, lack the binding and authoritative legal elements that Quo Primum clearly expressed, and 3) Neither John XXIII or Paul VI ever commanded these changes to be accepted by all the Church, under pain of sin (unlike the 62 changes, which are enforced by Quo Primum’s strict regulations.)


Quote
Those who attend the Latin Mass in the 1962 Bugnini transitional edition accept it as a grant of legal privilege and in doing this they will have no legal or even moral argument when it is taken away, or revised in the "reform of the reform" to incorporate the celebrations of Novus Ordo saints, three years liturgical calendar, vernacular usage, etc.
I’ll quote what I already said before.  Please read this slowly and study the legal documents.

Pope John XXIII's law of 1962 is a revision of St Pius V's missal.  It precedes the Ecclesia Dei by over 20 years and "S.P." by 40 years.

The indult laws of the 80s and 2007 are null and void because they seek to limit the permissions and commands of Quo Primum, which are legally in force “in perpetuity”.  No post 1962 law/pope has EVER revised or ended the law of Quo Primum, as Benedict XVI admitted in his “motu”.  Thus, no Catholic must follow the indults (which are legal word games with no substance or penalty for ignoring them), or needs permission for the TLM because Quo Primum grants a perpetual indult/permission which is based on both doctrine and discipline and is legally binding under pain of sin.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 08, 2019, 10:40:08 PM
Quote
Unlike yourself, I do not place myself as the judge of the pope and his individual liturgical experimentations.  I attend the immemorial “received and approved” rite of Mass before any of the Bugnini changes were imposed.

I do too, however, for different reasons.

The Pope of Rome, as the legitimate successor of St. Peter, does have the right to introduce new Liturgical Rites or make changes to existing ones. If Paul VI is true Pope, then he would be at the exact same level as his predecessor, Pope Pius V. In the continuity of our Holy Religion, they are not different. To both, the entire management of the Church on earth was given by Christ. Why would you accept the changes of the pre-Tridentine Mass in the Roman Rite introduced by Pope Pius V in 1570, for example, and then reject the changes of his equal, in 1962?

You keep saying "the immemorial received and approved" rites of Mass. What do you even mean by that? Approved by who? Without the living Pope as supreme authority on these matters, such immemorial "received and approved" rite of Mass in the Roman rite would probably be the pre-Tridentine Mass before 1570, not even the Tridentine Mass of Pius V with Quo Primum.



Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 08, 2019, 10:48:46 PM
Drew, you also keep repeating that the heretical intentions of Bugnini make his (minor) changes in 62 also heretical.  This makes no sense.  

If a heretic or atheist’s evil intentions don’t affect their administration of baptism and which is valid so long as the process is followed then the evil intentions of Bugnini don’t affect his changes of the liturgy so long as the changes were minor (ie not affecting doctrine or theology) and the pope approved them legally.  
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Stanley N on January 08, 2019, 10:56:46 PM
You argue that because the pope implemented these changes they should be accepted unless they are, in your personal judgment, harmful.  Therefore you accept all of Bugnini’s changes until 1962 and reject the Bugnini changes after 1962 because you regard them as harmful.  
You keep arguing that the liturgy is "not mere discipline", yet everyone here says that.

The 1962 liturgy came about in traditional communities for mostly prudential reasons. When the SSPX grew to the point that some uniformity in the liturgy was needed (especially for the breviary so the priests could pray together), the Archbishop, as superior general, made a decision. And the quasi-1962 liturgy was adopted by most other traditional communities associated with the SSPX. I'll only speak for myself, but he could have decided on 1965, or 1955, or 1935, or 1905, or perhaps even 1570, and it would still have been the traditional Mass.

But it seems to me you should have a problem with the revision of the breviary by St. Pius X. Before St. Pius X, matins had 12 psalms, something constant for >1000 years of history going back to at least the rule of St. Benedict, and three psalms at the end of lauds (I think) everyday had >1500 years of history and probably dated from the synagogue before Christ. St. Pius X changed matins to 9 psalms and did away with the psalms at the end of lauds. These substantially changed how the breviary looked. How do you understand these changes?
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 08, 2019, 10:57:20 PM
Quote
Without the Pope as supreme authority on these matters, such immemorial "received and approved" rite of Mass in the Roman rite would probably be the pre-Tridentine Mass,
Good point, except the pre-Tridentine mass was revised multiple times by Pope St Gregory in the 400s, so his changes would be null as well.  Then in the 200s and 300s you had the development of the Greek, Syrian, Coptic, Byzantine and Latin rites and these would all have to be rejected too, since if the pope can’t make changes then the only “received and approved” rite would be the Aramaic rite directly from Christ.  
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 09, 2019, 06:02:44 AM
Good point, except the pre-Tridentine mass was revised multiple times by Pope St Gregory in the 400s, so his changes would be null as well.  Then in the 200s and 300s you had the development of the Greek, Syrian, Coptic, Byzantine and Latin rites and these would all have to be rejected too, since if the pope can’t make changes then the only “received and approved” rite would be the Aramaic rite directly from Christ.  

Yes, "the Pope has authority on these matters". But all the changes to the Missals previous to 1962 have been ORGANIC. If the pope could do anything he wanted ("master of the liturgy") it would not have been codified by Pius V. Re read Quo Primum and I recommend The Liturgical Year by Gueranger O.S.B.
 
Adding St. Joseph to the Canon is not a "minor" change. It broke away from the tradition of only having martyrs named in the Canon which Leo XIII refused even to discuss, when he was asked about it he replied: "I'm only the pope". He also had the vision of the future of the Church that prompted him to write the old Prayer to St. Michael.
 
Not only St. Joseph's name added to the Canon broke with a ancient tradition but the 1700+ years old Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews was changed.
 
The changes by Bugnini were massive and serious changes he viewed as "gross accretions  and evident distortions". I attend Mass daily and I'm edified by these "accretions" that as Bugnini said were only the beginning to arrive at the Novus Ordo and made it clear in 1962 that it was only transitional.


Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 09, 2019, 06:36:45 AM
Quote
Not only St. Joseph's name added to the Canon broke with a ancient tradition but the 1700+ years old Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews was changed.
Doesn’t matter.  

(1) Both these prayers were not from Christ, therefore they aren’t part of the Divine/doctrinal part of the mass, which is the ONLY part that can’t be changed. 

The canon prayers were not part of Church tradition until the 400s with pope St Gregory the great (and this only for the Latin rite...not sure if other rites have an old Canon).  

(2) they were added/created by the Church and an earlier pope, so  they are part of the human/changeable part of the liturgy.  A pope has the power to change human laws, however old.

(3) These changes do not affect the doctrine/theology/substance of the mass, either in its sacrificial nature or its purpose as the greatest prayer to God.

Not only are you “making a mountain out of a molehill” but you are making yourself a judge of the Pope, since you’re claiming that John XXIII doesn’t have the power to chnage what another pope added.  Hogwash.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: 2Vermont on January 09, 2019, 07:02:12 AM
Doesn’t matter.  

(1) Both these prayers were not from Christ, therefore they aren’t part of the Divine/doctrinal part of the mass, which is the ONLY part that can’t be changed.

The canon prayers were not part of Church tradition until the 400s with pope St Gregory the great (and this only for the Latin rite...not sure if other rites have an old Canon).  

(2) they were added/created by the Church and an earlier pope, so  they are part of the human/changeable part of the liturgy.  A pope has the power to change human laws, however old.

(3) These changes do not affect the doctrine/theology/substance of the mass, either in its sacrificial nature or its purpose as the greatest prayer to God.

Not only are you “making a mountain out of a molehill” but you are making yourself a judge of the Pope, since you’re claiming that John XXIII doesn’t have the power to chnage what another pope added.  Hogwash.
A couple of points (one in which I disagree with you and one in which I agree):

(1) I disagree that the Good Friday prayer doesn't change doctrine.  It removes the word "faithless/perfidious".  This certainly changes the way the Church has always taught to view the Jews (also keep in mind that this led the way to the Novus Ordo prayer that now states that Jews are actually "faithful").  

It is my understanding that the Church doesn't teach that Catholic doctrine is only reflected in certain sections of the mass.  If you believe otherwise, please provide Church support for that.


(2)  I agree with your point about judging a Pope if one believes that John XXIII is actually a true pope.  If John XXIII was a certainly true pope, then he can make accidental (vs substantial) changes to the liturgy just like any other true pope.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 09, 2019, 08:45:02 AM
Quote
(1) I disagree that the Good Friday prayer doesn't change doctrine.  It removes the word "faithless/perfidious".  This certainly changes the way the Church has always taught to view the Jews (also keep in mind that this led the way to the Novus Ordo prayer that now states that Jews are actually "faithful").  

It is my understanding that the Church doesn't teach that Catholic doctrine is only reflected in certain sections of the mass.  If you believe otherwise, please provide Church support for that.
Deleting the word doesn't change anything.  What it "led to" is irrelevant because we're talking about the 1962 missal, not what came after it. 

Secondly, this change affects one prayer, of one subsection of prayers, of one particular liturgy, which is used only once a year.  It has NO effect on the mass.  Hardly a ground-breaking matter. 
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: drew on January 09, 2019, 09:18:48 PM
No, I accept the 62 missal because IT IS A LEGAL REVISION OF QUO PRIMUM.  Regardless of the intention of the changes, regardless of the goal of the changes, regardless of who envisioned the changes, the changes themselves WERE NOT SUBSTANTIVE alterations of the St Pius V missal.  Therefore, the revisions are “approved and received” because in non-doctrinal changes, the pope has authority to chnage the liturgy.  In non-essential matters, yes, the liturgy is a matter of discipline because a lot of the Church’s liturgy is of human origin and development.  

The changes post 62 don’t have to be accepted because 1) they were not legally part of a revision of Quo Primum, and the documents never claimed they were. 2) the changes, therefore, lack the binding and authoritative legal elements that Quo Primum clearly expressed, and 3) Neither John XXIII or Paul VI ever commanded these changes to be accepted by all the Church, under pain of sin (unlike the 62 changes, which are enforced by Quo Primum’s strict regulations.)

I’ll quote what I already said before.  Please read this slowly and study the legal documents.

Pope John XXIII's law of 1962 is a revision of St Pius V's missal.  It precedes the Ecclesia Dei by over 20 years and "S.P." by 40 years.

The indult laws of the 80s and 2007 are null and void because they seek to limit the permissions and commands of Quo Primum, which are legally in force “in perpetuity”.  No post 1962 law/pope has EVER revised or ended the law of Quo Primum, as Benedict XVI admitted in his “motu”.  Thus, no Catholic must follow the indults (which are legal word games with no substance or penalty for ignoring them), or needs permission for the TLM because Quo Primum grants a perpetual indult/permission which is based on both doctrine and discipline and is legally binding under pain of sin.


PAX,

Your entire conceptual presentation of the typical 1962 Missal as an organic emendation of Quo Primum is a fantasy.  It is fantasy because no one really knows what the 1962 typical edition is.  

This Missal and breviary were published in a general form in the Motu Proprio, Rubricarum Instructum, on July 25, 1962.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/la/motu_proprio/documents/hf_j-xxiii_motu-proprio_19600725_rubricarum-instructum.html (http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/la/motu_proprio/documents/hf_j-xxiii_motu-proprio_19600725_rubricarum-instructum.html)

There is no mention of Quo Priumum in this document.  And neither does the publication by the Cardinal Larraona, Sacred Congregation of Rites who was responsible for the publication of the Missal and breviary.  (I have included a picture of that document, but not sure if it uploaded properly).


(http://file:///C:\Users\DM1F5D~1.DRE\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.jpg)

What John XXIII does appeal to in Rubricarum Instructum is the Pian Commission and he says that he is implementing their work in anticipation of the Council.

You are claiming that the 1962 typical edition is an organic development of the Roman rite and has all the binding authority of Quo Primum.  The only possible grounds for this is that the Quo Primum was reprinted in the preface of the Missal.  Now understand this, Quo Primum was in every edition of the 1962 Missal until the Missal that was published in 1965.  In the later editions of the 1962 Missal the entire Mass was in the vernacular excepting the canon.  This is a link to pictures a late edition of the 1962 Missal in the vernacular.  
https://ordorecitandi.blogspot.com/search?q=1962 (https://ordorecitandi.blogspot.com/search?q=1962)

What is worse for your argument, the first typical edition of the 1962 Missal was first published in July 25, 1962. St. Joseph’s name was not added to the communicantes until December 8, 1962 by John XXIII in Nove hisce temporibus.  Every subsequent republication of the 1962 Missal contains the name of St. Joseph in the canon. So just what is the “typical edition” of the 1962 Missal?  I do not know and neither do you, and a lot of people who are very knowledgeable about this question have not arrived at any definitive answer either.

In Summorum Pontificum multiple references are made to the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/index.htm) in 1962 but the only reference link is to the Vatican web page of John XXIII providing links to all his publications and speeches. No “typical edition” of the 1962 Missal is identified.  Why?  Because no one knows what it is.


The 1962 Missal is a Bugnini transitional Missal and characteristic of all the Bugnini transitional missals, they were here today and gone tomorrow.  Bugnini took credit for the 1962 Missal and in the very act of taking credit for it, he announced that the Missal itself was already history.  The liturgical transition that Bugnini effected was the moving from the “received and approved” rite of Mass to the man-made production of the Novus Ordo.  The end was visualized from the beginning. One example to demonstrate this claim:

Quote
One sees disagreement over ideas with the Benedictine's view that the Octave (of Pentecost) be retained but with the others agreeing it should be abolished. The 1948 Commission took the decision to abolish the Octave of Pentecost at its seventh meeting on February 14th, 1950. (Vide: Bugnini, 'Reform..', p.320 & Giampietro, 'Antonelli..', p. 289) although this was not to happen in practice for two decades being dependent on working out the lectionary etc. for 'Ordinary Time'.  
Rubricarius, St. Lawrence Press

I have Bugnini’s book, but I do not have compatriot Antonelli’s.  Bugnini’s book is full of examples that were adopted by the Pian Commission but were not implemented for many years.

But the end for which Bugnini was working for you is immaterial.  You argue for the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal that intention for the changes and the end for which the changes were made is immaterial because the changes were legally imposed by John XXIII.  You claim that “a lot of the liturgy is of human origin and development”, that is, you are claiming the liturgy is essentially a matter of mere discipline and that the lawgiver can do with it what he please as long as it is a “non-essential matter”.  I disagree and think that if you would spend a year reading daily Dom Gueranger’s The Liturgical Year, you would recognize how very, very little of the liturgy is of “human origin”.  It is essentially overall and in specific details the work of the Holy Ghost. Even Msgr. Gamber who was praised by Cardinal Ratzinger does not support this claim on the origin of the liturgy and the authority of the pope to do whatever he wants:

Quote
   "However, the term disciplina in no way applies to the liturgical rite of the Mass, particularly in light of the fact that the popes have repeatedly observed that the rite is founded on apostolic tradition (several popes are then quoted in the footnote). For this reason alone, the rite cannot fall into the category of 'discipline and rule of the Church.'  To this we can add that there is not a single 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
                                                                               
You accept the 1962 edition of the Bugnini transitional Missal because it was approved by the pope and you do not find anything in the Missal that offends your sense of what is “essential”.  You reject the 1965 transitional Missal even though it was approved by the pope because it offends your sense of what is “essential”.  You have made yourself the judge of what or what is not essential in the liturgy and that is an authority you do not possess.
 Even Archbishop Lefebvre used the 1965 edition and with even some subsequent Bugnini changes after 1965 at Econe through the 70s and possibly until 1983.  He found nothing in them that corrupted what he thought was “essential.”


Your argument can go nowhere. Neither you nor I can offer any more than opinions regarding what the pope can and cannot do regarding the liturgy.  Neither you nor I can determine exactly when the Novus Ordo replaced the “received and approved” Roman rite.  I admit this but you do not.

What I do is return to what is certain before Bugnini laid his filthy Masonic hands on the work of the Holy Ghost, with an argument grounded upon Catholic dogma.  What you cling to is an illusion that has no more stability now than it did in 1962 and cannot now or ever serve as unifying force defending Catholic tradition.  

Drew  


Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on January 09, 2019, 10:38:08 PM
1962 Mass is valid and Catholic, as long as the priest is validly ordained. The 1962 Mass is even licit because adding the St. Joseph prayer didn't change the essence of the the Mass. Quo Primum allows small changes to the Mass, but it outlaws anything that makes substantial changes to, or replaces, the Tridentine Mass in the Latin Rite. Notwithstanding John XXIII adding St. Joseph to the Canon of the 1962 Missal was an act of false piety to trick the Church into accepting future massive changes and, ultimately, replacement of the true Mass with the Novus Ordo sacrilege, the St. Joseph addition, per se, doesn't make the 1962 Mass illicit nor invalid.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Quid Retribuam Domino on January 09, 2019, 11:10:43 PM
1962 Mass is valid and Catholic, as long as the priest is validly ordained. The 1962 Mass is even licit because adding the St. Joseph prayer didn't change the essence of the the Mass. Quo Primum allows small changes to the Mass, but it outlaws anything that makes substantial changes to, or replaces, the Tridentine Mass in the Latin Rite. Notwithstanding John XXIII adding St. Joseph to the Canon of the 1962 Missal was an act of false piety to trick the Church into accepting future massive changes and, ultimately, replacement of the true Mass with the Novus Ordo sacrilege, the St. Joseph addition, per se, doesn't make the 1962 Mass illicit nor invalid.

Edit - I meant just adding St. Joseph, not "St. Joseph prayer"
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 10, 2019, 10:03:59 AM
Quote
Your entire conceptual presentation of the typical 1962 Missal as an organic emendation of Quo Primum is a fantasy....This Missal and breviary were published in a general form in the Motu Proprio, Rubricarum Instructum, on July 25, 1962.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/la/motu_proprio/documents/hf_j-xxiii_motu-proprio_19600725_rubricarum-instructum.html (http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/la/motu_proprio/documents/hf_j-xxiii_motu-proprio_19600725_rubricarum-instructum.html)

There is no mention of Quo Priumum in this document.

There isn't a mention of Quo Primum (specifically) because when you revise a law which has already been revised multiple times, you don't mention the ORIGINAL law, you mention the MOST RECENT edit of the law.  The original law of Quo Primum of the 1570s was edited/replaced by Pope St Pius V himself.  So it lasted a few years at most.  Then came Pope Clement VIII's revisions, Pope Urban VIII's revisions, Pope Leo XIII's revisions, Pope St Pius X's revisions, Pius XII's edit of Holy Week and then John XXIII's revisions - which specifically mentions the laws of St Pius X and Pius XII, because these were the CURRENT laws IN EFFECT in 1961.

St Pius X's law doesn't mention Quo Primum either (because that law was replaced by St Pius V himself), but he does mention St Pius V and all the popes who made revisions after St Pius V, because these are all "legal links" in the "chain" of St Pius V's liturgy.   John XXIII's law only mentions St Pius X's law, because up until 1961, Pius X's missal and Pius XII's changes to the Holy Week liturgy were the LAW of the roman rite.  St Pius X's missal (up until John XXIII's changes) was = Quo Primum, in legal terms, because it was the current MISSAL of Quo Primum.  What matters is the question:  What rite/missal is legally binding on the whole Latin Church?  Pope John XXIII's law makes this clear, that it's his that is binding (which I will show, in detail).

---

But first, let's look at the legal language of St Pius X's changes, so we can compare them to John XXIII's legal language.

Pius X's law "Divino Afflatu" of 1911 - A revision of the Breviary   (https://breviary.net/divino-afflatu.htm (https://breviary.net/divino-afflatu.htm))

(Referencing the linked document above, 3rd paragraph):
With good reason was provision made long ago, by decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, by canons of the councils, and by monastic laws, that members of both branches of the clergy should chant or recite the entire psaltery every week. And this same law, handed down from antiquity, our predecessors St. Pius V, Clement VIII and Urban VIII religiously observed in revising the Roman breviary. Even at present the psaltery should be recited in its entirety within the week were it not that owing to the changed condition of things such recitation is frequently hindered.

(7th-9th Paragraphs)
Therefore, by the authority of these letters, we first of all abolish the order of the psaltery as it is at present in the Roman breviary, and we absolutely forbid the use of it after the 1st day of January of the year 1913. From that day in all the churches of secular and regular clergy, in the monasteries, orders, congregations and institutes of religious, by all and several who by office or custom recite the canonical hours according to the Roman breviary issued by St. Pius V and revised by Clement VIII, Urban VIII and Leo XIII, we order the religious observance of the new arrangement of the psaltery in the form in which we have approved it and decreed its publication by the Vatican printing press. At the same time we proclaim the penalties prescribed in law against all who fail in their office of reciting the canonical hours everyday; all such are to know that they will not be satisfying this grave duty unless they use this our disposition of the psaltery.

We command, therefore, all the patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, abbots and other prelates of the church, not excepting even the cardinal archpriests of the patriarchal basilicas of the city, to take care to introduce at the appointed time into their respective dioceses, churches or monasteries, the psaltery with the rules and rubrics as arranged by us; and the psaltery and these rules and rubrics we order to be also inviolately used and observed by all others who are under the obligation of reciting or chanting the canonical hours. In the meanwhile it shall be lawful for everybody and for the chapters themselves, provided the majority of the chapter be in favor, to use duly the new order of the psaltery immediately after its publication.

This we publish, declare, sanction, decreeing that these our letters always are and shall be valid and effective, notwithstanding apostolic constitutions and ordinances, general and special, and everything else whatsoever to the contrary. Wherefore, let nobody infringe or temerariously oppose this page of our abolition, revocation, permission, ordinance, precept, statue, indult, mandate and will. But if anybody shall presume to attempt this let him know that he will incur the indignation of almighty God and of his apostles the blessed Peter and Paul.

Given at Rome at St. Peter’s in the year of the incarnation of our Lord 1911, on November the first, the feast of All Saints, in the ninth year of our pontificate.


Summary:  St Pius X's law tells us 1) the current law in force is abolished, 2) his new law must be used, 3) who must follow the law, 4) when it takes effect, 5) the penalties for not obeying.

---

Now let's look at Pius XII's changes to Holy Week.

Pius XII's law - "Maxima Redemptionis Nostrae Mysteria"  https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=11136 (https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=11136) 

(9th Paragraph)
The Most Eminent Fathers, assembled in extraordinary congregation at the Vatican Palace on July 19, 1955, after mature deliberation, recommended by unanimous vote that the restored Order of Holy Week should be approved and prescribed, if it should please His Holiness.
 
When all these matters had been individually reported to the Holy Father by the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, His Holiness deigned to approve the recommendations of the Most Eminent Cardinals.  Wherefore, by special mandate of our Most Holy Lord, Pius XII, by divine Providence Pope, the Sacred Congregation of Rites has decreed the following:

I. The restored Order of Holy Week is prescribed
1. Those who follow the Roman rite are bound to observe in the future the restored Order of Holy Week, as described in the typical Vatican edition. Those who follow other Latin rites are bound to observe only the time set in the new Order for the liturgical functions.
2. This new Order must be observed from March 25, 1956, the Second Passion Sunday, or Palm Sunday.
3. No commemoration is allowed during the entire Holy Week, and collects commanded under any title are prohibited at Mass.
II. The proper hour for the celebration of the sacred Liturgy in Holy Week

etc, etc, etc.  It's a very long document, which makes many minor changes to the breviary, missal and Holy Week rites, but it is the law and all in the Roman Rite must follow.

---

Now let's look at John XXIII's law to see the similarities in language.

John XXIII's law - "Rubricarum Instructum"   http://sanctaliturgia.blogspot.com/2005/11/rubricarum-instructum-english.html (http://sanctaliturgia.blogspot.com/2005/11/rubricarum-instructum-english.html)

(2nd paragraph)
Hemce, it is not surprising that our Predecessor Pope Pius XII, of happy memory, acceding to the wishes of many of the bishops, should have judged it expedient to reduce the rubrics of the Roman breviary and missal to a simpler form in certain respects. This simplification was enacted by a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites dated March 23, 1955.

(5th - 8th paragraphs)
We ourselves, therefore, of our own accord [motu proprio] and with full knowledge, have seen fit to approve by our apostolic authority the body of these rubrics of the Roman breviary and missal prepared by the experts of the Sacred Congregation of Rites and carefully revised by the aforesaid pontifical commission for general liturgical reform. And we decree as follows:

1. We command that, beginning on the first day of January of next year, 1961, all those who follow the Roman rite shall observe the new code of rubrics of the Roman breviary and missal arranged under three headings - "Genreal Rubrics," "General Rubrics of the Roman Breviary," and "General Rubrics of the Roman Missal" - to be published shortly by our Sacred Congregation of Rites. As for those who observe some other Latin rite, they are bound to conform as soon as possible both to the new code of rubrics and to the calendar, in all those things which are not strictly proper to their own rite.

2. On the same day, Janurary 1, 1961, the "General Rubrics" of the Roman breviary and missal, as well as the "Additions and Variations" to the rubrics of the Roman breviary and missal according to the bull Divino afflatu of our predecessor St. Pius X, which have hitherto been prefixed to these books, shall become inoperative. As the provisions of the decree, The Reduction of the Rubrics to a Simpler Form , dated March 23, 1955, have been incorporated into this new edition of the rubrics, this general decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites shall likewise become inoperative. Finally, any decrees and replies on doubtful points issued by the same Congregation which do not agree with this new form of rubrics shall be abrograted.

3. Likewise, statues, priveleges, indults, and customs of any kind whatsoever, including those that are centenary and immemorial, even if they are worthy of special and individual mention, shall be revoked if they are opposed to these rubrics.



-----Comments:  Pope John XIII issued a new missal/breviary, he said that the old missal/breviary of St Pius X was inoperative (i.e. cannot be used) and he said that Pius XII's law of 1955 was also inoperative (because Pius XII's Holy Week changes were included in John XXIII's new missal).  Then he said, lastly, that any other decrees which disagree with his new missal are "abrogated" (which means stopped, overturned, repealed).  Pope John is VERY clear that every missal/breviary change BEFORE his missal is now illegal.  His missal is now to be used and only used. 

Let us also note that Quo Primum was not revoked.  The 1962 missal of Pope John is a REVISION of Pius X's missal, which is a revision of Pope Leo XIII, etc, etc all the way back to Pope St Pius V.  All these popes who made revisions to Quo Primum were not revising the SUBSTANCE of the missal, but only the RUBRICS.  The rubrics are part of the missal but do not change the ESSENCE of the mass.  The rubrics govern the where, how, when you say the breviary/mass but do not change the substance of the breviary/mass itself. 

Every change made by Clement, Urban, Leo, Pius X, Pius XII and John XXIII to St Pius V's law of Quo Primum were accidental changes, rubrical changes and non-essential changes.  Quo Primum's commands, permissions, authorizations and allowances relating to the Roman Rite were both rubrical AND doctrinal/theological.  The rubrics can be changed/updated over the course of time, while the doctrinal/theology of the mass can never be changed and was codified "in perpetuity".  No pope to date has attempted to change the essense of the mass of Pius V, who was passing along the essence of the mass which Pope St Gregory the Great formulated, who he received from the Apostles themselves.

Paul VI did not attempt to change the essence of the latin rite (for he knew he could not); he attempted to issue a new rite and have the latin church accept it voluntarily.  But that's another topic...
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 10, 2019, 10:14:21 AM
Quote
You claim that “a lot of the liturgy is of human origin and development”, that is, you are claiming the liturgy is essentially a matter of mere discipline and that the lawgiver can do with it what he please as long as it is a “non-essential matter”.

I think it was a king in the middle ages who started the liturgical practice of genuflecting during the Creed.  If a future pope decided to get rid of this practice, he could, because this liturgical rubric is not of Divine origin.  There are many such "developments" that happened during the course of centuries to the Latin Rite.  I don't agree with getting rid of any of them, because the spiritual life is meant to grow, not go backwards.  I'm only arguing that, in theory, and by law, what one pope added to the liturgy another can discard.

The essentials of the Mass are great and important.  All the Apostles learned the same Mass from Christ, yet how different is the Western rite from the many Eastern rites?  Liturgically, they are very different, even if in substance they are equal.  The whole reason that Pope St Pius V issued Quo Primum was to draw a line in the sand and to say "No More Liturgical developments are needed!  From now on, this is the Mass.  It needs no further improvements."

To say that the liturgy in the West did not develop over time BY HUMAN MEANS, is to ignore history.



Quote
You accept the 1962 edition of the Bugnini transitional Missal because it was approved by the pope and you do not find anything in the Missal that offends your sense of what is “essential”.  
I accept it because it is a matter of law from the pope, which binds all the Church in the latin rite, as it clearly states.  My thoughts are irrelevant.


Quote
You reject the 1965 transitional Missal even though it was approved by the pope because it offends your sense of what is “essential”.  You have made yourself the judge of what or what is not essential in the liturgy and that is an authority you do not possess.  Even Archbishop Lefebvre used the 1965 edition and with even some subsequent Bugnini changes after 1965 at Econe through the 70s and possibly until 1983.  He found nothing in them that corrupted what he thought was “essential.”
The 65 and 69 missals were issued due to Vatican 2's "wishes" (but not apostolic authority) and were not binding on the whole latin rite.  There is nothing in the 65 or 69 documents which order me, or any catholic, to accept the changes, do the same degree as Quo Primum/John XIII's law.  The 65 and 69 missals did not revoke, abrogate or revise the 1962 missal, which was still in force as law and which still carries the papal command to use/attend this mass.


Quote
Your argument can go nowhere. Neither you nor I can offer any more than opinions regarding what the pope can and cannot do regarding the liturgy.  Neither you nor I can determine exactly when the Novus Ordo replaced the “received and approved” Roman rite.  I admit this but you do not.
If the 65 and 69 missals used the same legal language as Quo Primum or St Pius X or John XXIII, then I would agree with you, since all the laws would contradict and confuse each other.  As it is, we know that the 1962 missal was never outlawed (as admitted by Benedict XVI in his "motu"), therefore we KNOW BEYOND A SHADOW OF A LEGAL DOUBT, that the 65 and 69 missals DID NOT REPLACE the 62 missal.  We also know that the 65/69 missals WERE NOT OBLIGATORY, since a new law cannot command something contrary to a previous law, unless the previous law is outlawed, revised or changed.  Catholics during that time did not know this because they aren't obligated to know the law to such a degree.  But Benedict cleared all this up in 2007 and gave us the legal answer we all knew was true - that the 1962 missal is the only missal REQUIRED to be used in the latin rite.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 10, 2019, 01:22:28 PM
Quote
What is worse for your argument, the first typical edition of the 1962 Missal was first published in July 25, 1962.  St. Joseph’s name was not added to the communicantes until December 8, 1962 by John XXIII in Nove hisce temporibus.

So just what is the “typical edition” of the 1962 Missal?  I do not know and neither do you, and a lot of people who are very knowledgeable about this question have not arrived at any definitive answer either.
I can't find the document you reference which has an english translation of the addition of St Joseph.  If this addition wasn't part of the original July 25 law, then my argument is STRONGER, because it means that this addition is not part of "legal chain" which links to back to Quo Primum.  If the addition of St Joseph was an "extra" change by John XXIII, and does not carry the same legal obligations or command to use it (similar to the way the 65/69 changes were not obligatory) then such a change is optional and not binding under pain of sin.

Every law must state its purpose, its limits, its audience and its penalities for disobedience.  Unless I can read the document, I don't know these facts related to this issue.

The "typical edition" would have to be understood as what was published on July 25, 1962.  All additional changes were made as part of V2 reforms (and EVERY V2 reform is optional on the conscience of all catholics).





Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Tridentine MT on January 11, 2019, 05:26:03 AM
Well, it seems that the Maltese Una Voce had already indicated such changes in November 2018:

Summorum Pontificum will NOT be abrogated - NOT YET (http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2018/11/breaking-news-summorum-pontificum-will.html)

and further elaborated this month:

Concerning the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2019/01/concerning-potifical-commission.html)


Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: drew on January 11, 2019, 06:48:45 AM

Quote
PAX
Quote
Drew
You claim that “a lot of the liturgy is of human origin and development”, that is, you are claiming the liturgy is essentially a matter of mere discipline and that the lawgiver can do with it what he please as long as it is a “non-essential matter”.

 I think it was a king in the middle ages who started the liturgical practice of genuflecting during the Creed.  If a future pope decided to get rid of this practice, he could, because this liturgical rubric is not of Divine origin.  There are many such "developments" that happened during the course of centuries to the Latin Rite.  I don't agree with getting rid of any of them, because the spiritual life is meant to grow, not go backwards.  I'm only arguing that, in theory, and by law, what one pope added to the liturgy another can discard.

 The essentials of the Mass are great and important.  All the Apostles learned the same Mass from Christ, yet how different is the Western rite from the many Eastern rites?  Liturgically, they are very different, even if in substance they are equal.  The whole reason that Pope St Pius V issued Quo Primum was to draw a line in the sand and to say "No More Liturgical developments are needed!  From now on, this is the Mass.  It needs no further improvements."
 
 To say that the liturgy in the West did not develop over time BY HUMAN MEANS, is to ignore history.

Liturgy develops typically from a local innovation whose origin is unknown.  The innovation typically becomes a local custom, the custom spreads, and is eventually approved by Rome and offered to the rite throughout the Church. The Church recognizes this as the work of God and not the work of man.  These are called “immemorial” because there specific origin goes beyond memory.  Its origin can only be traced to a general time and general location.  Almost the entire “received and approved” rite of Mass is of immemorial custom.
 
I know of no historical record that documents 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.  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.  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.
 
True liturgical development is the work of God.  He is both the formal and final cause of true worship.  The pope, the servant of God, can only be the material instrumental cause of true liturgical development.  The pope is somewhat analogous to a florist who can arrange a bouquet but is powerless to make a flower.
 

Quote
PAX
Quote
Drew
You accept the 1962 edition of the Bugnini transitional Missal because it was approved by the pope and you do not find anything in the Missal that offends your sense of what is “essential”.
I accept it because it is a matter of law from the pope, which binds all the Church in the latin rite, as it clearly states.  My thoughts are irrelevant.

I think you need to re-read my last post in its entirety. Your claim that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal is grounded upon Quo Primum, exists is a "typical form", and was formally imposed by the pope is fantasy.  The imposition of the 1962 Bugnini reforms are not different in kind than the 1965 imposition of the Bugnini reforms.  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 Oecumenici. That is unless, you are the “master of the liturgy”.
 
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.  Rubricarum Instructum is the formal imposition by John XXIII of changes from the Sacred Congregation of Rites from the Pian Commission, that is, it is the imposition of the Bugnini liturgical reform whose intent is to destroy the "received and approved" immemorial rite of Mass.   Rubricarum Instructum does not place limit in any way those rubrical changes from the Sacred Congregation of Rites.  In fact, you could appeal to this document as imposing every Bugnini change right up to the 1969 Bugnini Missal.  These changes in rubrics never constituted a fixed form and that is why no one knows what exactly what the "typical" 1962 Bugnini transition Missal is.  This has been established by the provided evidence regarding the date of adding St. Joseph's name in the canon and the link to images of the 1962 Missal reprinted with the authorization of the Sacred Congregation of Rites in 1964, with Quo Primum in the preface, that has the Mass in the vernacular excepting the canon.     
 

Quote
PAX
Quote
Quote Drew
You reject the 1965 transitional Missal even though it was approved by the pope because it offends your sense of what is “essential”.  You have made yourself the judge of what or what is not essential in the liturgy and that is an authority you do not possess.  Even Archbishop Lefebvre used the 1965 edition and with even some subsequent Bugnini changes after 1965 at Econe through the 70s and possibly until 1983.  He found nothing in them that corrupted what he thought was “essential.”
The 65 and 69 missals were issued due to Vatican 2's "wishes" (but not apostolic authority) and were not binding on the whole latin rite.  There is nothing in the 65 or 69 documents which order me, or any catholic, to accept the changes, do the same degree as Quo Primum/John XIII's law.  The 65 and 69 missals did not revoke, abrogate or revise the 1962 missal, which was still in force as law and which still carries the papal command to use/attend this mass.

You have made yourself the “master of the liturgy”.  Please produce your evidence for your claim:
      1.      Produce evidence that the legal binding authority of John XXIII in his Motu Proprio, Rubricarum Instructum, a Motu Proprio that enforces the rubrics from the Sacred Congregation of Rites of the Bugnini Pian Commissin, is different in kind from the legal binding authority of Paul VI in Sacram Liturgiam and Inter Oecumenici which imposes Bugnini changes directly by the pope.
      2.      Produce what explicitly John XXIII bound, that is, produce the typical 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as a formal object of what is bound by the document Rubricarum Instructum.
      3.      Explain how Archbishop Lefebvre erred by not recognizing what is evident to you until 1983.
 

Quote
PAX
Quote
Drew
Your argument can go nowhere. Neither you nor I can offer any more than opinions regarding what the pope can and cannot do regarding the liturgy.  Neither you nor I can determine exactly when the Novus Ordo replaced the “received and approved” Roman rite.  I admit this but you do not.
If the 65 and 69 missals used the same legal language as Quo Primum or St Pius X or John XXIII, then I would agree with you, since all the laws would contradict and confuse each other.  As it is, we know that the 1962 missal was never outlawed (as admitted by Benedict XVI in his "motu"), therefore we KNOW BEYOND A SHADOW OF A LEGAL DOUBT, that the 65 and 69 missals DID NOT REPLACE the 62 missal.  We also know that the 65/69 missals WERE NOT OBLIGATORY, since a new law cannot command something contrary to a previous law, unless the previous law is outlawed, revised or changed.  Catholics during that time did not know this because they aren't obligated to know the law to such a degree.  But Benedict cleared all this up in 2007 and gave us the legal answer we all knew was true - that the 1962 missal is the only missal REQUIRED to be used in the latin rite.

It is a dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that “no pastor in the churches whomsoever” possess the authority to change the “received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments… into other newer rites.”  This dogma binds all pastors in the Church and no pastor more so than the supreme pastor, the pope.  The intent from the Pian Commission from the very beginning was to do just that.  This is an established fact.
 
So you know from Summorum Pontificum (SP) “KNOW BEYOND A SHADOW OF A LEGAL DOUBT” that the 1962 Missal was never “outlawed”.  Then explain why Benedict/Ratzinger had to subsequently abrogate the liturgical documents Sacram Liturgiam and Inter Oecumenici if they were not legal obrogations of the Bugnini transitional missalsYou have rejected, on your own authority, these laws that Benedict/Ratzinger treated as valid laws.  You have accepted in principle that the pope is the "master of the liturgy" and can do whatever he wants as long as he does not offend you liturgical sensibilities.  So if Sacram Liturgiam and Inter Oecumenici can be abrogated (or obrogated) so can Summorum Pontificum.  When that happens, legal opinions notwithstanding, you will have no option but to follow the "mater of the liturgy". 
 
You know also from SP “KNOW BEYOND A SHADOW OF A LEGAL DOUBT” that the 1969 Missal and the 1962 Missal are two forms of one rite with a common provenance.  That common provenance is Bugnini and the principles of liturgical reform adopted by the Pian Commission.  
 
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. 
 
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. 
 
I think you and Bugnini have a lot more in common than you might think.

Drew
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 11, 2019, 08:56:15 AM
Quote
I know of no historical record that documents 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.


Quote
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.


Quote
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.


Quote
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.


Quote
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 Oecumenici.
I already said that until I can find an english translation of the 1965 changes, that I cannot respond on what the law says.  You could be right; not sure yet.


Quote
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.

 
Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 11, 2019, 09:09:22 AM
Here's another question, Drew.  If the 1962 missal was replaced by the 65, then the 69 missals, then why did Pope Benedict say that the 62 missal "was never outlawed and always permitted"?  A "motu proprio" is a legal document, ergo whatever the pope expresses in it is a legal act or ruling on a topic, (which, I'm sure, was reviewed and cross-checked by Vatican legal scholars).  If the 62 missal wasn't any different than the 65 missal, (since you say that both were replaced by the 69 novus ordo) then you have no explanation for this legal fact.

If the 62 missal was replaced by the 65 missal, but then "brought back" by the 80s indult laws (as you argue), then Pope Benedict's statement that it was "never outlawed" and it was "always permitted" is contradictory, no?  How can the 62 missal have "always been permitted" yet the 80s indult laws said THEY were giving the permission.  So it was permitted twice?

This is the contradiction that cannot be explained, unless the 62 missal is legally a revision of Quo Primum, as John XXIII clearly intended, thus it was "always permitted" because Quo Primum is a law still in force.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 11, 2019, 12:53:18 PM
An earlier question you've yet to answer, Drew or Maria:

What about the 1954 missal?  What missal came before it?  Why is the 1954 missal allowed to have changes/updates but the 1962 missal cannot?

Why is Pope Pius X allowed to overhaul the breviary in the early 1900s but John XXIII can't overhaul the calendar of saints 60 years later?
Why can Pius XII make changes in 1954 but John XXIII can't make changes in 1955 and 1962?  
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 11, 2019, 01:22:41 PM
Quote
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 Oecumenici.
Ok, I found some english translations of these 2 documents:

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

There is nothing in this document 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 document) 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 Oecumenici -  http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/16/DocumentIndex/378 (http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/16/DocumentIndex/378)

All these documents 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 document 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.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Stanley N on January 11, 2019, 01:29:49 PM
[...] 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.  Established custom is source of law and the interpreter of law.
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.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: drew on January 11, 2019, 03:21:09 PM

Quote
PAX

Quote
Drew
I know of no historical record that documents 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. 

Quote
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."

Quote
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.
 
Quote
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 document is included in the preface of the Missal.  My answer to that is twofold: firstly, the document 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 documented 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. 


Quote
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. 

 

Quote
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.
 

Quote
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
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: drew on January 11, 2019, 03:38:37 PM
Here's another question, Drew.  If the 1962 missal was replaced by the 65, then the 69 missals, then why did Pope Benedict say that the 62 missal "was never outlawed and always permitted"?  A "motu proprio" is a legal document, ergo whatever the pope expresses in it is a legal act or ruling on a topic, (which, I'm sure, was reviewed and cross-checked by Vatican legal scholars).  If the 62 missal wasn't any different than the 65 missal, (since you say that both were replaced by the 69 novus ordo) then you have no explanation for this legal fact.

If the 62 missal was replaced by the 65 missal, but then "brought back" by the 80s indult laws (as you argue), then Pope Benedict's statement that it was "never outlawed" and it was "always permitted" is contradictory, no?  How can the 62 missal have "always been permitted" yet the 80s indult laws said THEY were giving the permission.  So it was permitted twice?

This is the contradiction that cannot be explained, unless the 62 missal is legally a revision of Quo Primum, as John XXIII clearly intended, thus it was "always permitted" because Quo Primum is a law still in force.

"Contradiction... that cannot be explained"?  You are so intent on finding a legal quibble that you can call a "contradiction" that you fail to look at your own case.  I think your question is senseless. The truth of the matter there is no such thing as the 1962 Missal or the 1965 Missal.  The years from 1955 until 1969 are years in which the Bugnini Pian Commission liturgical reforms were incrementally imposed.  The great Catholic publishers, Benzinger Brothers, figure this out too late.  They ended up with a store house of dated Missals that could not be sold and went out of business.  You do not know what if fact is the "typical" edition of the 1962 Missal referred to in SP that was never "abrogated".  Benedict/Ratzinger said in his Letter to the Bishops of the World explaining SP:

Quote
The last version of the 'Missale Romanum' prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a 'Forma extraordinaria' of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were 'two rites.' Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite
........ For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The 'Ecclesia Dei' Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the 'usus antiquior,' will study the practical possibilities in this regard.
Benedict XVI, Letter to Bishops on Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007.

The "typical edition of the Roman Missal (SP)" is the Missal "used during the Council" which ended in December 8, 1965.  So now you have the "typical" 1962 Missal is the Missal used from around June 1962, when the Sacred Congregation of Rites published its updates, and the end of 1965.  By this time, the Missal had undergone numerous Bugnini updates including vernacular usage in the entire Mass excepting the canon.  

You are reducing the question of liturgy to pure legalisms which aside from being vulgar is what traditional Catholic have been hearing from the liturgical Philistines since the early 70s.  .

If you want to argue that "a 'motu proprio' is a legal document, ergo whatever the pope expresses in it is a legal act or ruling on a topic," then you must accept that the 1962 Bugnini Missal and the 1969 Bugnini Missal express the "same 'lex orandi, lex credendi', since "they are two usages of the one Roman rite." If the 1969 Misssal IS NOT the "received and approved" rite and it IS the same rite as the 1962 Missal then, the 1962 Missal IS NOT the "received and approved" rite.  

You must also accept that John Paul II Quattuor Abhinc Annos, as "a legal document, ergo whatever the pope expresses in it is a legal act or ruling on a topic," made the 1962 Missal an Indult which is the permission to do something the is normally "illegal."  JP II presupposes that the 1962 Missal is no longer "legal" most likely because it had been obrogated by continual revisions implementing the Bugnini reforms.  This may be the reason that the Italian episcopate have suppressed SP illegal and wants Rome to revoke it.  

So what is it PAX?  Do you have any real problems with the Novus Ordo?  Do you recognize that the 1969 Missal IS NOT the same as the "received and approved" rites codified by St. Pius V or do you claim that the 1969 Missal is a legitimate revision protected by Quo Primum?  If Benedict/Ratzinger is wrong and the 1962 and 1969 are not the same, when did the break occur?  I do not know this for certain and neither do you and you need to stop pretending that you do.  The only response to this crisis of Catholic worship is to return to what is certainly the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite and defend your actions by an appeal to Catholic dogma.

Drew
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: drew on January 11, 2019, 04:12:49 PM
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
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 11, 2019, 04:59:04 PM
Quote
The pope is not the creator of universal custom.  He is the material cause by which it is given to the universal Church.

The fact that from one day to the next, the genuflection during the Creed was not part of the liturgy and then it was, shows it's not "universal" at all, but an addition.  So, if it's not a universal custom (and many things aren't), then the pope can get rid of it (in theory).


Quote
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.
Why 200 years and not 201 or 250 or 256?  Who determines what is a novelty and what isn't?  The pope.  Therefore, we can conclude that the pope can make such decisions about the liturgy.  Unless you're saying he had a vision and God told him directly?
Why did the pope have a right to suppress less than 200 years but not greater than 200 year old rites?  Is there a manual or rule regarding this, or did the pope use his pontifical authority to decide?  Of course, he used his authority; therefore any pope AFTER St Pius V can also use that authority, in regards to rubrics and non-essential matters.


Quote
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.
You're inserting an argument about dogma when I'm talking about human, church law.  Dogma is of Divine origin; many church laws are not, thus they can be changed.


Quote
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.
The 1962 missal did not make any changes that relate to dogma or Apostolic Tradition; neither did St Pius V's missal, or Leo XIII's missal, or St Pius X's or Pius XII's.  The "received and approved" rites (from Christ/Apostles) are the ESSENCE of the Mass but the historical liturgical additions of the Church over centuries can be changed, have been changed and do not affect the Mass' purpose and substance.


Quote
The only claim that you can make to Quo Primum from this liturgical reform is that it the document is included in the preface of the Missal. 
Wrong.  I pasted the legal wording wherein St Pius X's missal (Divina Afflatu) was made illicit and replaced by John XXIII's new missal.  Accept it or not, it's a legal fact.


Quote
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 proof regarding the 62 missal's ties to Quo Primum are in the document itself and also in the 1984 Commission which studied the issue at the request of JPII.  The only thing which SP did was corroborate a legal fact that most Bishops of the world had lied about.  Secondly, SP never said they are "one and the same rite".  It said they are "two usages of the same rite" which is quite a different meaning. 

Further, this isn't a "teaching"; it's a legal fact.  (A motu proprio isn't a teaching document but a legal one).  There are 2 rites of latin church - the 62 missal and the 69 missal.  The question is, which rite MUST a catholic use/attend?  By law, by papal command, and by papal authority, the only missal that is allowed to be used is Quo Primum's, which is the 62 missal.  The 69 missal exists, legally, but Quo Primum FORBIDS the use of any other missal (under penalty of sin).  Ergo, the 69 missal is illegal and sinful to use, even if it legally exists. 

Example:  It's not a sin to cook a steak on Good Friday and place it on the dinner table.  You just can't eat it.  In the same way, the modernists found a loophole in Quo Primum which allowed them to create a new missal but the USE of this missal is forbidden.  The law which created the 69 missal (and any post-V2 liturgical law or indult) NEVER says that one has to accept/attend the new mass and it NEVER says you have to accept the terms of the meaningless indult laws...the modernists used trickery and deceit to confuse people.  But the law is clear and the law of Quo Primum still stands.
Quote
The truth of the matter there is no such thing as the 1962 Missal or the 1965 Missal.
I guess all those 62 missals for sale are a figment of everyone's imagination.


Quote
You do not know what if fact is the "typical" edition of the 1962 Missal referred to in SP that was never "abrogated". 
Go online and buy a 62 missal.  It exists.



Quote
"they are two usages of the one Roman rite." If the 1969 Misssal IS NOT the "received and approved" rite and it IS the same rite as the 1962 Missal then, the 1962 Missal IS NOT the "received and approved" rite. 
The 69 missal is a parallel rite, which is not in any way connected with Tradition, or Quo Primum, and it doesn't claim to be (neither in its documents, nor by Paul VI himself).  It originated because of, and was created through, Vatican 2.

The 62 missal CLEARLY outlaws the previous missal of Quo Primum (which was St Pius X's) and CLEARLY makes its changes the newest version of St Pius V's missal, which changes are minor and non-essential (in regards to the mass).  Most of the changes were to the calendar.


Quote
You must also accept that John Paul II Quattuor Abhinc Annos, as "a legal document, ergo whatever the pope expresses in it is a legal act or ruling on a topic," made the 1962 Missal an Indult which is the permission to do something the is normally "illegal."  JP II presupposes that the 1962 Missal is no longer "legal" most likely because it had been obrogated by continual revisions implementing the Bugnini reforms.  This may be the reason that the Italian episcopate have suppressed SP illegal and wants Rome to revoke it.
  
Whenever a law is passed, those who are affected by the law have a right to read it, understand it and see what it commands.  JPII's indult law commands no one to ask permission for the mass, it has no penalties if people ignore the indult, nor does it force anyone to accept the novus ordo or Vatican 2.  The indult laws, if anything, apply to the bishops and force them to allow the True Mass because beforehand, for the period of 20 years from 69 to 86, the Bishops had lied to everyone and said that the True Mass was gone, outlawed and never coming back.  The indult laws only affect those who want to go to mass in a diocesan church or one "under rome".  It doesn't affect the PERMANENT indult granted by Quo Primum to any and all Catholics and it never claims to.  The legal truth is the True Mass has never and can never be outlawed; in PRACTICAL terms (for those catholics outside of Tradition) it was outlawed, in the sense that the Bishops did not allow it in their dioceses.  But Rome and the papacy HAD NEVER OUTLAWED THE TRUE MASS (i.e. the 62 missal) and no where does JPII's indult say that and Benedict's SP motu confirms it.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Stanley N on January 11, 2019, 06:08:39 PM
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.  
Well, I think your position is wrong.
I have tried to show that it is wrong by pointing out some consequences of your position. The reform of Pius V suppressed customs and imposed a liturgy by authority; the breviary reform of Pius X tossed out immemorial customs. It would appear to me that your position would require rejecting both reforms and going back to a pre-Tridentine liturgy. I disagree with that, and I assume you would too.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 11, 2019, 10:06:03 PM
The reform of Pius V suppressed customs and imposed a liturgy by authority;

Pope Pius V says it right there, in Quo Primum. Notice the word "new"

Quote
This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom.

The Tridentine Mass was a new liturgical rite to be used following the Council of Trent.  Pope Pius V, in his full capacity as Supreme Pontiff, promulgated a new Liturgical Rite, the Tridentine Mass, which differs from the pre-Tridentine Mass, although the substance remains intact. He also revised and re-edit the sacred books: the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary. Yes, popes can do that! Otherwise, as Pax said, the only “received and approved” rite would be the Aramaic rite directly from Christ.  
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 11, 2019, 11:23:49 PM

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."

That section of Trent is not referring to the Supreme Pontiff, but just regular pastors. Even in Quo Primum, when Pius V decreed: "We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it.", he is evidently not referring to another Pope, who has the same authority as himself, to create new liturgical rites or modify existing ones, just as he himself did with the promulgation of his new Tridentine liturgy. Even Pius V himself added something new to his "recently published Missal" with the introduction of the Feast of Our Lady of Victory, just a year after his bull. And then came the modifications to the original Tridentine Roman Missal made by Pope Clement VIII and many others more throughout the centuries...


Quote
After Pius V's original Tridentine Roman Missal, the first new typical edition was promulgated in 1604 by Pope Clement VIII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_VIII), who in 1592 had issued a revised edition of the Vulgate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate). The Bible texts in the Missal of Pope Pius V did not correspond exactly to the new Vulgate, and so Clement edited and revised Pope Pius V's Missal, making alterations both in the scriptural texts and in other matters. He abolished some prayers that the 1570 Missal obliged the priest to say on entering the church; shortened the two prayers to be said after the Confiteor; directed that the words "Haec quotiescumque feceritis, in meam memoriam facietis" ("Do this in memory of me") should not be said while displaying the chalice to the people after the consecration, but before doing so; inserted directions at several points of the Canon that the priest was to pronounce the words inaudibly; suppressed the rule that, at High Mass, the priest, even if not a bishop, was to give the final blessing with three signs of the cross; and rewrote the rubrics, introducing, for instance, the ringing of a small bell.

Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 11, 2019, 11:50:39 PM
Quote
It is useless to argue petty legalisms as to when the Bugnini reforms constituted a formal break.
In Our Lord’s day, the Scribes and Pharisees ruled the people using “petty legalisms”.  The Modernists do the same.  This is precisely the world in which Satan, and his minions, operate - the “letter of the law”, which Christ tells us “kills”.  As the old saying goes “the devil’s in the details”, which in our situation means that we have to “read the fine print” of these legal documents, and we have to be “wise as serpents” when dealing with what these Modernists do.  Most of the time, their “laws” are not obligatory at all, but only appear so, until you examine them and find the “trick” used to deceive - that is, magic - another favorite devilish practice - things appear different than what they really are.  
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: drew on January 12, 2019, 02:21:31 PM
Quote
Quote: Cantarella
 The Tridentine Mass was a new liturgical rite to be used following the Council of Trent.  Pope Pius V, in his full capacity as Supreme Pontiff, promulgated a new Liturgical Rite, the Tridentine Mass, which differs from the pre-Tridentine Mass, although the substance remains intact. He also revised and re-edit the sacred books: the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary. Yes, popes can do that! Otherwise, as Pax said, the only “received and approved” rite would be the Aramaic rite directly from Christ.

Quote
(https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg639181/#msg639181)Cantarella
Quote
Drew
Quote from: drew on Yesterday at 04:12:49 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg639181/#msg639181)
 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."

That section of Trent is not referring to the Supreme Pontiff, but just regular pastors. Even in Quo Primum, when Pius V decreed: "We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it.", he is evidently not referring to another Pope, who has the same authority as himself, to create new liturgical rites or modify existing ones, just as he himself did with the promulgation of his new Tridentine liturgy. Even Pius V himself added something new to his "recently published Missal" with the introduction of the Feast of Our Lady of Victory, just a year after his bull. And then came the modifications to the original Tridentine Roman Missal made by Pope Clement VIII and many others more throughout the centuries...


Cantarella,

Quote
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

There is and has been for many years an effort to corrupt the translation of this dogma by replacing the word "any" with "every" so as to imply that not "every pastor of the churches" can change the "received and approved rite.... to other new one" but some can.  This corruption of the translation engenders a meaning that is impossible in the Latin text.

If you had any regard for dogma you would know that dogma is an immutable truth revealed by God, and therefore it would be just as impossible for "every" pastor as "any" pastor to change immutable truth.

You also err in saying that that this Missal published by St. Pius V, "The Tridentine Mass was a new liturgical rite to be used following the Council of Trent."

Below are links to posts addressed to you covering these specific errors.  The links with the lecture from Canon Gregory Hesse explain everything perfectly so that even the most simple souls can easily understand.

Canon Hesse video link included:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604807/#msg604807 (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604807/%23msg604807)

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604638/#msg604638 (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604638/%23msg604638)

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604850/#msg604850 (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604850/%23msg604850)

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604853/#msg604853 (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604853/%23msg604853)

Canon Hesse video link included:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604854/#msg604854 (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604854/%23msg604854)

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604878/#msg604878 (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604878/%23msg604878)

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604885/#msg604885 (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604885/%23msg604885)

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604914/#msg604914 (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604914/%23msg604914)

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604915/#msg604915 (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604915/%23msg604915)

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg605090/#msg605090 (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg605090/%23msg605090)


St. Paul admonishes the faithful, "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid" (Titus 3:10), and again "Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them." (Romans 16:17)

I don't have anything left to say to you.

Drew

Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 12, 2019, 02:39:14 PM
Drew,

Cantarella and Stanley make some good points but you just ignore everything they say if you disagree with 1 minor point.  

You consistently put words in people’s mouths and you constantly interpret what people say in a negative and erroneous way.  Most all of us on here agree with what you write, generally, but we are pointing out some details in which we disagree.  You are taking these minor disagreements personally and then acting like we’re not catholic or we don’t know anything about liturgical history.  If you had a more open mind and you gave people the benefit of the doubt, then maybe we could all learn something together and come to a consensus.  As it is, debating with you is not fruitful.  
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 12, 2019, 04:35:03 PM
Reply #98 on: Yesterday at 11:23:49 PM
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg639214/#msg639214

The above question has been answered in the thread below and in all the other links posted by drew. The link below has a video of Fr. Hesse answering the same question which was included on reply 697.

Reply #697 on: April 20, 2018, 02:40:42 AM
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604807/#msg604807

Video link posted at min. 19:47 for those interested:
https://youtu.be/2gPX7XEBdUQ?t=1190

See also this topic:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/30/

P.48 Reply # 706,707, 719
P.49 Reply 721,725,726,733
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 12, 2019, 06:58:41 PM
Reply #98 on: Yesterday at 11:23:49 PM
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg639214/#msg639214

The above question has been answered in the thread below and in all the other links posted by drew. The link below has a video of Fr. Hesse answering the same question which was included on reply 697.

The Council of Trent defines by 1563 that:

Quote
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

According to you, this canon prohibits any modifications even made by the Pope and the correct translation means that "no pastor can do it" (including the Pope), yet Pope Pius V, does it not much later, in the year of 1570, with the promulgation and imposition of the Tridentine Mass and the suppression of the other existing rites at the time, newer than 200 years. He ordered the use of the Roman Missal as revised by him. Either he changed the pre-Tridentine Liturgy, or introduced a brand new Roman Rite Mass, following the Council of Trent. Either way, this proves that this canon evidently does not exclude changes by a Pope.

Once a Pope promulgates a liturgical rite, then such rite becomes a "received and approved rite of the Catholic Church". As a matter of fact, there would be no western or eastern liturgical rites at all, if there is no one in charge with the authority to "receive them and approve them". In the Catholic Church, it is the Pope who alone can do that. If you disagree, then tell me who else could do it? This thread is not about the Novus Ordo Rite, which is another subject, but specifically about the Roman Missal modifications which have indeed occurred throughout the centuries. If you believe that Pope John XXIII is a true and legitimate Pope of the Catholic Church, then the most recent authorized Tridentine edition is the Roman Missal from 1962.


Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 12, 2019, 08:24:30 PM
Cantarella,

You don’t know your limitations. On the thread: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? Pages 47-49,  you were an “expert” on the ”received and approved rites”.  Now, months later, you said on this thread, reply  #71:

Quote
Quote
You keep saying "the immemorial received and approved" rites of Mass. What do you even mean by that? Approved by who? Without the living Pope as supreme authority on these matters, such immemorial "received and approved" rite of Mass in the Roman rite would probably be the pre-Tridentine Mass before 1570, not even the Tridentine Mass of Pius V with Quo Primum.

At last you admit and show you don’t have a clue of about "the received and approved rites", but every time drew tries to explain, you have to have an answer. If you take the time to listen to Fr. Hesse, who directly answer this questions and was very knowledgeable and highly respected among old traditionalists and many priests (Fr. Gruner and John Vennari among many ), you would learn. Drew himself  has been reading extensively on the subject since 1972. If you don’t like the fact he’s not SV, listen to Fr. Hesse and please learn.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 19, 2019, 01:54:41 PM
Done! Ecclesia Dei was abolished January 17th. Motu Proprio is only available in Italian at this time.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/motu_proprio/documents/papa-francesco-motu-proprio-20190117_ecclesia-dei.html

Translation from Rorate Caeli:

Quote
For over thirty years, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, established by the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta, of July 2, 1988, has acquitted with sincere and praiseworthy solicitude the task of collaborating with the Bishops and the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia, in facilitating the full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, communities or individual religious men and women once attached to the Fraternity founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who wished to remain united to the Successor of Peter in the Catholic Church, while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions.
 
 In this way, the Commission was able to exercise its authority and competence over said Societies and Associations in the name of the Holy See, until otherwise provided.
 
 Subsequently, under the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of 7 July 2007, the Pontifical Commission extended the authority of the Holy See over those Institutes and religious communities, which adhere to the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite and earlier traditions of religious life, maintaining vigilance over the observance and application of established dispositions.
 
 Two years later, my Venerable Predecessor Benedict XVI, with the motu proprio Ecclesiae Unitatem, of 2 July 2009, reorganized the structure of the Pontifical Commission, in order to make it more suitable for the new situation created with the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated without pontifical mandate. Moreover, considering that, after such an act of grace, the matters handled by the same Pontifical Commission were primarily doctrinal, my predecessor linked the Commission to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith more organically, conserving its initial ends, but modifying its structure.
 
 Now, since the Feria IV [the regular Wednesday meeting] of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of November 15, 2017 had formulated the request that the dialogue between the Holy See and the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X [SSPX] be conducted directly by the aforementioned Congregation, and since the issues treated are of a doctrinal nature, to which request I gave my approval in Audientia to the Cardinal Prefect [Cardinal Luis Ladaria,SJ] the following 24 November, and [since] this proposal was welcomed by the Plenary Session of the same Congregation celebrated from 23 to 26 January 2018, I have come, after ample reflection, to the following Decision.
 
 Considering today the conditions that had led the holy Pontiff, John Paul II, to the establishment of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei; noting that the Institutes and religious communities that usually celebrate in extraordinary form have today found their own stability of number and life; noting that the aims and issues dealt with by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei are of a predominantly doctrinal nature; wishing that these aims be ever more visible to the conscience of the ecclesial communities, with the present Apostolic Letter motu proprio data;
 
 I establish (Delibero):


 
Quote
1. The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, established on 2 July 1988 with the motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei adflicta, is suppressed.
 
 2. The tasks of the Commission in question are assigned in full to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, within which a special Section will be set up to continue the work of supervision, promotion and protection so far conducted by the suppressed Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.
 
 The budget of the Pontifical Commission is part of the ordinary accounting of the aforementioned Congregation.. E’soppressa la Pontificia Commissione Ecclesia Dei, istituita il 2 luglio 1988 col Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta.

Moreover, I establish that the present motu proprio, to be observed in spite of anything contrary, even if worthy of particular mention, is promulgated by publication in the 19 January 2019 edition of the L’Osservatore Romano newspaper, entering into immediate force, and subsequently inserted in the official gazzette of the Holy See, Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
 
 Given at Rome, in St. Peter’s, January 17, 2019, VI of Our Pontificate.

Francesco [unofficial translation provided by the Catholic Herald]

____________________

1Cf. Joannes Paulus PP. II, Litterae Apostolicae ‘Motu proprio datae’, Ecclesia Dei adflicta’, 2 Iulii 1988, AAS, LXXX (1988), 12 (15 Nov. 1988), 1495-1498, 6a.

2 Cf. Rescriptum ex Audientia Sanctissimi, 18 Oct. 1988, AAS, LXXXII (1990), 5 (3 Maii 1990), 533-534, 6.

3 Cf. Benedictus PP. XVI, Litterae Apostolicae ‘Motu proprio datae’, Summorum Pontificum, 7 Iulii 2007, AAS, XCIX (2007), 9 (7 Sept. 2007), 777-781, 12.

4 Cf. Benedictus PP. XVI, Litterae Apostolicae ‘Motu proprio datae’, Ecclesiae unitatem, 2 Iulii 2009, AAS, CI (2009),

8 (7 Aug. 2009), 710-711, 5
.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: poche on January 19, 2019, 10:40:01 PM
Still, I don't see how that is the end of the SSPX, They are still here and they don't appear to be going anywhere .
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 20, 2019, 07:25:45 PM


In this article published in his magazine "The Combat for the Faith" of March 2016, Fr. Guy Castelain SSPX,  explains the legal and thematic realtionship between Quattuor Abhinc Annos in 1984, Ecclesia Dei in 1988 and Summorum Pontificum in 2007. It makes it very clear that the purpose of these documents is to bring traditional Catholics under their control by conditionnally accepting Vatican II and the Novus Ordo and that Summorum Pontificum has nothing to do with "freeing" the 1962 missal.
 
There is much that is good in this article as well as troublesome. It was written to warn others regarding the indult communities but seems oblivious to the ugly fact that Bishop Fellay had betrayed the SSPX long before. We learn from Dr. Chonowski that the betrayal was formally underway by 2001 and by the secret GREC meetings long before that. Fr. Castelain offers no positive means to counter these measures other than avoiding indult communities and seems unaware of the reformed missal about to be introduced.

For clarity, please use the link.

 



Quote

http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2017/08/la-verdadera-mision-de-la-comision.html

THE TRUE MISSION OF THE COMMISSION ECCLESIA DEI

There are some who affirm that Francisco does not intend to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum once the FSSPX is recognized. While we can not claim that it will, history has something to say about it.
 
We present below an article on the history of the Ecclesia Dei Commission and its mission, written by Fr. Guy Castelain (FSSPX) in his magazine "The Combat of Faith" of March 2016. By reading it, we will understand that Ecclesia communities Dei exist in function of the SSPX, and they continue to exist because of it, so that if the Fraternity is "recognized" by Rome, these communities will no longer have a reason to exist.
 
In this regard, Dr. Peter Chojnowski, a renowned Thomistic philosopher, writer and lecturer who has been a close associate of the FSSPX, tells us in his blog (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=2&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&sp=nmt4&u=http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2017/07/franciss-plans-for-latin-mass-on-agenda.html&xid=25657,15700022,15700124,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700237,15700242,15700248&usg=ALkJrhhwTFKTJxYgJt2yKkz2D9bvIrR3SA) : " In 2001, I was told by a District Superior of the FSSPX who had just met with Bishop Fellay - who in turn had just met with Cardinal [Castrillón] Hoyos - who ... the Cardinal told Bishop Fellay that the plan was to have all the traditional groups under Bishop Fellay. When the surprised Bishop Fellay asked the Cardinal: 'And what about the Fraternity of Saint Peter?' the Cardinal said 'They will be under you!' However, the condition was that all four bishops of the SSPX should enter together. This was in the time of John Paul II . "
 
 
"Let all those who imagine that there is a vocation identity between the Ecclesia Dei institutes and the FSSPX open their eyes. The Ecclesia Dei commission and the institutes attached to it are a great danger to the work founded by Bishop Marcel Lefebvre. They have the vocation to neutralize, paralyze and dissolve it "
 
 
THE TRUE MISSION OF THE COMMISSION ECCLESIA DEI
 
On November 22, 1989, Archbishop Lefebvre said in an interview with François Brigneau on Radio Courtoisie: "Despite the persecutions, we can say violent, from Rome and from the Roman commission ( Ecclesia Dei, ndlr) that is responsible for the recovery of the traditionalists to submit them to the Council [...] the situation is more stable, stronger, more dynamic than ever "(Month derniers cahiers, première série, n ° 1, Pour saluer Mgr Lefebvre, par François Brigneau, Publication FB, p.35).
 
Archbishop Lefebvre said it right: The Ecclesia Dei commission "is responsible for the recovery of the traditionalists". Today, this mission has not changed. This we must demonstrate. To do so, it is necessary to go through the great stages they have made and make the history of the aforementioned commission. Four documents must be taken into account: 1) The Letter of October 3, 1984; 2) the Motu proprio of July 2, 1988; 3) the Motu proprio of July 7, 2007; 4) the Motu proprio of July 2, 2009. The letter of October 28, 2013 from the Nuncio to the San Pedro Fraternity will serve as confirmation of the thesis.
 
1) The Circular Letter Quattuor abhinc annos of the Congregation for Divine Worship addressed to the episcopal conferences on October 2, 1984.
 
This document predates the creation of the Ecclesia Dei commission, but it is extremely important. In effect, this will remain as the fundamental document that will inform the spirit of the future commission that will refer to it.
In 1980, Rome asked all the bishops of the world to make a report on the application of the liturgical reform wanted by Pope Paul VI. This report had, among other things, to express itself on "the difficulties encountered in carrying out the liturgical reform" and "the possible resistance" that should have been "overcome".
 
After the answers sent to Rome, it seemed that the problem of the priests and the faithful attached to the Tridentine rite was, so to speak, fixed.
 
In fact, the problem of the old mass remained completely. Modernist Rome realizing that it could not suffocate the movement in favor of the old mass, decided to try to take control:
 
"The sovereign pontiff, wishing to give satisfaction to these groups" granted the celebration of the Tridentine Mass "but observing the following norms", being the first: "That it is very clear that these priests and these faithful have nothing to do with those who they question the legitimacy and doctrinal rectitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and that his position be unambiguously and publicly acknowledged. "
 
Therefore it was well established that a priest could not benefit from the old Mass except on the condition of abandoning the fight against the mass of Paul VI, and that this position should be public and known to all.
 
On the other hand, this concession should "be used without prejudice to the observance of the liturgical reform in the life of the ecclesial communities." It was also clear that this concession could not have the pretension of supplanting the mass of Paul VI and that it should retain all its rights of liturgical "primacy".
 
There are several conclusions to be drawn from this pardon: 1) Its publication made the whole world believe that the Mass of St. Pius V was forbidden, since it was not and could not be (the document of July 7, 2007 of Benedict XVI confessed it ); 2) made believe, therefore, that a special permission was necessary to celebrate the old mass; 3) far from being liberated, the old mass was, because of the conditions to be met to benefit from it, instrumentalized to achieve the acceptance of the new Mass of Paul VI.
 
This pardon was then a "doctrinal trap". Thus, those who pretended to enjoy the Mass of St. Pius V "legally" did, in fact, a "legal" profession of officially accepting the new Mass that they had rejected until that moment. Consequently, this Motu proprio , far from being a victory for the supporters of the ancient liturgy, was in reality a victory of modernist Rome in favor of the conciliar liturgical reform. It was clear then that the SSPX could not in any way avail itself of such pardon. The priests of this Fraternity should never ask permission to celebrate their Mass in a church or sanctuary based on this pardon. The imposed conditions prohibited them, in any case, from obtaining this faculty, since their position regarding the new Mass did not allow them to comply with the requirements.
 
2) The Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei of July 2, 1988, in the form of motu proprio of Pope John Paul II.
 
Ecclesia Dei are the first two words of a text published by Rome the day after the alleged excommunication of Bishop Lefebvre. Indeed, on June 30, 1988, the bishop proceeded to what he called "the survival operation of Tradition", consecrating four bishops to whom he gave no jurisdiction. These, supported by the principles of canon law of the Church, were to ensure a substitution (provided by the ecclesiastical law in several matters) in the heart of the conciliar crisis for the preaching of the faith, the administration of the sacrament of confirmation and Sacrament of order.
 
The excommunication, although existing on paper, was in fact devoid of foundation. Bishop Lefebvre, before consecrating, studied and studied the ancient canon law to ensure that he acted according to the Spirit of the Church contained in this axiom: Suprema lex, salus animarum . A thesis of Father Murray even had, in 1995, the audacity to prove that, according to the new right of John Paul II, excommunication was not founded!
 
The excommunication of July 1, 1988
 
On July 1, 1988, the decree Dominus Marcellus Lefebvre unjustly excommunicated, both from the point of view of the canon law of 1917 and the new one of 1983, the consecrating bishop and the four consecrated bishops.
 
Excommunication null and void, ghost excommunication, excommunication of paper playing the role of scarecrow to cause fear to the poor people who had rediscovered hope in the Church thanks to the Athanasius of the twentieth century.
 
The Motu proprio Ecclesia Dei from July 2
 
The scarecrow was going to fulfill its effective role in precipitating the good people, the formalists and the fearful in the "open arms" of conciliar Rome: the threat of schism and therefore the fear of the eternal loss of his soul. Everything then went to effectively remove them from the Brotherhood of Bishop Lefebvre and take them forever to the conciliar Church.
 
Thus, John Paul II decreed the establishment of a commission for those "who wish to remain united to the successor of Peter in the Catholic Church, preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions."
 
Therefore it was absolutely a commission of recovery of the faithful and priests who had frequented the SSPX.
 
The effects did not wait: clerics, more formalist than canonists, believed it was their duty to leave the Brotherhood of Bishop Lefebvre to found the Fraternity of St. Peter in order to be "in law". Conciliar legality, it goes without saying.
 
They were received by a commission that bore a name composed of the three words of the beginning of the letter that was the origin of this commission: Ecclesia Dei afflicta . That is to say: The Church of God is afflicted ... Afflicted why? For the alleged schism of Bishop Lefebvre, a schism that no one could ever prove or prove, and which many specialists have denied.
 
It was, for these priests, accept to submit to a conciliar commission and, of this fact, go against the spirit of the law: "He who, to keep the letter of the law, goes against the spirit of the law, has sinned against the law "( Regula juris 88 ). For formalism, he committed a kind of "legal sin": a sin against the law under the pretext of being in order with it.
 
Dissociate from the FSSPX
 
I do not intend to make a complete analysis here of this Motu proprio of 1988. All the paragraphs deserve, not only a commentary, but a severe criticism, both the presentation they make of the facts is contrary to reality.
 
I would simply like to call attention to the call made by John Paul II to dissociate himself from the SSPX in this document: "In the present circumstances, I wish above all to address a call at once solemn and fervent, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now they have been linked in various ways with the activities of Archbishop Lefebvre, so that they fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church and stop sustaining in any way that this reprehensible way of acting. Everyone should know that formal adherence to the schism constitutes a grave offense against God and carries with it excommunication duly established by the law of the Church "(§ 5, c).
 
As explained above, in compensation for this separation "a Commission is constituted, with the task of collaborating with the bishops, with the dicasteries of the Roman Curia and with the interested circles, to facilitate the full ecclesial communion of the priests, seminarians, communities, religious or religious, which until now were linked in different ways to the Fraternity founded by Archbishop Lefebvre and who wish to remain united to the Successor of Peter in the Catholic Church, preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions "(§6, a).
 
The mission of the Ecclesia Dei commission is therefore very clear: to combat the work of spiritual health of the founding bishop of the SSPX. Then he was right to say that the Ecclesia Dei commission was "in charge of the recovery of the traditionalists."
 
From 1984 to 1988: same combat
 
Another extremely important point: the Motu proprio of July 2, 1988, states in point 6 c: "the sensitivity of all those who feel bound to the Latin liturgical tradition, through a wide range of and generous application of the rules issued some time ago by the Apostolic See, for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962. "
 
This paragraph refers to footnote 9, which refers to the document of October 3, 1984: Cf. Congregation for Divine Worship, Letter Quattuor abhinc annos , October 3, 1984: AAS 76, 1984, 1.088 -1.089. It is clear then that the Ecclesia Dei commission continued in its original line: they will only be in legality if they no longer fight the mass of Paul VI, if they do not cause harm to the conciliar liturgical reform and if their position is publicly known throughout the world.
So the Ecclesia Dei commission had the purpose:
 
1) To marginalize the work of Bishop Lefebvre and make it inaccessible; 2) remove priests and the faithful from it; 3) to make all the recalcitrants accept the new Mass; 4) no longer allow anyone the exclusivity of the old mass; 5) and finally, stop the combat of Tradition. Ecclesia Dei became the refuge of Catholics who "prefer the old Mass" for personal pleasure, but have ceased the good fight that consists in rejecting the new Mass for reasons of faith and keep the old for the same reason.
 
For or against the SSPX
 
Since then the question of an " Ecclesia Dei option" has been raised, which has finally resulted in a dilemma "for or against Bishop Lefebvre" or "for or against the SSPX". More generally, a false problem now appears: "in the Church with Ecclesia Dei , or outside the Church with the SSPX". Even simpler: Catholic or excommunicated. There was a false dilemma in conscience and, apparently, a dilemma in serious matters, which logically compromised the salvation of those who chose knowingly. It was not, in fact, more than a scruple of conscience invented by the men of the Council to bring its liturgical revolution to a good conclusion and to make the work of Bishop Lefebvre disappear forever.
 
3) The Apostolic Letter Summorum pontificum of July 7, 2007 in the form of Motu proprio of Benedict XVI .
 
This document is what led many Catholics to believe that the Mass of St. Pius V had been "liberated." It deserves a comprehensive comment. However, it is necessary, in this article, to limit oneself to what follows.
 
After falsely applying to the new Mass of Paul VI everything that could be said with all truth of the rite of St. Pius V, the pope recalls that: "In some regions, however, not a few faithful adhered and continue to adhere with much love and affection to the previous liturgical forms, which had impregnated their culture and spirit in such a profound way, that the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, moved by pastoral concern regarding these faithful, in the year 1984, with the special pardon " Quattuor abhinc annos ", issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted the faculty to use the Roman Missal edited by Blessed John XXIII in 1962; Later, in the year 1988, with the Apostolic Letter " Ecclesia Dei ", given in the form of Motu Proprio, John Paul II exhorted the bishops to widely and generously use this faculty in favor of all the faithful who requested it ". The line of thought is clear: conciliar Rome is always on the path traced by the document of October 3, 1984.
 
Twelve articles come immediately, of which the first ends in these terms: "That is why it is permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass according to the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962, which has never been abrogated, as a form extraordinary of the liturgy of the Church. The conditions for the use of this missal established in the previous documents " Quattuor abhinc annis " and " Ecclesia Dei ", shall be replaced as set forth below ". Follow 11 articles that enunciate the new conditions to benefit from the old mass.
 
One could believe that everything had changed, that the old Mass was definitely free, because the agreed faculties seemed truly more "broad". This is not the case, because Article 11 of the document states bluntly: "The Pontifical Commission" Ecclesia Dei ", erected by John Paul II in 1988, continues to exercise its mission". And it refers to note 5 that says: "Cf. JUAN PABLO II, Lett. ap in the form of Motu proprio Ecclesia Dei , July 2, 1988, 6: AAS 80 (1988), 1498 ". What is this mission? Which is fixed in the document of 1988 already mentioned: to remove the faithful from the work of Bishop Lefebvre and, in reference to the document of October 3, 1984, not to grant the Tridentine rite more than to those who do not question the new mass, without prejudice to the liturgical reform and whose position is publicly known.
 
Article 12 provides that "The Commission itself, in addition to the powers it already enjoys, will exercise the authority of the Holy See, overseeing the observance and application of these provisions." And in fact, articles 7 and 8 refer to the mentioned commission in case of litigation in the petitions to celebrate the ancient rite.
 
The line is therefore always the same and the Motu proprio of 2007 does not do more than materially expand the ability to use the ancient rite.
 
For, formally, its use is always conditioned by the same principles and the same spirit: those formulated in the document of July 2, 1988 that refer to the document of October 3, 1984. Despite appearances, the old mass it was not liberated, it remains captive of the conciliar reform and ended by a renunciation: cease the fight of the Faith regarding the mass of Paul VI and accept in principle the conciliar liturgical reform. The Wikipedia article on this is not wrong: "The provisions presented in this letter follow the logic of the previous texts Quattuor abhinc annos and Ecclesia Dei ."
 
4) The Apostolic Letter Ecclesiae unitatem of July 2, 2009 in the form of motu proprio of Benedict XVI.
 
In this document, the successor of John Paul II recalls paragraph 6 a of the document of July 2, 1988 that wants "to facilitate the full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, communities, religious or religious, which until now were linked from different forms to the Fraternity founded by Archbishop Lefebvre and who wish to remain united to the successor of Peter in the Catholic Church, preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions "(n ° 2). Doing this, the pope wanted to "expand and update ... the general indication contained in the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei " (n ° 3).
 
It is useful to underline here two significant points:
 
1. The commission retains its original name and therefore retains the motu proprio of July 2, 1988, as the founding text, with all that it entails, especially its reference to the pardon of October 3, 1984. She then continues with her original mission: to remove Catholics from the work of Bishop Lefebvre;
 
2. Paragraph 2 refers explicitly to the document of origin: John Paul II, motu proprio Ecclesia Dei , July 2, 1988, No. 6: AAS 80 [1988] 1498. So this new document remains in line with 1984 and 1988. It is always the same war against Tradition.
 
On the other hand, in this document, Benedict XVI makes a decision of great consequences. He wants to "reform the structure of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, uniting it closely with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith". Here is the purpose of the letter: to join the Ecclesia Dei commission to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The objective of this maneuver is indicated in n ° 5: "Precisely because the problems that must be dealt with at present with the Fraternity are of an essentially doctrinal nature, I decided - at the twenty-first year of the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei and in accordance with what I had reserved myself (see motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, Article 11) - to reform the structure of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, uniting it in a close way to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ". With the pretext of focusing the discussions on the doctrinal level (what is fair), Benedict XVI takes a measure that will force the SSPX to have as interlocutor, no longer the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but a commission which was founded to make it disappear! What is this commission? Ecclesia Dei
 
From here, the SSPX will be forced to dialogue with its sworn enemy from July 2, 1988: the commission Ecclesia Dei . And this commission, we must remember, rests, as on its cornerstone, on the excommunication of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre.
 
5) The blessing of Pope Francis on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the founding of the Fraternity of Saint Peter.
 
The facts show that the Ecclesia Dei commission and Vatican II continue to carry out the same fight. In his letter of October 28, 2013, the Apostolic Nuncio of Paris, Luigi Ventura, assured the members of the San Pedro Fraternity that "Pope Francis joins the thanksgiving of his members for the work accomplished in the course for a quarter of a century in the service of ecclesial communion cum Petro et sub Petro ". What ecclesial work is it about? The one that has consisted, as indicated by Motu proprio of July 2, 1988, in separating the faithful from the SSPX to take them to the conciliar Church. The pope, on the other hand, refers to the events that gave birth to him, that is, the consecrations of 1988 and the excommunication of Bishop Lefebvre: "It is at a moment of great proof for the Church, that the Fraternity of Saint Peter was born. "
 
Francis then encourages them "to continue their mission of reconciliation among all the faithful, whatever their sensitivity". It can not be treated, logically, more than reconciliation with the conciliar Church and the new rite. Here is the proof: "That celebrating the Sacred Mysteries according to the extraordinary form of the Roman rite (Mass of St. Pius V) and the orientations of the Constitution on the Sacrosanctum Concilium Liturgy (arising from Vatican II), as well as transmitting the apostolic faith which is presented in the Catechism of the catholic (conciliar) Church, contribute, in fidelity to the living Tradition of the Church, to a better understanding and application of the Second Vatican Council ".
 
conclusion
 
Bishop Lefebvre was quite right in stating that the Roman commission ( Ecclesia Dei ) is in charge of recovering the traditionalists to submit them to the Council.
The mission of the commission Ecclesia Dei , from July 2, 1988, is then to reconcile the priests and faithful attached to the work of Bishop Lefebvre with the conciliar Church.
 
With this objective, she continues her mission even now: the "recovery" of the priests and faithful of the SSPX and their friendly communities to stop the fight of the Faith.
 
May all those who imagine that there is a vocation identity between the Ecclesia Dei institutes and the SSPX open their eyes. The Ecclesia Dei commission and the institutes attached to it are a great danger to the work founded by Bishop Marcel Lefebvre. They have the vocation to neutralize, paralyze and dissolve it.
 
This is clearly inscribed in the founding texts of this commission. Against factum, non fit argumentum. Against the facts, there is nothing to replicate.
 
P. Guy Castelain +  
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 20, 2019, 08:08:31 PM
Yes all 3 of those legal documents are related, but they are legal trickery.  Yes, I agree that these laws are trying to trick people into accepting the new mass, but no one has to accept the V2 heresies, either morally or legally.  Much likes states which impose illegal gun registration on their citizens, even though the Constitution allows free ownership (without registration), so these laws seek to put limits on the True Mass, which has a papal permission "in perpetuity".

Let's look at it another way.  The indult was started in the 80s right?  The new mass was started in 1969.  So we're talking about a period of 15 or so years where the new mass was "illegal", right?  Then the indult came along and mass was now "available", with restrictions, right?

If this is so, why did Pope Benedict say in his "motu" of 2007 that the 1962 missal "was always allowed"?  If it was always allowed, then why did we need the indult laws?

The truth of the matter is that the indult laws are overruled by Quo Primum's perpetual permission of the latin mass, which is why the latin mass was "always allowed".  
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: nottambula on January 20, 2019, 09:28:05 PM
The Psalm 129 blogger, and also Louie Verrecchio, are wearing rose-colored glasses!


https://psalm129.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/contra-fellay/

Contra Fellay?
Ecclesia Dei is no more. Most conciliar commentators have argued this is “no big deal” and that there’s “no reason to panic,” it’s just a re-shuffling of the Vatican’s bloated bureaucracy.

Riiiight.

Since when have things of this magnitude become a matter of just shrugging our shoulders and acting like nothing happened? Francis is a Machiavellian pope who does everything for a very specific reason. My guess is most people on the inside know exactly why this was done and what it means but are trying to keep things relatively quiet.

Psalm 129 believes that one possibility Ecclesia Dei is no more is that Fr. Pagliarani told Cardinal Ladaria, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, during their November meeting that he’s not interested in pursuing the Fellay approach (i.e. just recognize us as we are!) Rather, the SSPX wants Rome to come back to the true doctrine of the past.

That this is what Fr. Pagliarani told the Cardinal is a total guess, to be sure, but recent interviews Fr. has given indicate he is interested in putting doctrine first ahead of a practical arrangement. See here (https://psalm129.wordpress.com/2018/12/23/a-new-hope/) and here. (https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/sspx-holds-treasure-its-hands-fr-pagliarani-interview-41010)

It’s also possible that after hearing this from Cardinal Ladaria, Pope Francis threw a temper tantrum and said something along the lines of “They want to talk doctrine? Alright, let’s talk doctrine!”

That Francis is thinking this seems to be confirmed by the announcement that abolished Ecclesia Dei (https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2019/01/apostolic-letter-abolishing-pontifical.html), which said “The aims and questions dealt with by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei are of a predominantly doctrinal order,” and these “aims” should “be made ever more evident to the conscience of the ecclesial communities” in the Church.

In other words, Francis is taking the SSPX up on its offer to discuss doctrine, but he is going to do it in his way, and that means, doing so more publicly. Play time is over, in other words, and Francis is going to dig in his heels and start bomb throwing, just like how he did with the countless other semi-traditional religious orders be has destroyed.

Blogger Louie Verrechio seems to think this is what’s going on as well. He put it this way on this site AKA Catholic (https://akacatholic.com/ecclesia-dei-suppressed-tradition-in-the-crosshairs/):

So, what does this portend? Again, we will have to wait and see, but it very well may mean that the days of behind-the-scenes negotiating sessions between the Roman modernists and the SSPX are over. It could be that Bergoglio wants all to see just how unreasonable, intolerant, rigid, triumphalistic, behind the times, and let us not forget, anti-Semitic, the Society and others who think like them truly are. 

To what purpose? To discredit, not just the Society, but tradition itself in the eyes of the world; setting it up for persecution by the leaders of the one-world government that he is so pleased to serve.

Lost in all of the hubbub here is just how much it appears Fr. Pagliarani is diverging from his liberal predecessor.

Indeed, in the SSPX’s official response to Ecclesia Dei’s abolishing (https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/pontifical-commission-ecclesia-dei-suppressed-pope-francis-44060), one finds words that reflect how the Archbishop approached the Conciliar Church. Here is the most important part of the SSPX’s statement:

The so-called Ecclesia Dei communities…clearly do not count in this discussion. They can have the Mass, the “spiritual and liturgical traditions”, but not the whole doctrine that goes along with them.

That has always been the Society of St. Pius X’s great reproach against Dom Gérard and all those who thought they should break the unity of Tradition in order to negotiate a purely practical agreement. The crisis of the Church cannot be reduced to a spiritual or liturgical question alone. It is deeper, for it touches the very heart of the Faith and the doctrine of Revelation…

Is this not a complete and utter break with the Trad-ecumenism of Bishop Fellay? Is this not a stark reminder of the real problems with the FSSP, ICKSP, etc. and how they aren’t SSPX friends but traitors? Is not the condemnation of those who sought out a “purely practical agreement” a harkening back to the SSPX of old? Yes, yes, and yes.

Be that as it may, Brian McCall at Catholic Family News is claiming that  t (https://www.catholicfamilynews.org/blog/2019/1/19/first-reaction-to-suppression-of-ecclesia-dei-commission-from-the-sspx)he SSPX statement “also reaffirms the position of the SSPX that difficulties between the SSPX and the Roman authorities are primarily doctrinal.” Sorry Brian. But under Bishop Fellay, the issue was not “primarily doctrinal.” With Bishop Fellay, it was always about how Rome viewed the SSPX as Catholic and that Francis is truly our friend and that the SSPX has allies everywhere, therefore, we must make a practical deal now and convert the Church later from within.

It will be interesting to see how long the lie of “continuity” between Fellay and Pagliarani goes on for. The liberals in the SSPX must be concerned with the way things are heading. If Fellay was still in control, it isn’t hard to imagine in response to the abolition of Ecclesia Dei, he’d say something like “We thank the Holy Father for streamlining this complex process and trying to bring a resolution to our situation. It is a matter of justice we be seen as Catholic. We appreciate his fatherly affection for us, especially for granting our priests confession.” Nothing, you’d expect, would be said about how the Ecclesia Dei groups are deficient or how the those who sought a “practical agreement” with Rome in the past “broke the unity of Tradition.”

If the first several months of Fr. Pagliarani’s reign were perhaps underwhelming, his strong emphasis on the need for the Pope to return to Tradition and his apparent making of doctrine pre-eminent above a practical arrangement is a possible sign liberalism may be on its way out in the highest levels of the SSPX. It is now up to the Superior General to make sure liberalism is driven out of the SSPX completely. And that is a much taller order. Only time will tell.


Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: MaterDominici on January 20, 2019, 11:45:01 PM
The Psalm 129 blogger, and also Louie Verrecchio, are wearing rose-colored glasses!


https://psalm129.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/contra-fellay/
.....................

If the first several months of Fr. Pagliarani’s reign were perhaps underwhelming, his strong emphasis on the need for the Pope to return to Tradition and his apparent making of doctrine pre-eminent above a practical arrangement is a possible sign liberalism may be on its way out in the highest levels of the SSPX. It is now up to the Superior General to make sure liberalism is driven out of the SSPX completely. And that is a much taller order. Only time will tell.
I'm alright with a little optimism. It would be terrible for many, many souls if the SSPX continued to sink. This post is cautiously optimistic that the SSPX might be rekindling old positions more in line with Archbishop Lefebvre and I don't see anything wrong with that!
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: nottambula on January 21, 2019, 03:25:58 AM
I'm alright with a little optimism. It would be terrible for many, many souls if the SSPX continued to sink. This post is cautiously optimistic that the SSPX might be rekindling old positions more in line with Archbishop Lefebvre and I don't see anything wrong with that!

Maybe the Psalm 129 blogger wrote a day too soon. News that the SSPX has now acquired a Conciliar bishop (reported only one day after the dissolution of Ecclesia Dei--that in itself an ominous sign, since it was yet one more 'gift' to the SSPX from His Humbleness), doesn't exactly inspire confidence that things are headed back in the right direction. Do we really think +Fellay is out of the picture now? No way. Rorate Caeli's report is correct in that the SSPX is "fast reaching full regularization by installments", and so it saddens me to see those who are holding on to false hope, even still.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 21, 2019, 05:45:22 AM
Yes all 3 of those legal documents are related, but they are legal trickery.  Yes, I agree that these laws are trying to trick people into accepting the new mass, but no one has to accept the V2 heresies, either morally or legally.  Much likes states which impose illegal gun registration on their citizens, even though the Constitution allows free ownership (without registration), so these laws seek to put limits on the True Mass, which has a papal permission "in perpetuity".

Let's look at it another way.  The indult was started in the 80s right?  The new mass was started in 1969.  So we're talking about a period of 15 or so years where the new mass was "illegal", right?  Then the indult came along and mass was now "available", with restrictions, right?

If this is so, why did Pope Benedict say in his "motu" of 2007 that the 1962 missal "was always allowed"?  If it was always allowed, then why did we need the indult laws?

The truth of the matter is that the indult laws are overruled by Quo Primum's perpetual permission of the latin mass, which is why the latin mass was "always allowed".  


Precisely. They are "real trickery" but it is a fact that those who accept this "trickery" have in fact accepted the "V2 heresies and the Novus Ordo" in principle in order to use the 1962 missal. Even Summorum Pontificum makes this quite clear. The article is interesting because it shows the relationship between the three indults consistently referencing the first indult Quattour Abhinc Annos of 1984 directly or indirectly.

But is it the Missal of Pius V they are talking about in these three indults? Or is it "real trickery"? Why is the 1962 mentioned in all? Why are all the indult communities mandated to use that missal? And their priests ordained specifically to say this missal? Why is it that the Institute of the Good Sheppard which had been regularized previous to Summorum Pontificum was coerced (by Ecclesia Dei) around 5-6 years ago into being regulated by Summorum Pontificum instead of the old agreement to just use the traditional Mass? And lastly, why is it that Rome convinced AB Lefebvre to sign an agreement to always do the 1962 missal?

Quattour Abhinc Annos makes it a condition that "these celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal."

You are correct about permission "in perpetuity" as far as the traditional Roman Rite. But again, is the 1962 the "traditional Roman Rite"? If it was, it could not possibly be the subject of an indult. Don't be fooled by the "trickery" of BXVI in S.P. His goal and the goal of all the post V2 popes is to bring those who need this legal "trickery" back to the Novus Ordo.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: 2Vermont on January 21, 2019, 06:29:14 AM
And lastly, why is it that Rome convinced AB Lefebvre to sign an agreement to always do the 1962 missal?

Excellent question, Maria.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 21, 2019, 09:52:37 AM
Quote
But again, is the 1962 the "traditional Roman Rite"?
You keep bringing up this question without a shred of evidence to prove it isn’t, other than your own opinion.  Is there one Vatican official, ever, to suggest that the 62 missal isn’t legal?

Secondly, as far as mass is concerned, the only change of any substance is the addition of St Jospeh - all other changes aren’t essential.  And even the addition of St Joseph was added AFTER the actual 62 law, so it’s debatable if it’s even part of Quo Primum’s legal child, or an additional change which doesn’t have the same obligation to follow.  (Many priests don’t include his name for this reason so the 62 missal is basically the same as the previous one).

So we're left with the changes to the calendar and Holy Week as to how to decide if the 62 missal is “received and approved” (which, mind you, if you believe John XXIII was pope, then you have NO RIGHT to even question the above).  ...But the mass is the same as the previous missal, (if you don’t include St Joseph) right?  So how is the 62 missal not ok?  

This is like the 5th time I’ve asked.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 21, 2019, 11:07:15 AM
Pax,

We both have opinions but you are fixated in yours. You want to believe BXVI's "trickery" that is the same missal as the Pius V. The 1962 is legal to use because the popes have given indults (which means permission to do something otherwise considered illegal!) for its use.

In 1986 it was acknowledged by the highest authorities in the Church after JPII's Commission of 9 Cardinals (all with Doctorates in Canon Law) that:

1) The old Mass was never forbidden to be said by any priest in good standing. Quo Primum was never abrogated.
2) No one (not even a religious superior, bishop or Cardinal) could forbid a priest from saying the old Mass in public or in private.

So...why all the indults (1988 & 2007) if the 1962 missal is considered by Rome to be the "received and approved" rite of the Latin Rite?
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 21, 2019, 12:46:12 PM
You answered your own question. Look at the facts.  Which came first, JPIIs commission or the indults?  The commission did.  What does that mean?  It means that the commission decided BEFORE THE INDULT LAWS EXISTED that the True Mass wasn’t outlawed.  

That means that the 62 missal wasn’t outlawed and the indults are legal trickery, trying to get people to “ask” for something that they already have the right to have.  The indults were accepted by everyone but Traditionalists because we know that Quo Primum is a higher law.  And since the commission ruled that Quo Primum is still law, and this was again confirmed in 2007 by +Benedict, then this is fact.  

What we disagree on is which missal is the True Missal.  For some reason (which you’ve yet to explain) you say the 62 missal is illegal, immoral and unusable.  You’ve yet to prove this with any facts.  The legal fact is that if you say that the 62 missal is illegal then you’d have to use Pius Xs missal.  This would be the last valid missal.  Is this your argument?

If so, then you’d have to say that John XXIII isn’t the pope because his 62 law abrogated Pius Xs missal and does not allow it to be used any longer.  

Further, earlier on in this debate, it was said that the 62 missal is wrong because Bugnini was involved.  But John XXIII is the one who suspended Bugnini and took him off the liturgical commission, so that argument doesn’t fly.  

I still don’t understand why you’re against the 62 missal, if you’re not a sedevacantist.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 21, 2019, 01:32:53 PM
This is basically what was said and drew has said it better:

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg638935/#msg638935
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg639133/#msg639133
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg639174/#msg639174
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg639180/#msg639180
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg639181/#msg639181

I don't think saying anything else would make a difference to you. It won't be long before we KNOW more about the 1962 Missal when the SSPX Prelature is announced and the "New 1962 missal" as approved by BXVI before his retirement comes out. When that happens, the 1962 will have to be abrogated because C. Ratzinger's idea was to "merge the two rites into one". As pope, he approved it.

We wait and see. And NO, we are NOT sedevacante.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 21, 2019, 06:35:24 PM
Any changes to the 62 missal would be a new missal, with a new year.  There’s no such thing as a “new 62 missal”.  That’s an oxymoron.

Any new missal (from Benedict or otherwise) must be legally put into use.  This promulgation for its use is the most important part because this determines the why, the obligation for its use and how we are to treat the older missals.

If +Francis comes out with “updates” to the 62 missal this year (we would call it the 2019 missal), then what really matters is 1) if he makes the updates by ABROGATING the entire 1962 missal and commanding that the new 2019 missal is ONLY to be used.  Or 2) if he just comes out with changes or a new hybrid version between the 62 and the new mass, and does NOT ABROGATE the 62 missal, but simply creates a new missal like Paul VI, with no obligations for anyone to use it.  

If he does the latter, then no one has to pay any concern to it, since there’s no obligation to.  If he tries to do the former, then we’ll have to read the law and see what it says, exactly.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 21, 2019, 07:54:15 PM

Quote
When that happens, the 1962 will have to be abrogated because C. Ratzinger's idea was to "merge the two rites into one". As pope, he approved it.
1.  If a new hybrid 62-new mass missal is released, that doesn’t mean that the 62 missal is abrogated, unless the law specially says so.  When Paul VI issued the new mass, he didn’t abrogate the 62 missal so abrogation cannot be assumed; it must be clearly spelled out in the law.  

2.  Even if Pope Benedict put the new hybrid missal together, since he did not issue it under his papacy, then he did not “approve” it, formally and legally speaking.  When/If a new hybrid missal is issued, it will be approved by +Francis, because he’s the pope (in theory).  It doesn’t matter when the missal was put together, it matters when the law that issues the missal is put in force.  
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: X on January 21, 2019, 08:08:34 PM
I'm alright with a little optimism. It would be terrible for many, many souls if the SSPX continued to sink. This post is cautiously optimistic that the SSPX might be rekindling old positions more in line with Archbishop Lefebvre and I don't see anything wrong with that!
Psalm 129 is out to lunch.
Rekindling the old positions of ABL while having doubtfully ordained diocesan priests performing marriages in SSPX chapels?
Inconceivable!
Accepting conciliar bishops fully committed to Vatican II and the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo taking residence at SSPX schools?
Inconceivable!
No, Psalm 129 is clutching at straws.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 21, 2019, 08:19:02 PM
Agree.  Until they stop using new-order priests/bishops altogether, the new-sspx is just using communist tactics to pacify the laity.  Actions speak louder than words.  They can quote +ABL all they want to, but if they continue to accept V2's changes, then they are moving farther and farther away from Tradition than they already are.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: poche on January 21, 2019, 10:33:11 PM
Maybe the Psalm 129 blogger wrote a day too soon. News that the SSPX has now acquired a Conciliar bishop (reported only one day after the dissolution of Ecclesia Dei--that in itself an ominous sign, since it was yet one more 'gift' to the SSPX from His Humbleness), doesn't exactly inspire confidence that things are headed back in the right direction. Do we really think +Fellay is out of the picture now? No way. Rorate Caeli's report is correct in that the SSPX is "fast reaching full regularization by installments", and so it saddens me to see those who are holding on to false hope, even still.
Who is this new 'conciliar bishop?'
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 21, 2019, 10:46:27 PM
See this thread:

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/papably-approved/msg640331/?topicseen#msg640331 (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/papably-approved/msg640331/?topicseen#msg640331)
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: JmJ2cents on January 22, 2019, 06:14:34 AM
What doesn't make sense to me is that Bennie doesn't seem to give a darn what they do, so why wait until he dies?  I mean, honestly.  Does anyone really think if they put this through while he was still alive that he was going to condemn Francis for it??  :laugh1:
The people who think this theory of Pope Benedict being assassinated are the ones who think he is still the pope and that he was coerced into resigning therefore it is null.  People like Louis Verrachio and Fr. Kramer.  They somehow want to believe he was a good pope.........
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 22, 2019, 12:31:27 PM
1.  If a new hybrid 62-new mass missal is released, that doesn’t mean that the 62 missal is abrogated, unless the law specially says so.  When Paul VI issued the new mass, he didn’t abrogate the 62 missal so abrogation cannot be assumed; it must be clearly spelled out in the law.  

2.  Even if Pope Benedict put the new hybrid missal together, since he did not issue it under his papacy, then he did not “approve” it, formally and legally speaking.  When/If a new hybrid missal is issued, it will be approved by +Francis, because he’s the pope (in theory).  It doesn’t matter when the missal was put together, it matters when the law that issues the missal is put in force.  

You don't understand Summorum Pontificum and its related documents (still in effect). Your claim that: "it matters when the law that issues the missal is put in force" is meaningless. As you can see, Benedict keeps referring to the older indults througout his own documents. You need to read them without prejudice. The purpose of Summorum Pontificum was never to "liberate" the 1962 missal but to give it it's proper burial. As I mentioned before, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in his book The Spirit of the Liturgy (published in 2000), that two rites (Novus Ordo &1962) were too difficult to manage therefore they would eventually have to be merged into one (missal). That is what he accomplished through  Summorum Pontificum. He authorized Ecclesia Dei to make all the changes necessary to the 1962 missal so that the two "FORMS" would complement each other: " new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal and that "The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard".

Regarding Summorum Pontificum, Benedict XVI says: "I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church."

Those who consider the Mass a matter of mere discipline and the pope "master of the liturgy" have to accept the "new norms for the use of the Roman Liturgy of 1962." Benedict XVI explains why the 1962 missal "was never juridically abrogated" (which implies that it can) : "...when the new Missal had been introduced under Pope Paul VI, it had not seemed necessary to issue guidelines regulating the use of the 1962 Liturgy..."

After the "new norms for the use of the Roman Liturgy of 1962" are implemented, the "juridical abrogation" of the 1962 missal now in use will necesarily follow.


All quotes are documented:

Quote
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html
SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
 
"...the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful."
 
"...For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal.  The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage.  The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.
I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church."
 
"...There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal.  In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture ...Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books.  The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.
In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful.  Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html), 22: “Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum”).
Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity.  Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.



Quote
BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION OF SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
 http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.
This fear is unfounded.  In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy.  The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration.  It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”.  Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.
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.  At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal.  Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level.  Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood..."


Quote
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/rc_com_ecclsdei_doc_20110430_istr-universae-ecclesiae_en.html
INSTRUCTION ON THE APPLICATION OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
 
 2. With this Motu Proprio, the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/index.htm) promulgated a universal law for the Church, intended to establish new regulations for the use of the Roman Liturgy in effect in 1962.
 
7. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum was accompanied by a letter from the Holy Father to Bishops, with the same date as the Motu Proprio (7 July 2007). This letter gave further explanations regarding the appropriateness and the need for the Motu Proprio; it was a matter of overcoming a lacuna by providing new norms for the use of the Roman Liturgy of 1962. Such norms were needed particularly on account of the fact that, when the new Missal had been introduced under Pope Paul VI, it had not seemed necessary to issue guidelines regulating the use of the 1962 Liturgy...
11. After having received the approval from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will have the task of looking after future editions of liturgical texts pertaining to the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite.
 
25. New saints and certain of the new prefaces can and ought to be inserted into the 1962 Missal[9] (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/rc_com_ecclsdei_doc_20110430_istr-universae-ecclesiae_en.html#_ftn9), according to provisions which will be indicated subsequently.
26. As foreseen by article 6 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, the readings of the Holy Mass of the Missal of 1962 can be proclaimed either solely in the Latin language, or in Latin followed by the vernacular or, in Low Masses, solely in the vernacular.



Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Mr G on January 22, 2019, 12:44:54 PM
The people who think this theory of Pope Benedict being assassinated are the ones who think he is still the pope and that he was coerced into resigning therefore it is null.  People like Louis Verrachio and Fr. Kramer.  They somehow want to believe he was a good pope.........
No, actually they know for a fact that Pope Benedict was/is a bad Pope, a  material heretic; unlike Pope Francis whom they think is an apostate and formal heretic.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: JmJ2cents on January 22, 2019, 01:47:32 PM
No, actually they know for a fact that Pope Benedict was/is a bad Pope, a  material heretic; unlike Pope Francis whom they think is an apostate and formal heretic.
They think he is a heretic but not as bad as Pope Francis and they do believe that Pope Benedict is still Pope.   
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 22, 2019, 02:40:01 PM
Marie Aux,
You keep mixing up the present, past and future and making an argument with all 3 mixed together - that makes no sense.  We have to look at what the laws say - not the commentary, or people's OPINIONS about the law or what happened BECAUSE OF the law.  We have to look at what is OBLIGATED by the law.  This is all that matters.

Below is a series of questions I have.  Please answer these and maybe we can get to an agreement on things.


Quote
You don't understand Summorum Pontificum and its related documents (still in effect).
"Summorum Pontificum" (SP) concerns itself with when/where Bishops are to allow the latin mass to be said.  It is a revsion of the previous indult law.  It does NOT apply, in ANY way, to Quo Primum, which is still law. 

Quo Primum says 1) any priest/catholic can say/attend this missal in perpetuity, by papal permission, with no limitations.  2) ALL catholics must ONLY use this missal.

SP puts limitations, contrary to Quo Primum.  Quo Primum is a higher law and anything contrary to it is null and void.  The reason why it's a higher law is because it says it applies to ALL Catholics, everywhere, under pain of sin.  SP does not say it applies to anyone, there are no obligations to follow it and there is no penalty for ignoring it.  Hence, SP violates Quo Primum.  Do you agree or disagree?


Quote
Your claim that: "it matters when the law that issues the missal is put in force" is meaningless. As you can see, Benedict keeps referring to the older indults througout his own documents. You need to read them without prejudice. 
That comment was in response to your claim that "Benedict already approved a hybrid missal."  This isn't possible, since the hybrid missal doesn't yet exist and he's not pope anymore.  A pope CANNOT approve something which hasn't happened or hasn't been finished.


Quote
The purpose of Summorum Pontificum was never to "liberate" the 1962 missal but to give it it's proper burial.  As I mentioned before, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in his book The Spirit of the Liturgy (published in 2000), that two rites (Novus Ordo &1962) were too difficult to manage therefore they would eventually have to be merged into one (missal).
Who cares?  It hasn't happened yet.  You're projecting what the modernists want vs the present.  We're talking about CURRENT law, not the future.


Quote
That is what he accomplished through  Summorum Pontificum. He authorized Ecclesia Dei to make all the changes necessary to the 1962 missal so that the two "FORMS" would complement each other: " new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal and that "The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard".
Again, it doesn't matter.  Firstly, the Ecclesia Dei doesn't exist anymore (as of this month) so any authorization is pointless now.  Secondly, popes authorize commissions to do things all the time.  It's how governments work.  That doesn't mean the commission has the power of the pope or that it can do whatever it wants.  Commissions create multiple drafts, which the pope and his advisors review, then changes are made, again and again, until a final version is complete...THEN the pope signs off on it and makes it law.

The hybrid missal which you talk about (which I assume you mean will get rid of the 1962 missal) doesn't yet exist.  The (former) Eccelsia Dei commission MIGHT have a close-to-complete draft, but no pope has approved it yet. 

Again, the pope can't approve of a missal of the future...unless all the changes are already known and agreed to. 


Quote
Regarding Summorum Pontificum, Benedict XVI says: "I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church."
The SP law was a continuation of the indult laws.  I've admitted this as it's very clear.  But these laws are meaningless and are null because they violate Quo Primum, as I explained above.  The indult laws oblige NO ONE to follow them, they have NO PENALTIES for violating them and since they contradict a CURRENT LAW, they can/should be ignored.

Do you not understand the legal situation when a lower law (i.e. a city law) contradicts a higher law (i.e. state law)?  The lower law is null.


Quote
Those who consider the Mass a matter of mere discipline and the pope "master of the liturgy" have to accept the "new norms for the use of the Roman Liturgy of 1962." Benedict XVI explains why the 1962 missal "was never juridically abrogated" (which implies that it can) : "...when the new Missal had been introduced under Pope Paul VI, it had not seemed necessary to issue guidelines regulating the use of the 1962 Liturgy..."
Of course the pope can abrogate teh 1962 missal (but no pope has yet).  Just like St Pope Pius V abrogated his own missal a few years after Quo Primum.  And then, 5-6 popes abrogated the missal after that and issued new ones, all the way down the line from 1571 to 1962.  The problem is not the abrogation (this happens all the time with Church law), the problem is if the new missal is DOCTRINALLY/ESSENTIALLY different than the previous ones.

Every missal from the 600s (Pope St Gregory Great's time) til 1962 is DOCTRINALLY/ESSENTIALLY the same.  And all these missals were abrogated and replaced with a new missal (the changes being updates to the calendar and other non-essential liturgical matters).

P.s.  The pope is "master of the liturgy" when it comes to non-essentials.  (i.e. when the pope added the genuflection to the Credo.)  Do you agree/disagree?


Quote
After the "new norms for the use of the Roman Liturgy of 1962" are implemented, the "juridical abrogation" of the 1962 missal now in use will necesarily follow.
1) Hasn't happened yet.  2) When/if a new missal is made, we'll read the law and see what it says.  If the language is non-specific, non-obligatory and non-binding (like the law which created the new mass), then I'll say "who cares?" because no catholic will have to accept it and the 1962 missal will still HAVE TO be used, since Quo Primum demands it.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: drew on January 22, 2019, 07:53:02 PM
You answered your own question. Look at the facts.  Which came first, JPIIs commission or the indults?  The commission did.  What does that mean?  It means that the commission decided BEFORE THE INDULT LAWS EXISTED that the True Mass wasn’t outlawed.  

That means that the 62 missal wasn’t outlawed and the indults are legal trickery, trying to get people to “ask” for something that they already have the right to have.  The indults were accepted by everyone but Traditionalists because we know that Quo Primum is a higher law.  And since the commission ruled that Quo Primum is still law, and this was again confirmed in 2007 by +Benedict, then this is fact.  

What we disagree on is which missal is the True Missal.  For some reason (which you’ve yet to explain) you say the 62 missal is illegal, immoral and unusable.  You’ve yet to prove this with any facts.  The legal fact is that if you say that the 62 missal is illegal then you’d have to use Pius Xs missal.  This would be the last valid missal.  Is this your argument?

If so, then you’d have to say that John XXIII isn’t the pope because his 62 law abrogated Pius Xs missal and does not allow it to be used any longer.  

Further, earlier on in this debate, it was said that the 62 missal is wrong because Bugnini was involved.  But John XXIII is the one who suspended Bugnini and took him off the liturgical commission, so that argument doesn’t fly.  

I still don’t understand why you’re against the 62 missal, if you’re not a sedevacantist.


The “commission,” of which Cardinal Strickler was a member, was a group of nine cardinals directed by the pope to advise him on two questions.  Nothing of this commission’s work was ever published or intended to be published.  All we have is the comments of Cardinal Strickler regarding the commission’s advice given to JPII.  From Cardinal Strickler we know that the commission said nothing about the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal.  The commission referred only to the traditional Latin Mass.  The two questions according to Cardinal Strickler were:


1) Did Pope Paul VI authorize the bishops to forbid the celebration of the traditional Mass?
2) Does the priest have the right to celebrate the traditional Mass in public and in private without restriction, even against the will of his bishop?

Cardinal Strickler said in an interview: “The answers given by the nine Cardinals in 1986 was ‘No, the Mass of Saint Pius V (Tridentine Mass) has never been suppressed,’ and "the nine Cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass."

Considering this advice explains why JPII then permitted the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as an Indult.  He did not want traditional Catholics to know that they are entitled by their baptism to the “received and approved” rites so he gave them the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal in the form of an Indult.  There is, in fact, no “legal trickery” involved here at all.    

Your opinion that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Indult Missal “wasn’t outlawed” is taken from Benedict XVI’s Summormum Pontificum and its accompanying letter of explanation to the world’s bishops.  If you accept these documents as your proof for this judgment than you must accept its authority when they say that the 1962 Bugnini Missal and the 1969 Bugnini transitional Missal are two forms on one and the same rite with a common provenance.  You must also accept the claim that the two forms of the one worship can mutually enhance one another. You must also accept the perfect legitimacy of Vatican II doctrinal teachings are without error. You must also accept the entire Bugnini liturgical reform in principle which means that the liturgy is merely a question of discipline and not dogma.  These are all affirmed in the documents and they constitute legal conditions for the use of the 1962 Bugnini Missal as a grant of legal privilege.  Whoever uses the 1962 Bugnini Missal affirms by that fact all the stipulations contained in all three documents: Quattuor abhinc annos, Ecclesia Dei, and Summorum pontificum (read again Fr. Guy Castelain, SSPX in his magazine "The Combat of Faith" of March 2016 explaining how these three documents are materially related).

The “received and approved” immemorial Roman rite could no more be reduced to a grant of legal privilege than it could be reduced to an Indult.  It is immaterial whether or not you agree with the legal norms imposed by Rome.  They are the lawmakers and the interpreters of the law, your legal opinions notwithstanding.  

I attend a Mass that is with absolute moral certitude the “received and approved” immemorial Roman rite of Mass because it is the Mass that does not have Bugnini’s finger prints all over it.  In doing so, I do not appeal to an Indult or grant of legal privilege for its use but the right possessed by every baptized Catholic to worship God according to the “received and approved” rites of the Church.  That is, I appeal to Catholic Dogma.  Whoever uses or attends a Mass using the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal cannot make this claim with any certainty beyond a legal opinion.  And what is more to the point, Rome will not recognize their argument if they do.

Your opinions are ultimately grounded upon yourself as a liturgical and legal authority which is not worth the breath to say it.  Now you may in the end prove to be correct but that is very unlikely.  You like legalisms and you are not a lawyer.  Discussing the immemorial “recieved and approved” Roman rite of Mass in legalistic terms is distasteful.  You have relegated what is in its essence a matter of revealed truth to a simple question of authority and obedience.  What is worse, you offer your legal opinions as definitive grounds for the defense of proper worship of God when it can only serve to disunite and destroy any coherent reply to an abuse of authority.

Drew
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 22, 2019, 08:28:31 PM
You keep treating the 62 missal as if there’s some MASSIVE changes in it which make it different from the previous one.  It’s not essentially different, that’s a fact.  

Also, if you think John XXIII was Pope, how do you explain the fact that he specifically says that Pius X’s missal and the Pius XII Holy Week changes are abrogated?  What missal does your priest use?  Why is this law invalid?  Please explain.  
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: drew on January 22, 2019, 09:29:21 PM
You keep treating the 62 missal as if there’s some MASSIVE changes in it which make it different from the previous one.  It’s not essentially different, that’s a fact.  

Also, if you think John XXIII was Pope, how do you explain the fact that he specifically says that Pius X’s missal and the Pius XII Holy Week changes are abrogated?  What missal does your priest use?  Why is this law invalid?  Please explain.  


Your opinion is not worth anything to anybody but yourself.  Rome, whether you like it or not, treats the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as an object of mere discipline, first as an Indult and now as a grant of legal privilege tied to unacceptable conditions for any Catholic faithful to tradition.  Those that accept the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal, as you have, by that fact alone have accepted all its explicit and implied conditions.  That is the ugly fact that you ignore placing greater stock in your legal opinions.

You, as your own legal and liturgical expert, have determined that the 1962 Bugnini Missal is “not essentially different.”  But Rome does not agree or they would not treat the Missal as an Indult or grant of legal privilege which constitutes prima facie evidence that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal is NOT the “received and approved” Roman rite.  Rome is the authority on this question and you are not, and until Rome overturns this matter your opinions have no standing.  I know and admit that the 1955 pre-Bugnini Missal is different in essentials from the 1969 Bugnini Missal.  Furthermore, I do not pretend, as you do, to know the exact change and the exact moment that constitutes the break with immemorial tradition.  Because I cannot say with certainty when the break occurred, I can only defer to the legal status Rome regards the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as correct. I therefore attend a Mass that is without possibility of error the “received and approved” rite because it was never tampered with by Bugnini.  You do not.

No pope has the right to adopt liturgical changes that harm the faith.  Bugnini’s changes from the very beginning were enacted with the intent to destroy the “received and approved” Roman rite.  The end is primary in practical matters.  It is the first in intent and the last in execution.  But, it is important to remember, the end determines the moral quality of each and every act along the way.  


Drew  
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 22, 2019, 09:48:09 PM
Still haven’t answered the question.  John XXIII abrogated St Pius Xs missal so how can anyone use it without breaking the law?

Second, John XXIII suspended Bugnini before the 62 missal was released so your claim that this missal had a “bad intent” is unprovable because Bugnini wasn’t involved until Paul VI put him back on the commission.

Thirdly, was St Pius Xs missal the Tridentine missal?  Yes, it was the legal child of Quo Primum, which started the Tridentine rite.   Therefore, if the 62 missal replaced St Pius Xs missal, then the 62 missal is the valid successor of the Tridentine rite.  

The only way that your theory makes any sense is if you prove that John XXIIIs law which created the 62 missal was never legal.  Other than that, you can’t explain this law and its effects.  

Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 22, 2019, 11:57:39 PM
Thirdly, was St Pius Xs missal the Tridentine missal?  Yes, it was the legal child of Quo Primum, which started the Tridentine rite.   Therefore, if the 62 missal replaced St Pius Xs missal, then the 62 missal is the valid successor of the Tridentine rite.  

Quote
After St. Pius X, little by little, the so called “Liturgical Movement” strayed from its original path, and came full circle to embrace the theories which it had been founded to combat. All the ideas of the anti-liturgical heresy — as Dom Guéranger called the liturgical theories of the 18th century — were now taken up again in the 1920s and 30s by liturgists like Dom Lambert Beauduin (1873-1960) in Belgium and France, and by Dom Pius Parsch and Romano Guardini in Austria and Germany.

The “reformers” of the 1930s and 1940s introduced the “Dialogue Mass,” because of their “excessive emphasis on the active participation of the faithful in the liturgical functions.” In some cases — in scout camps, and other youth and student organizations — the innovators succeeded in introducing Mass in the vernacular, the celebration of Mass on a table facing the people, and even concelebration. Among the young priests who took a delight in liturgical experiments in Rome in 1933 was the chaplain of the Catholic youth movement, a certain Father Giovanni Battista Montini.

https://www.sodalitiumpianum.com/liturgical-revolution/

Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 23, 2019, 12:07:07 AM

The 1955 Holy Week: Other Innovations

Here is a partial list of other innovations introduced by the new Holy Week:

Quote
  • The Prayer for the Conversion of Heretics became the “Prayer for Church Unity”
  • The genuflection at the Prayer for the Jews, a practice the Church spurned for centuries in horror at the crime they committed on the first Good Friday.
  • The new rite suppressed much medieval symbolism (the opening of the door of the church at the Gloria Laus for example).
  • The new rite introduced the vernacular in some places (renewal of baptismal promises).
  • The Pater Noster was recited by all present (Good Friday).
  • The prayers for the emperor were replaced by a prayer for those governing the republic, all with a very modern flavor.
  • In the Breviary, the very moving psalm Miserere, repeated at all of the Office, was suppressed.
  • For Holy Saturday the Exultet was changed and much of the symbolism of its words suppressed.
  • Also on Holy Saturday, eight of the twelve prophecies were suppressed.
  • Sections of the Passion were suppressed, even the Last Supper disappeared, in which our Lord, already betrayed, celebrated for the first time in history the Sacrifice of the Mass.
  • On Good Friday, communion was now distributed, contrary to the tradition of the Church, and condemned by St. Pius X when people had wanted to initiate this practice
  • All the rubrics of the 1955 Holy Week rite, then, insisted continually on the “participation” of the faithful, and they scorned as abuses many of the popular devotions (so dear to the faithful) connected with Holy Week.


This brief examination of the reform of Holy Week should allow the reader to realize how the “experts” who would come up with the New Mass fourteen years later had used and taken advantage of the 1955 Holy Week rites to test their revolutionary experiments before applying them to the whole liturgy.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 23, 2019, 12:18:07 AM
Quote
Ecumenism in the Reform of John XXIII. The Jansenists hadn’t thought of this one. The reform of 1960 suppresses from the prayers of Good Friday the Latin adjective perfidis (faithless) with reference to the Jews, and the noun perfidiam (impiety) with reference to Judaism. It left the door open for John Paul II’s visit to the synagogue.

Number 181 of the 1960 Rubrics states: “The Mass against the Pagans shall be called the Mass for the Defense of the Church. The Mass to Take Away Schism shall be called the Mass for the Unity of the Church.”

"Unfortunately, in the “traditionalist” camp, confusion reigns: one stops at 1955; another at 1965 or 1967. Archbishop Lefebvre’s followers, having first adopted the reform of 1965, returned to the 1960 rubrics of John XXIII even while permitting the introduction of earlier or later uses! There, in Germany, England, and the United States, where the Breviary of St. Pius X had been, recited, the Archbishop attempted to impose the changes of John XXIII. This was not only for legal motives, but as a matter of principle; meanwhile, the Archbishop’s followers barely tolerated the private recitation of the Breviary of St. Pius X.

We hope that this and other studies will help people understand that these changes are part of the same reform and that ALL of it must be rejected if ALL is not accepted. Only with the help of God — and clear thinking — will a true restoration of Catholic worship be possible."
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: nottambula on January 23, 2019, 04:00:25 AM
The people who think this theory of Pope Benedict being assassinated are the ones who think he is still the pope and that he was coerced into resigning therefore it is null.  People like Louis Verrachio and Fr. Kramer.  They somehow want to believe he was a good pope.........

Dear narcissistic gaslighter and UN-lover of Truth. My message to you is Proverbs 12:22. Without a doubt, you'll know exactly what I am referring to.

Hope we're clear on this. 
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: drew on January 23, 2019, 07:04:55 AM
Still haven’t answered the question.  John XXIII abrogated St Pius Xs missal so how can anyone use it without breaking the law?

Second, John XXIII suspended Bugnini before the 62 missal was released so your claim that this missal had a “bad intent” is unprovable because Bugnini wasn’t involved until Paul VI put him back on the commission.

Thirdly, was St Pius Xs missal the Tridentine missal?  Yes, it was the legal child of Quo Primum, which started the Tridentine rite.   Therefore, if the 62 missal replaced St Pius Xs missal, then the 62 missal is the valid successor of the Tridentine rite.  

The only way that your theory makes any sense is if you prove that John XXIIIs law which created the 62 missal was never legal.  Other than that, you can’t explain this law and its effects.  

Your questions are immaterial.  I can speculate just as well as you and it will make no difference whatsoever.  John XXIII has no authority to implement changes in the “received and approved” rite of Mass whose end is the destruction of that rite.  It is gross perversion of dogma and Catholic morality to argue otherwise.

The claim that John XXIII changes were not an implementation of the Pian commission headed by Bugnini is absurd.  It is referenced in the document itself.

To say that, “Quo Primum….started the Tridentine rite” is historically inaccurate and grossly misleading.

I do not have to prove anything regarding the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal beyond what has already been clearly demonstrated, that is, Rome legally regards the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as a matter of mere discipline firstly as an Indult and then as a grant of legal privilege.  Those who use this Missal have accepted all the conditions contingent upon it use which I have already enumerated.  It is therefore impossible that Rome could regard the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as the “received and approved” Roman rite. 

As I said in a letter to my local ordinary years ago, if Rome at some future date determines that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal is the “received and approved” rite, and gives that Missal the standing of immemorial tradition then I would accept it as so.  Until then, I will not.  That is not likely to happen.  When there is a sound liturgical restoration in the future it will not included anything produced by Bugnini.

You have nothing but your legal and liturgical opinion as your sole authority for this matter and frankly, I have little regard for either.  What is certain is that your opinions cannot serve as a basis for the defense of Catholic faith or worship.

Drew    

Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 23, 2019, 09:13:51 AM
Quote
The “reformers” of the 1930s and 1940s introduced the “Dialogue Mass,” because of their “excessive emphasis on the active participation of the faithful in the liturgical functions.” In some cases — in scout camps, and other youth and student organizations — the innovators succeeded in introducing Mass in the vernacular, the celebration of Mass on a table facing the people, and even concelebration. Among the young priests who took a delight in liturgical experiments in Rome in 1933 was the chaplain of the Catholic youth movement, a certain Father Giovanni Battista Montini.

Ok, but these were precursors to the new mass, NOT part of the 62 missal. 

Quote
Here is a partial list of other innovations introduced by the new Holy Week:
Ok, but Holy Week is not "the mass".  The 62 missal did not ESSENTIALLY change the mass.  This is the main point.

Quote
"Unfortunately, in the “traditionalist” camp, confusion reigns: one stops at 1955; another at 1965 or 1967.....We hope that this and other studies will help people understand that these changes are part of the same reform and that ALL of it must be rejected if ALL is not accepted.
This logic will lead to chaos because who decides which reforms are "ok" and which aren't?  We have to look at THE LAWS which promulgated these reforms - this is the key. 

Was St Pius X's reform obligatory on all catholics?  Yes
Was Pius XII's reform obligatory?  Yes.
Was John XXIII's reform of 62 obligatory?  Yes.

All of these reforms legally revised the previous missals, made the previous missals off-limits, and imposed their new missal on the faithful.

Were the reforms of 65, 69, etc (i.e. all post-V2 reforms) obligatory?  No.
As any post-V2 pope said they were?  No.

Therefore, the obligations of these missals are different.  Therefore, the LAST missal which imposes an obligation on us, AND which is legally in force (since the missals of St Pius X and Pius XII were CLEARLY abrogated) is the 1962 missal.

Is this missal, aside from the Holy Week changes and the addition of St Joseph, problematic?  No.
Do the changes to Holy Week affect the doctrine/theology/morality of "the mass" on a daily, weekly or yearly basis?  No.
Does the addition of St Joseph affect the doctrine/theology/morality of "the mass"?  No.

...(one could argue that the addition of St Joseph is NOT part of the 62 missal, since it was NOT included in the first edition, but came later.  So maybe even this change isn't obligatory.  If it's not, then there is almost NO changes to the mass itself in the 62 missal).
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 23, 2019, 09:36:51 AM
 
Quote
Your questions are immaterial.  I can speculate just as well as you and it will make no difference whatsoever.  

I'm not speculating - I'm reading the laws and what they say.


Quote
John XXIII has no authority to implement changes in the “received and approved” rite of Mass whose end is the destruction of that rite.

So you can judge what the pope has a right to do or not?  If you think he was the pope, you're basically a schismatic, since you're questioning his decisions.  I'll say it again, it doesn't matter what his FUTURE intentions were, it matters what the changes actually were.

If I decided to murder my friend by sneaking over to his apartment and shooting him, but when I tried to pick the front door lock I got scared and ran, I didn't commit murder.  I didn't hurt my friend or his apartment in any way.  The only sin was a sin of intention.  There was NO sin in ACT.

In the same way, John XXIII may have had the intention to destroy the mass, which is a sin...but only in intention.  It was NOT a sin of ACT because the 1962 missal does not have any ESSENTIAL changes to the mass, therefore his plans were not realized in 1962.  One's intention does not change reality until the ACT is committed.



Quote
The claim that John XXIII changes were not an implementation of the Pian commission headed by Bugnini is absurd.  It is referenced in the document itself.

John XXIII removed Bugnini from the commission, a historical fact.  Bugnini was put back on under Paul VI.



Quote
To say that, “Quo Primum….started the Tridentine rite” is historically inaccurate and grossly misleading.

Is this a joke?  "Tridentine" refers to the Council of Trent, which ordered that the missals/breviary/liturgy be revised, which St Pius V completed with his law, Quo Primum.  So, yes, Quo Primum started the Tridentine rite.



Quote
I do not have to prove anything regarding the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal beyond what has already been clearly demonstrated, that is, Rome legally regards the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as a matter of mere discipline firstly as an Indult and then as a grant of legal privilege.  Those who use this Missal have accepted all the conditions contingent upon it use which I have already enumerated.  It is therefore impossible that Rome could regard the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as the “received and approved” Roman rite.  

Wrong.  The 1962 missal was "received and approved" in 1962 and this was still the case when JPII's commission said that it hadn't been outlawed.  This commission happened BEFORE the indult even existed, so this proves that the indult was pointless and legal trickery.



Quote
As I said in a letter to my local ordinary years ago, if Rome at some future date determines that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal is the “received and approved” rite, and gives that Missal the standing of immemorial tradition then I would accept it as so.  Until then, I will not.  That is not likely to happen.  When there is a sound liturgical restoration in the future it will not included anything produced by Bugnini.

Your views are full of contradiction.  First you say that John XXIII didn't have the right to issue the 1962 missal, but now you're saying that a FUTURE POPE could say that John XXIII's changes were ok?

Why can't you accept John's authority?  Why do you need a future pope to "bless" a previous pope's actions?  This isn't how the Church works.  You either believe/accept that John XXIII was pope or not, with ALL of the same authority/power that a FUTURE pope has as well.

The only conclusion is that you don't think John XXIII was a true pope.  Just admit it and we'll stop the discussion.


Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 23, 2019, 12:09:25 PM
Quote
Is this a joke?  "Tridentine" refers to the Council of Trent, which ordered that the missals/breviary/liturgy be revised, which St Pius V completed with his law, Quo Primum.  So, yes, Quo Primum started the Tridentine rite.

I think he means that Pius V did not really alter the "substance" of the immemorial Holy Mass, but was only dealing with the Missal itself, not the doctrine or theology per se; but his real problem is that he believes that liturgical rites are a matter of dogma; instead of discipline. Popes cannot bind future pope in matter of discipline; only of dogma. That is the reason why Quo Primum has been modified more than once throughout the centuries. A document that deals with the prayers, ceremonies and rites of the Holy Mass belongs, by definition, to the realm of discipline, not dogma. The question is then why would Pope Pius V have the authority to promulgate his Tridentine Missal, evidently making alterations to the pre - Tridentine one, but Pope John XXIII (considering he was a true pope) would not? In the correct order of things, no legitimate successor of St. Peter has more authority, or is superior, than the other.


Quote
So you can judge what the pope has a right to do or not?  If you think he was the pope, you're basically a schismatic, since you're questioning his decisions. ..

This isn't how the Church works.  You either believe/accept that John XXIII was pope or not, with ALL of the same authority/power that a FUTURE pope has as well.


The only conclusion is that you don't think John XXIII was a true pope.  Just admit it and we'll stop the discussion.

Yes, this is another contradiction or inconsistency in his reasoning, but it all boils down to the same error of believing liturgical rites are dogmatic. The problem then would begin with very first revision of Quo Primum, long, long before the XX century 60's. Only 34 years after the publication of Quo Primum, Clement VIII made a general revision of the Roman Missal, as did Urban VIII 30 years later... and so forth, concluding with the 1962' Missal, which is the last one "approved".  
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: drew on January 23, 2019, 09:41:40 PM

Quote
PAX
Quote
DREW
Your questions are immaterial.  I can speculate just as well as you and it will make no difference whatsoever.
  I'm not speculating - I'm reading the laws and what they say

You have no authority to do anything other than speculate.  You are pretending to be a legal and liturgical expert without papers.  The the three legal documents touching upon the nature of the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal consistently regard this Bugnini production as Indult or grant of legal privilege.  You have tried to characterize this as legal “trickery” but who are you to make this judgment?  Call it what you want but the legal fact is that in accepting the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as the Extra-Ordinary form of the Novus Ordo, you have submitted yourself to the conditions stipulated in its usage.  You have accepted the all of Bugnini’s liturgical principles and their liturgical application.  You have also accepted that there is no doctrinal error in Vatican II.  So why are you posting in a Resistance forum?


Quote
  PAX
Quote
Drew
John XXIII has no authority to implement changes in the “received and approved” rite of Mass whose end is the destruction of that rite.
So you can judge what the pope has a right to do or not?  If you think he was the pope, you're basically a schismatic, since you're questioning his decisions.  I'll say it again, it doesn't matter what his FUTURE intentions were, it matters what the changes actually were.

 If I decided to murder my friend by sneaking over to his apartment and shooting him, but when I tried to pick the front door lock I got scared and ran, I didn't commit murder.  I didn't hurt my friend or his apartment in any way.  The only sin was a sin of intention.  There was NO sin in ACT.
 
 In the same way, John XXIII may have had the intention to destroy the mass, which is a sin...but only in intention.  It was NOT a sin of ACT because the 1962 missal does not have any ESSENTIAL changes to the mass, therefore his plans were not realized in 1962.  One's intention does not change reality until the ACT is committed.

So anyone who questions the decisions of a pope is a schismatic?  Is this another of your legal opinions?  You do not even know the legal definition of schism.  Was +Lefebvre “schismatic” because he disobeyed the pope?  If not, why am I?  You apparently hold the pope as your proximate rule of faith which leads to numerous errors.  Dogma is the proximate rule of faith and this truth is essential to recognize.
 
Your moral sense is no better than your legal sense.  No one, not even the pope, possess the right or the authority to harm the faith or corrupt worship.  It does not matter one twit what the intention of John XXIII was with regard to implementing Bugnini’s liturgical reforms, so, in answer to your question, I am not judging the internal disposition of John XXIII even in light of the evidence that he attended Masonic meetings while in Paris.  The end for which the Bugnini reforms were intended from the very beginning was the destruction of the “received and approved” rite of Mass.   It is a dogma, that is, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that no pastors of the churches whomsoever can change the “received and approved” rites into other new rites.  This dogma was incorporated into the Tridentine profession of faith.   A valid law must necessarily promote the common good and the intention of the lawgiver is immaterial. 
 

Quote
PAX
Quote
Drew
The claim that John XXIII changes were not an implementation of the Pian commission headed by Bugnini is absurd.  It is referenced in the document itself.
John XXIII removed Bugnini from the commission, a historical fact.  Bugnini was put back on under Paul VI.

So what?  What I said is true, and your reply is completely immaterial.


Quote
PAX
Quote
Drew
To say that, “Quo Primum….started the Tridentine rite” is historically inaccurate and grossly misleading.
Is this a joke?  "Tridentine" refers to the Council of Trent, which ordered that the missals/breviary/liturgy be revised, which St Pius V completed with his law, Quo Primum.  So, yes, Quo Primum started the Tridentine rite.

I do not have the official title of the Roman Missal published by St. Pius V before me at this time but if you are able to look it up you will find that the word “restored” is in the title of the Missal. In Quo Primum St. Pius says, for the “preservation of a pure liturgy….  these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers.”  The restoration was necessary because of the corruption of the Missal by heretics.   If you need further proof I can post images from Missals that are for all intents and purposes identical with the Missal restored by St. Pius V.
 
I must add that your argument was offered repeatedly in the 1970s by those defending the Novus Ordo and Paul VI right to publish a new Missal with the claim that St. Pius V did the same thing.  The argument was so beaten down I thought I would never hear it again.  
     
Quote
PAX
Quote
Drew
I do not have to prove anything regarding the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal beyond what has already been clearly demonstrated, that is, Rome legally regards the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as a matter of mere discipline firstly as an Indult and then as a grant of legal privilege.  Those who use this Missal have accepted all the conditions contingent upon it use which I have already enumerated.  It is therefore impossible that Rome could regard the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as the “received and approved” Roman rite.  
Wrong.  The 1962 missal was "received and approved" in 1962 and this was still the case when JPII's commission said that it hadn't been outlawed.  This commission happened BEFORE the indult even existed, so this proves that the indult was pointless and legal trickery.

I have already addressed the JPII’s “commission” but apparently I did not make it clear enough.  This is “commission” was a group of cardinals who were asked to submit their opinions on two questions.  The findings of this “commission” were not published and were never intended to be published.  The constitute advice given to the pope in the fulfillment of his office and nothing more.
 
Cardinal Strickler is the only source of information regarding the advice that was given to JPII.  From Cardinal Strickler we know the JPII was advised that the immemorial Roman rite was never outlawed and any priest was free to use that Missal irrespective of any objections by the hierarchy of the Church.  The 1962 Bugnini Missal was never considered in the question of JPII or in the advice given him by the cardinals.  After, and only after learning that the immemorial Roman rite could be used by any cleric did JPII create the 1962 Bugnini Indult. 

You foolishly call this “trickery.”  This judgment is based upon your own excellence in discerning liturgical and legal questions.  There is another view.  JPII knew he could not make the immemorial Roman rite into an Indult but he could make the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal into one.  That is what he did.  My opinion on this saves all appearances. 


Quote
PAX
Quote
Drew
As I said in a letter to my local ordinary years ago, if Rome at some future date determines that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal is the “received and approved” rite, and gives that Missal the standing of immemorial tradition then I would accept it as so.  Until then, I will not.  That is not likely to happen.  When there is a sound liturgical restoration in the future it will not included anything produced by Bugnini.
Your views are full of contradiction.  First you say that John XXIII didn't have the right to issue the 1962 missal, but now you're saying that a FUTURE POPE could say that John XXIII's changes were ok?

There is no contradiction in this.  It is an acknowledgment of fact and my own limitations to make fine distinctions beyond my competency.  The 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal cannot be the “received and approved” Roman rite because it is regarded by Rome as a matter of mere discipline, first as an Indult and now as a grant of legal privilege.  That is a FACT.  Now there are two possibilities: one, Rome is mistaken and the three documents touching on this Missal will have to be eventually withdrawn and apologized for, and the Bugnini 1962 Missal will then be afforded the rights of immemorial tradition.  Or, Rome is not mistaken and all the Bugnini reforms constitute a break in the immemorial tradition of liturgical development in which case Benedict XVI is correct when he said that the 1962 and 1969 Bugnini Missals are one and the same ‘lex orandi, lex credendi.’

All I have said to my local ordinary is that I will used the Missal that is without question the “received and approved” Roman rite until the matter is definitively settled by authority.
My position makes no claims to definitive judgment while you claim an authority you do not and will never possess.  Furthermore, my position is eminently grounded in Catholic dogma and moral rectitude.  Most importantly, I have not accepted the conditions for the legal grant of privilege to use Bugnini’s 1962 Missal which you have done.  I have not sold my faith for a pot of gruel.
  

Quote
PAX
Why can't you accept John's authority?  Why do you need a future pope to "bless" a previous pope's actions?  This isn't how the Church works.  You either believe/accept that John XXIII was pope or not, with ALL of the same authority/power that a FUTURE pope has as well.

The only conclusion is that you don't think John XXIII was a true pope.  Just admit it and we'll stop the discussion.

And “why can’t you accept Paul VI’s authority?”  Yes, I know you have legally examined the articles and can definitively say even at the risk of your eternal salvation exactly what is and what is not.  Well, you can stay where you are for all I care.  But now that you have accepted all the conditions, the legal stipulations, for use of Bugnini’s 1962 transitional Indult Missal, you have no business hanging around on a Resistance forum.  You have already accepted the Novus Ordo and Vatican II without reserve.  You can’t resist anything.

Drew  
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 23, 2019, 10:08:34 PM
Quote
you have submitted yourself to the conditions stipulated in its usage. (ie the Indult)
Problem 1 with your logic:  The 1962 missal was issued prior to the Indult laws and the 62 law has never been abrogated therefore the missal still is legal, which is why both a) JPIIs commission said the True Mass wasn’t outlawed, and b) why Benedict said the 62 missal was never outlawed.  

Problem #2.  Since the 62 missal was never outlawed/abrogated, therefore it’s still valid, therefore it was valid BEFORE THE INDULT LAWS EXISTED, therefore the indult laws are unnecessary.

Problem #3.  None of the indult laws obligate ANY catholic to follow them, nor is there any penalty for disobeying them.  Therefore, in addition to being unnecessary, they are legally unenforceable.  

Problem #4.  None of the indult laws require ANY catholic at accept the Novus Ordo, or V2 or any novelty whatsoever.  They make a legal argument that the old vs new missals are “two usages of the same rite” (which they are), but neither law requires me to accept the new usage NOR must i accept that the new usage is “just as good”.  

One who attends an actual indult mass, said “under Rome”, does implicitly accept the above errors through their public appearance, but the indult laws do not prevent me from attending the True Mass at a non-diocesan, non-“under Rome” mass.  
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: poche on January 23, 2019, 10:32:28 PM
The 1955 Holy Week: Other Innovations

Here is a partial list of other innovations introduced by the new Holy Week:


This brief examination of the reform of Holy Week should allow the reader to realize how the “experts” who would come up with the New Mass fourteen years later had used and taken advantage of the 1955 Holy Week rites to test their revolutionary experiments before applying them to the whole liturgy.
Didn't Pope St Pius X call for participation of the laity when he initiated a reform of the Liturgy?
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 23, 2019, 10:33:14 PM
Quote
It is a dogma, that is, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that no pastors of the churches whomsoever can change the “received and approved” rites into other new rites.  This dogma was incorporated into the Tridentine profession of faith.

So, how did over 20 Liturgical Rites of the Catholic Church came to be in the first place, if there is no one on earth with the authority to "receive them and approve them". This is, if the Roman Pontiff is also included in the "no pastors of the Churches" canon, as you curiously believe.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 24, 2019, 05:39:23 AM
So, how did over 20 Liturgical Rites of the Catholic Church came to be in the first place, if there is no one on earth with the authority to "receive them and approve them". This is, if the Roman Pontiff is also included in the "no pastors of the Churches" canon, as you curiously believe.

This discussion only concerns the Roman Rire. You are correct, there are over 20 Liturgical Rites in the Catholic Church, all under the pope BUT each one has the own liturgy and traditions, their own Church Fathers, Eparchies  (dioceses)...Quo Primum concern only the Latin Roman Rite.You can do a search on the Eastern Rite liturgies.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 24, 2019, 09:38:11 AM
Quote
You have no authority to do anything other than speculate.  You are pretending to be a legal and liturgical expert without papers.

You're overly dramatic.  These laws are not some complex, 1,000 page monsters like those written in DC by congressmen.  All of these laws are between 3-5 pages long.  They are written in plain english and easy to comprehend.  It's not rocket science to see what they say.

Quote
The the three legal documents touching upon the nature of the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal consistently regard this Bugnini production as Indult or grant of legal privilege.

No, go re-read Benedict's 2007 motu proprio.  The 1962 missal was not an indult in 1962 when it was published and it is not today.  See excerpts below:
St. Pius V who, sustained by great pastoral zeal and following the exhortations of the Council of Trent, renewed the entire liturgy of the Church, oversaw the publication of liturgical books amended and 'renewed in accordance with the norms 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.... Thus our predecessors Clement VIII, Urban VIII, St. Pius X (3) (http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16SummorumPontificum.htm#3), Benedict XV, Pius XII and Blessed John XXIII all played a part.

This shows that Rome/Pope Benedict views the 1962 missal as a legal revision and a legal "child" of St Pius V's missal and Quo Primum.  The 1962 missal never started out as an indult.
In article 1 of the same document, Benedict says:

...the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII...

Again, he confirms that John XXIII's 1962 missal is a lawful revision of Quo Primum/St Pius V.  What more proof do you need?


Quote
So anyone who questions the decisions of a pope is a schismatic?
You ignore John XXIII's legal authority to revise the missal and you ignore his law which abrogates all previous missals to 1962.  If you believe he was a pope, this is schismatic thinking.


Quote
No one, not even the pope, possess the right or the authority to harm the faith or corrupt worship.
Agree, the 1962 missal did neither.


Quote
It does not matter one twit what the intention of John XXIII was with regard to implementing Bugnini’s liturgical reforms, so, in answer to your question, I am not judging the internal disposition of John XXIII even in light of the evidence that he attended Masonic meetings while in Paris.  The end for which the Bugnini reforms were intended from the very beginning was the destruction of the “received and approved” rite of Mass.  
You contradict yourself greatly by first saying that you're not judging John XXIII's internal disposition but then saying the reforms were "intended" as a destruction of the roman rite.  It is impossible to say that someone INTENTED to do wrong, without judging their INTENTIONS as wrong.  The only way you can condemn the 62 missal is by its INTENDED end because, on its face, as it is in reality, this missal is not a "destruction of the rite".  Total contradiction.


Quote
It is a dogma, that is, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that no pastors of the churches whomsoever can change the “received and approved” rites into other new rites.  This dogma was incorporated into the Tridentine profession of faith.
The 62 missal is not a new rite.  It is the SAME rite, essentially, as St Pius X's missal, which was the same as....all the way back to St Pius V's missal....which was the same as Pope St Gregory's missal in 600....which was the same as in Apostolic times.


Quote
I do not have the official title of the Roman Missal published by St. Pius V before me at this time but if you are able to look it up you will find that the word “restored” is in the title of the Missal.
Of course it was a restoration.  But the "tridentine rite" was started by St Pius V.  That doesn't mean that the "tridentine rite" was new or novel.  No, it just had a new name but it was ESSENTIALLY the same as Pope St Gregory's rite in 600 and before that.

...You know, Drew, we agree on about 90% of this discussion.  If you would calm down and read what I write in the spirit of objectivity, instead of assuming I'm a novus ordo fanboy, then we might get somewhere....


Quote
From Cardinal Strickler we know the JPII was advised that the immemorial Roman rite was never outlawed and any priest was free to use that Missal irrespective of any objections by the hierarchy of the Church.  The 1962 Bugnini Missal was never considered in the question of JPII or in the advice given him by the cardinals.
That doesn't mean anything.  The commission didn't mention ANY missal by name; it just said the "immemorial roman rite".  You are arguing that because it didn't say the 1962 missal, therefore this isn't the immemorial rite.  Ok, but they didn't mention St Pius X's missal either, so I can argue that it too isn't the immemorial rite.  They also didn't mention St Pius V's missal or Quo Primum, so those aren't immemorial either.

The point is, they came to the conclusion that the True Mass wasn't outlawed.  Can we agree on this?
If it's not outlawed, then that means AN INDULT ISN'T REQUIRED.  That means that the 1962 missal, the last revision of St Pius V's "immemorial rite" DIDN'T NEED AN INDULT.  Do you not understand the significance of this fact?

Further, if one reads the first indult law from JPII, he NEVER says that a catholic can ONLY go to the latin mass at their local diocese or "under rome".  He is only giving guidelines to the diocesan bishops/priests...WHO ALREADY ACCEPT THE LIE THAT THE NEW MASS IS LEGAL.  The indult is for those who accept V2 already.  The indult DOES NOT obligate ANY catholic to accept the new mass/V2, UNLESS they attend the diocesan churches (but all Trads already knew this).

This is why I say it was "legal trickery".  Because the indult
1) doesn't apply to the entire latin church, only those churches who've accepted the new mass already,
2) JPII never says that it is REQUIRED to get permission to say the True Mass...he only says that IF you go to the True Mass at a diocese, THEN you have to accept V2 and the new mass as being ok.
3) JPII does NOT say that it is wrong, sinful or disobedient for ANY priest/laity to say/attend the True Mass outside of the diocese or to reject V2 and the new mass.

This is why the 1962 missal/True Mass is not a "grant of privilege" to Traditionalists.  JPII's commission already agreed that such allowances aren't necessary.  Thus, the indult laws are null/void for all catholics, but especially for Traditionalists.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: drew on January 24, 2019, 10:17:02 AM
Problem 1 with your logic:  The 1962 missal was issued prior to the Indult laws and the 62 law has never been abrogated therefore the missal still is legal, which is why both a) JPIIs commission said the True Mass wasn’t outlawed, and b) why Benedict said the 62 missal was never outlawed.  

Problem #2.  Since the 62 missal was never outlawed/abrogated, therefore it’s still valid, therefore it was valid BEFORE THE INDULT LAWS EXISTED, therefore the indult laws are unnecessary.

Problem #3.  None of the indult laws obligate ANY catholic to follow them, nor is there any penalty for disobeying them.  Therefore, in addition to being unnecessary, they are legally unenforceable.  

Problem #4.  None of the indult laws require ANY catholic at accept the Novus Ordo, or V2 or any novelty whatsoever.  They make a legal argument that the old vs new missals are “two usages of the same rite” (which they are), but neither law requires me to accept the new usage NOR must i accept that the new usage is “just as good”.  

One who attends an actual indult mass, said “under Rome”, does implicitly accept the above errors through their public appearance, but the indult laws do not prevent me from attending the True Mass at a non-diocesan, non-“under Rome” mass.  

Quote from:  PAX
Quote from:  Drew
You have submitted yourself to the conditions stipulated in its (the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal) usage (i.e.: the Indult and under the norms of Summorum Pontificum as a grant of legal privilege).
Quote
Problem 1 with your logic:  The 1962 missal was issued prior to the Indult laws and the 62 law has never been abrogated therefore the missal still is legal, which is why both a) JPIIs commission said the True Mass wasn’t outlawed, and b) why Benedict said the 62 missal was never outlawed.  

There is no problem with my logic but several problems with your analysis.  The same authority that has told you that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal is “legal” is the same authority that has told you that it is a grant of legal privilege dependent upon specified conditions.  You cannot pick and choose what part of the document you will accept and what you will not. You have accepted Summorum Pontificum when it suits you and rejected when it does not.  You have in fact made yourself the “master of the liturgy” and the determinator of law.

Secondly, the commission that advised JPII was an ad hoc committee to offer advice to the pope on a specific question.  It exercised no authority whatsoever and the pope is free to accept or reject its advice.  We know from Cardinal Strickler that the committee said NOTHING WHATSOEVER regarding the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal.  What did JPII do with the advice that he received from this committee?  He permitted the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as a grant of indult, which means that this Missal IS NOT the immemorial Roman rite that the committee addressed.  This is the prima fascie evidence that you cannot overcome.  You have made the unwarranted and gratuitous assumption that the committee was addressing the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal.  Your presuppositions are worthless because they cannot explain what in fact historically happened.  You excuse this by claiming that JPII was guilty of “trickery.”  The only one who has been “tricked” is you.

And for the record, this 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal was repeatedly obrogated in its usage throughout the Council and after.  Such as, the addition of St. Joseph to the canon was an obrogation.  The reprinted 1962 Bugnini transitional Missals today contain this obrogation.  Later editions of the 1962 Missal contained obrogations permitting vernacular editions.  In an earlier post I included a link with pictures of the 1962 Missal in the vernacular.  After the Council this Missal was again repeatedly obrogated over the next four years. 

Your entire analysis is worthless.


Quote from:  PAX
Problem #2.  Since the 62 missal was never outlawed/abrogated, therefore it’s still valid, therefore it was valid BEFORE THE INDULT LAWS EXISTED, therefore the indult laws are unnecessary.


Re-read the reply to “problem #1.”  You are so presumptions in regarding your legal analysis as not only correct, but sufficient to establish a sound argument for Resistance to an abusive authority.  You have no authority to pit the legal judgment of Benedict XVI against JPII as far as who is “tricking” you and who is not.  You are shame in that you claim Benedict XVI is correct in saying the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal is “legal” but you reject his conditions for its use, and then you use Benedict XVI to declare that JPII is deceiving you with “trickery.” 


Quote from:  PAX
Problem #3.  None of the indult laws obligate ANY catholic to follow them, nor is there any penalty for disobeying them.  Therefore, in addition to being unnecessary, they are legally unenforceable.


You are shame again. You make John XXIII the “master of the liturgy” in that his liturgical laws must be accepted irrespective of their damage to dogma, immemorial tradition, and the common good.  Then you claim that the laws of JPII are “trickery” and can be ignored because of what JPII’s commission of advisors reportedly told him.  Your entire argument is shamefully self-serving.   


Quote from:  PAX
Problem #4.  None of the indult laws require ANY catholic at accept the Novus Ordo, or V2 or any novelty whatsoever.  They make a legal argument that the old vs new missals are “two usages of the same rite” (which they are), but neither law requires me to accept the new usage NOR must i accept that the new usage is “just as good”.  


You are shame again.  You by your own authority have declared that the Bugnini 1962 Missal is the “received and approved” Roman rite of Mass while the “master of the liturgy” says it is a grant of legal privilege conditioned upon accepting Vatican II in its entirety and the liturgical reforms in their entirety.  You are neither a liturgical nor a legal expert and yet you make judgments as if you were.  What is worse you think that these judgments can serve as a basis for Resistance to the authority responsible for the corruption of worship, doctrine and morality.  The only weapon against the abuse of authority is truth, not you legal opinions.  It would be laughable if the results were not so tragic. 


Quote from:  PAX
One who attends an actual indult mass, said “under Rome”, does implicitly accept the above errors through their public appearance, but the indult laws do not prevent me from attending the True Mass at a non-diocesan, non-“under Rome” mass.


You have no right to attend the 1962 Bugnini transitional liturgy that exists only as a grant of legal privilege without accepting its conditions.  You are not the “master of the liturgy,” you are not the lawmaker, and you are not the interpreter of the laws.    

For you, the pope is your proximate rule of faith, he is the “master of the liturgy” when it is convenient.  Whatever he says or does is what you must say and do necessarily when it is convenient.  You believe that the pope can throw out immemorial tradition by the exercise of his free and independent will as long as you do not think they are important.  As you said, regarding the genuflection at the “incarnatus est,” the ‘pope gave it to the church and he can take it away.  Your conception of papal powers and the standing of immemorial tradition is bizarre.  You even believe that the pope can make legal what is manifestly ruinous for the common good.  Then when the pope does something that offends your sensibilities, when it is not convenient, it is dismissed as “trickery.”

No wonder you have a problem with my “logic,” you are not using it.

Drew
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 24, 2019, 11:22:49 AM
You are correct, there are over 20 Liturgical Rites in the Catholic Church, all under the pope BUT each one has the own liturgy and traditions

That is not the point. If the dogma was really, "that is, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that no pastors of the churches (including the Supreme Pastor, the Pope) whomsoever can change the “received and approved” rites into other new rites", as Mr. Drew wants to read it, then there could not be more than 20 Liturgical Rites in existence. Evidently, there must be someone on earth with the power to receive, approve, and modify Liturgical Rites. In the Catholic Church, that someone is no other but the Roman Pontiff. That is the point.


Quote
Quo Primum concern only the Latin Roman Rite.

Agreed and that only proves that this bull is not dogmatic; but only disciplinary, because it was only binding to the Latin Rite, not the Eastern Rite. Liturgical rites are a matter of discipline, not dogma. Dogmas must necessarily concern the Universal Church, both Western and Eastern. That is why Liturgical Rites are disciplinary, not dogmatic. You cannot have something which is a dogma in the Latin Rite; but not in the Eastern Rite.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 24, 2019, 01:01:16 PM
That is not the point. If the dogma was really, "that is, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that no pastors of the churches (including the Supreme Pastor, the Pope) whomsoever can change the “received and approved” rites into other new rites", as Mr. Drew wants to read it, then there could not be more than 20 Liturgical Rites in existence. Evidently, there must be someone on earth with the power to receive, approve, and modify Liturgical Rites. In the Catholic Church, that someone is no other but the Roman Pontiff. That is the point.


Agreed and that only proves that this bull is not dogmatic; but only disciplinary, because it was only binding to the Latin Rite, not the Eastern Rite. Liturgical rites are a matter of discipline, not dogma. Dogmas must necessarily concern the Universal Church, both Western and Eastern. That is why Liturgical Rites are disciplinary, not dogmatic. You cannot have something which is a dogma in the Latin Rite; but not in the Eastern Rite.

Cantarella,

On the first paragraph , the question has been answered several times. It is NOT "what Mr. Drew wants to read" he posted the video of Fr. Gregory Hesse, S.T.D., J.C.D. (highly respected by Fr. Gruner, JV and many long time traditional catholics), talking about the incorrect translation. But no one can teach you anything you don't want to learn.

This was my husband's reply with the video:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604807/#msg604807

Regarding the secong paragraph, no one said that "Quo Primum is dogmatic". It is Canon XIII of Session VII of the Council of Trent which solemnly defines: "If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be...changed to other new ones by any pastor of the churches whomsoever: let him be anathema", which is dogmatic.

I should add from a previous post that:

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.”


Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 24, 2019, 01:05:49 PM
Quote
You by your own authority have declared that the Bugnini 1962 Missal is the “received and approved” Roman rite of Mass
No, Pope John XXIII declared it was the roman rite in 1962, not me.


Quote
while the “master of the liturgy” says it is a grant of legal privilege conditioned upon accepting Vatican II in its entirety and the liturgical reforms in their entirety.  
Pope John Paul II said that the 62 missal could be allowed by diocesan bishops, with conditions.  He never said that the 62 missal couldn't be used outside of the diocese, without conditions.


Quote
You are neither a liturgical nor a legal expert and yet you make judgments as if you were.
Ha ha.  So do you!  You make yourself a liturgical/legal expert when you declare that the 62 missal is a corruption of dogma, which allegation you've yet to prove.


Quote
You have no right to attend the 1962 Bugnini transitional liturgy that exists only as a grant of legal privilege without accepting its conditions.  You are not the “master of the liturgy,” you are not the lawmaker, and you are not the interpreter of the laws.
Of course I do.  Because the 1962 missal, when it was first issued HAD NO CONDITIONS, because it was pre-V2.  Since it wasn't abrogated, or revised, or changed in any way, then the law which issued this missal still stands, WITHOUT CONDITIONS.  The only conditions that JPII added concern the allowance of this missal at diocesan chapels, under diocesan bishops.

In addition, the motu proprio of Benedict in 2007 is even LESS problematic because he says a priest can use this missal anytime, anywhere without permission.

These laws need no "interpretion" because they aren't complex.  You just read what they say and follow it.  You, on the other hand, have judged John XXIII to be a "destroyer of the liturgy" and have rejected his 62 laws.  You might as well be a sedevacant because that's the only logical reason one could use make in using a pre-62 missal.  (And, to be honest, I have no problem with this view, as John XXIII probably was a freemason and therefore his spiritual office was impaired.  But you can't say he was really the pope and then reject his 62 law.  Makes YOU the interpreter of laws and it makes YOU the master of the liturgy.  See the irony?)
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 24, 2019, 01:11:15 PM
Cantarella,

On the first paragraph , the question has been answered several times. It is NOT "what Mr. Drew wants to read" he posted the video of Fr. Gregory Hesse, S.T.D., J.C.D. (highly respected by Fr. Gruner, JV and many long time traditional catholics), talking about the incorrect translation. But no one can teach you anything you don't want to learn.

OK. Change it to Fr. Gregory Hesse's interpretation of the canon about the incorrect translation, then. It does not change the fact that it is completely flawed, for the reason mentioned.


Quote
This was my husband's reply with the video:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604807/#msg604807

Stop linking to that thread which nobody is reading anyway, and whose half of posts were deleted (all the SV posts, by the way). Now it just looks like Mr. Drew's long monologue.

Simply address the point. 
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 24, 2019, 01:16:21 PM
Quote
Regarding the secong paragraph, no one said that "Quo Primum is dogmatic".


Thank you for the clarification. It is good to know we both agree that Quo Primum is NOT dogmatic.

Quote
I should add from a previous post that:

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.”

Yes, because Popes can do that. They can overturn decisions of previous Popes, in matters of discipline, such as Liturgical Rites.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 24, 2019, 01:20:35 PM
OK. Change it to Fr. Gregory Hesse's interpretation of the canon about the incorrect translation, then. It does not change the fact that it is completely flawed, for the reason mentioned.


Stop linking to that thread which nobody is reading anyway, and whose half of posts were deleted (all the SV posts, by the way). Now it just looks like Mr. Drew's long monologue.

Simply address the point.

Cantarella,

The truth hurts? the Fr. Ringrose thread has been read now OVER 64,000 times. It was only 44,000 when it was locked. In ALL of my husband's responses you are FULLY quoted, anyone can see that.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604807/#msg604807 (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604807/#msg604807)

Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 24, 2019, 01:25:33 PM
Drew, I'm done with this conversation.  Neither of us is adding any new facts, so we're spinning our wheels in mud. 
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 24, 2019, 01:39:29 PM
Thank you for the clarification. It is good to know we both agree that Quo Primum is NOT dogmatic.

Yes, because Popes can do that. They can overturn decisions of previous Popes, in matters of discipline, such as Liturgical Rites.

Wrong. It was equivalent to a pope suppressing the "received and approved" Roman rite that is why the next pope restored it and declared it to have been "unjust".

May I recommend you read the book Tradition and the Church?
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Stanley N on January 24, 2019, 03:41:55 PM
In Quo Primum St. Pius says, for the “preservation of a pure liturgy….  these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers.”  The restoration was necessary because of the corruption of the Missal by heretics.   
Among other things, the Tridentine reform removed references to our Lady that were commonly added to the Gloria. It seems very odd to me to claim this part of the liturgy, with its devotion to our Lady, was a corruption by heretics?
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 24, 2019, 07:20:26 PM
Wrong. It was equivalent to a pope suppressing the "received and approved" Roman rite that is why the next pope restored it and declared it to have been "unjust".

Pope Nicholas II abolished the "received and approved" Ambrosian Rite. Then, Pope Alexander II reversed his predecessor' policy. How could he reverse it? or how could Nicholas II abolish the rite to begin with? it is simple: Liturgical Rites are disciplinary matters. If this were concerning dogma, then no Pope could ever touch it, as no Pope has ever done in history.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 24, 2019, 08:38:40 PM
Pope Nicholas II abolished the "received and approved" Ambrosian Rite. Then, Pope Alexander II reversed his predecessor' policy. How could he reverse it? or how could Nicholas II abolish the rite to begin with? it is simple: Liturgical Rites are disciplinary matters. If this were concerning dogma, then no Pope could ever touch it, as no Pope has ever done in history.

You have completely missed the point.  Nicholas II passed a law abolishing the Ambrosian rite in Milan.  This law, since it was not an act of reason for the common good, was never a valid law.  Pope Alexander II revoked this "law" declaring it to have been "unjust," this is, he declared it to be no law at all.  St. Thomas directly says that an "unjust law is no law."  The reason the law was "unjust" is because the "received and approved" Ambrosian rite is not a matter of mere discipline subject to the free and independent will of the legislator.  This act of Nicholas II was a gross corruption of Catholic doctrine and abuse of papal authority.  The Council of Florence declared that every priest was obligated to offer Mass according to the traditions of their respective rites.  This doctrine was ultimately defined as a dogma of faith at Trent that declared that 'no pastors of the churches whomsoever may change the received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments into other new rites.'  This dogma, of the many dogmas declared at Trent, was incorporated in the Tridentine Profession Faith.  The standing of immemorial tradition was defended again by St. Pius X in Pascendi who declared as heretics anyone who would overthrow any of the legitimate traditions of the Church specifically citing Nicaea II that condemned the heresy of Iconoclasm.  Those who consider dogmas as simple human axioms will never enter into the 'worship of God in Spirit and in Truth,' for, as Cardinal Manning explained in his book on the Sacred Heart, 'Dogma is the foundation of all devotion.'
 
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: drew on January 25, 2019, 06:15:57 AM
Quote from: PAX
These laws need no "interpretion" because they aren't complex.  You just read what they say and follow it.  You, on the other hand, have judged John XXIII to be a "destroyer of the liturgy" and have rejected his 62 laws.  You might as well be a sedevacant because that's the only logical reason one could use make in using a pre-62 missal.  (And, to be honest, I have no problem with this view, as John XXIII probably was a freemason and therefore his spiritual office was impaired.  But you can't say he was really the pope and then reject his 62 law.  Makes YOU the interpreter of laws and it makes YOU the master of the liturgy.  See the irony?


Your mind is cluttered.  You have constructed an entire argument grounded upon the assertion from Benedict XVI's SP that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal was never "outlawed" while at the same time rejecting nearly everything else he says regarding this Missal.  The unstated implication is that this Missal can be "outlawed."  He affirms that this Missal shares a common provenance with the 1969 Bugnini Missal and constitutes two forms of one 'lex orandi, lex credendi.'  He imposes conditions for the use of this Missal requiring the unconditional acceptance of Vatican II and all the Bugnini liturgical renovations in principle and in application.  You reject what you do not like from Benedict and grasp what is useful.  You then use what you grasp to declare that JPII was guilty of "trickery" by establishing the Indult and affirm that the ad hoc commission of 9 cardinals "proves" your claims on the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal is the "received and approved" Roman rite when they said nothing about this Missal whatsoever.  This is what you call using "logic"?  This is what you consider sound legal analysis.

The entire construction of your argument is juvenile.  It presupposes that liturgy is a matter of mere discipline subject to the independent will of the legislator.  It presupposes the pope as the rule of faith and absolute 'master of the liturgy.'  It proposes a liturgical foundation of Resistance to the abuse of authority that would be blown away in a gently breeze.  It makes traditional Catholics look stupid.  What is worse, it ignores the dogmatic foundations of true worship that constitute the only argument that can be offered to an abuse of authority.

Msgr. Klaus Gamber in his book expresses his disgust with unnamed defender's of traditional Catholic worship.  I do not doubt he was referring to the SSPX.  What is clear from Gamber is that to accept these defenders gross legalistic reductionism of liturgy is to enter into the Bugnini concept of worship, and therefore, will never lead to any correction of the problem.  

What must someday happen is for another St. Pius V to make a complete "restoration" of the liturgy after it had been corrupted by her enemies, and when that is done, everything of the work of Bugnini and his Pian commission will be trashed.  And as long as Rome legally treats the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as an object mere ecclesiastical faith, as an object of mere discipline that can be reduced to an Indult and grant of legal privilege under positive law, it must be rejected on those grounds.  This constitutes prima facie evidence that the 1962 Bugnini Missal is not the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite, and until this evidence is overturned, which can only be done by competent authority, the only option is to embrace what is most certainly the "received and approved" Roman rite grounded in Truth and protected by the rights of immemorial tradition.

Drew
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 25, 2019, 11:02:23 AM
You have completely missed the point.  Nicholas II passed a law abolishing the Ambrosian rite in Milan.  This law, since it was not an act of reason for the common good, was never a valid law.  Pope Alexander II revoked this "law" declaring it to have been "unjust," this is, he declared it to be no law at all.  St. Thomas directly says that an "unjust law is no law."  The reason the law was "unjust" is because the "received and approved" Ambrosian rite is not a matter of mere discipline subject to the free and independent will of the legislator.  

Yet the Ambrosian Rite has been revised several times. Many editions of the Missal have been issued, latest being in the 50's, I believe. The same with the Tridentine Missal. The latest authorized edition is the one from 1962. The only way to say this Missal edition is harmful to the faithful is if the Authority (Pope) who promulgated it was not legitimate. Otherwise, it is safe to assume that Catholics adhering to the Tridentine Rite are just fine using the 62s Missal. If I believed that John XXIII was actually Pope, then I would not have a choice. The previous editions have been abrogated.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 25, 2019, 11:16:01 AM
Quote
This doctrine was ultimately defined as a dogma of faith at Trent that declared that 'no pastors of the churches whomsoever may change the received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments into other new rites.'  This dogma, of the many dogmas declared at Trent, was incorporated in the Tridentine Profession Faith.

If this dogma was referring at all to what you think it does, then the Ambrosian Rite would not have been revised and edited by the Holy See in 1475, 1594, 1609, 1902 and 1954. 
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 25, 2019, 11:43:53 AM
If this dogma was referring at all to what you think it does, then the Ambrosian Rite would not have been revised and edited by the Holy See in 1475, 1594, 1609, 1902 and 1954.
I'm done . None of us know much about the Ambrosian rite. I know my limits. You don't even understand your own rite.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 25, 2019, 09:03:00 PM

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
You have completely missed the point.  Nicholas II passed a law abolishing the Ambrosian rite in Milan.  This law, since it was not an act of reason for the common good, was never a valid law.  Pope Alexander II revoked this "law" declaring it to have been "unjust," this is, he declared it to be no law at all.  St. Thomas directly says that an "unjust law is no law."  The reason the law was "unjust" is because the "received and approved" Ambrosian rite is not a matter of mere discipline subject to the free and independent will of the legislator.
  Yet the Ambrosian Rite has been revised several times. Many editions of the Missal have been issued, latest being in the 50's, I believe. The same with the Tridentine Missal. The latest authorized edition is the one from 1962. The only way to say this Missal edition is harmful to the faithful is if the Authority (Pope) who promulgated it was not legitimate. Otherwise, it is safe to assume that Catholics adhering to the Tridentine Rite are just fine using the 62s Missal. If I believed that John XXIII was actually Pope, then I would not have a choice. The previous editions have been abrogated.
[font={defaultattr}] [/font]
 
 
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
This doctrine was ultimately defined as a dogma of faith at Trent that declared that 'no pastors of the churches whomsoever may change the received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments into other new rites.'  This dogma, of the many dogmas declared at Trent, was incorporated in the Tridentine Profession Faith.
 If this dogma was referring at all to what you think it does, then the Ambrosian Rite would not have been revised and edited by the Holy See in 1475, 1594, 1609, 1902 and 1954.
 

So what have done?  You did a web search for the Ambrosian rite, read an Catholic encyclopedia article, and now post as an authoritative commentator on the Ambrosian rite.  The problem is you know little about the nature of divine worship and this is revealed in the nature of your question.  We have about 4 feet of book shelf space for liturgical books alone in our home that have been read over many years by my husband and still he would never pretend to be an authority on liturgical history.  The subject is far too vast.  If you want to be exposed to people that know liturgy, peruse the publications of Henry Bradshaw Society for example even if only to get some understanding about the depth and breadth of the subject.
 
But there are fundamental first principles which every faithful Catholic can apprehend.  Divine worship is always the work of God.  From the  Cain and Able to this very day, worship that is the work of man has always been rejected by God.  "Received" rites are those handed down by tradition and this tradition, part of the deposit of divine faith, is almost always immemorial.  These traditions do organically develop under the direction of the Holy Ghost.  Corruptions in tradition have occurred and it is the responsibility of Authority to prevent these seeds of error from corrupting worship but, as what has already been posted, Authority has no right to destroy images of the faith.  St. Pius X applied the condemnation of Iconoclasm with the destruction of any of our legitimate immemorial ecclesiastical traditions.  These quotes are worth reading again:
 
Quote from: Msgr. Klaus Gamber
    "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

 
Quote from: Fr. Paul Kramer
    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:
N.B. John Vennari confirmed to me personally that Fr. Kramer only wrote one chapter of this book, one chapter was written by John Vennari, and one by Chris Ferrara, the rest of the book was written by Fr. Nicholas Gruner.

We reject the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal because Rome has legally reduced this Missal to a matter of mere discipline subject to the free and independent will of the legislator.  This is proven by the fact that it was legally reduced to an Indult and now as a conditional grant of legal privilege.  As my husband has said, this fact, alone, constitutes prima facie evidence that it is not a "received" rite but rather the 'work of human hands.' 

Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 25, 2019, 09:25:15 PM
I thought you were done for good.

Repeating the same old things over and over and over again do not make them true.

Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 25, 2019, 09:41:27 PM
Quote
So what have done?  You did a web search for the Ambrosian rite, read an Catholic encyclopedia article, and now post as an authoritative commentator on the Ambrosian rite.  The problem is you know little about the nature of divine worship and this is revealed in the nature of your question.  

I know enough to understand that the Sacred Liturgy includes both Divine and Human elements. The Divine cannot ever be changed because it was established by God Himself; but the human certainly can and indeed, do. That explains the existence of over 20 Liturgical Rites used in the Catholic Church, as well as the modifications, revisions, and editions of Missals, all of them legally authorized by the legitimate successor of St. Peter.

From Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei:

Quote
50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites. Here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times. Hence likewise it happens from time to time that certain devotions long since forgotten are revived and practiced anew. All these developments attest the abiding life of the immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ through these many centuries. They are the sacred language she uses, as the ages run their course, to profess to her divine Spouse her own faith along with that of the nations committed to her charge, and her own unfailing love. They furnish proof, besides, of the wisdom of the teaching method she employs to arouse and nourish constantly the "Christian instinct."

I do not have to be an expert in the Ambrosian Rite or even my own Roman Rite to understand that the Holy See simply cannot promulgate defective or harmful Missal editions to the faithful, without the Universal Church having failed in Her Sacred Mission to safeguard Liturgical Worship. Our Lord handed the entire management of the Church Militant to St. Peter and his legitimate successors. That is it. If you rebel against the idea, as Jesus conceived it, then that it is your problem and not mine. Catholicism is so simple, a peasant or mere child can understand it.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 25, 2019, 10:10:25 PM
Quote
We have about 4 feet of book shelf space for liturgical books alone in our home that have been read over many years by my husband and still he would never pretend to be an authority on liturgical history.

Well, if you have read so many liturgical books over the years, and have certainly arrived to the conclusion that there was a defect in the 1962's Tridentine Missal, you should probably start seriously entertaining the possibility that the Ecclesiastical Authority who promulgated it, was illegitimate. Otherwise, a defective Missal is truly impossible.

If there is indeed a major defect in this Missal as you claim, to the point of Catholics having to reject it, then that right there to me would be yet another indication (as if we need more?) of an impostor issuing intrinsically harmful laws, not a Pope. Evidently, it is impossible that a true successor of St. Peter does such a thing. Only a true conspirator could do that.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 26, 2019, 07:22:31 AM

Cantarella,

You have a convenient habit of only partially quoting and then twisting what was said and bury the post with multiple responses. In our responses, you are always FULLY quoted. This is what I said:

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg641100/#msg641100

I shall respond as time permits. I have Mass, a chapel 15th anniversary preparations for tomorrow and a wedding next Saturday but I'll try to find time later.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 26, 2019, 06:41:26 PM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora
So what have done?  You did a web search for the Ambrosian rite, read an Catholic encyclopedia article, and now post as an authoritative commentator on the Ambrosian rite.  The problem is you know little about the nature of divine worship and this is revealed in the nature of your question.


 I know enough to understand that the Sacred Liturgy includes both Divine and Human elements. The Divine cannot ever be changed because it was established by God Himself; but the human certainly can and indeed, do. That explains the existence of over 20 Liturgical Rites used in the Catholic Church, as well as the modifications, revisions, and editions of Missals, all of them legally authorized by the legitimate successor of St. Peter.
 
Quote from:  Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei
50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites. Here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times. Hence likewise it happens from time to time that certain devotions long since forgotten are revived and practiced anew. All these developments attest the abiding life of the immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ through these many centuries. They are the sacred language she uses, as the ages run their course, to profess to her divine Spouse her own faith along with that of the nations committed to her charge, and her own unfailing love. They furnish proof, besides, of the wisdom of the teaching method she employs to arouse and nourish constantly the "Christian instinct."

 I do not have to be an expert in the Ambrosian Rite or even my own Roman Rite to understand that the Holy See simply cannot promulgate defective or harmful Missal editions to the faithful, without the Universal Church having failed in Her Sacred Mission to safeguard Liturgical Worship. Our Lord handed the entire management of the Church Militant to St. Peter and his legitimate successors. That is it. If you rebel against the idea, as Jesus conceived it, then that it is your problem and not mine. Catholicism is so simple, a peasant or mere child can understand it.

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora
We have about 4 feet of book shelf space for liturgical books alone in our home that have been read over many years by my husband and still he would never pretend to be an authority on liturgical history.


 Well, if you have read so many liturgical books over the years, and have certainly arrived to the conclusion that there was a defect in the 1962's Tridentine Missal, you should probably start seriously entertaining the possibility that the Ecclesiastical Authority who promulgated it, was illegitimate. Otherwise, a defective Missal is truly impossible.
 
 If there is indeed a major defect in this Missal as you claim, to the point of Catholics having to reject it, then that right there to me would be yet another indication (as if we need more?) of an impostor issuing intrinsically harmful laws, not a Pope. Evidently, it is impossible that a true successor of St. Peter does such a thing. Only a true conspirator could do that.


I did not say that I had read all these books.  They are books in our library that my husband has read. I have read Dom Gueranger's The Liturgical Year many times which is an excellent place to start.  But the point being that even after having read many books on this subject over the last 45 years my husband would never consider himself a liturgical "expert."  The reference to Henry Bradshaw Society was to encourage you to examine a site that deals with the complexity of the subject.  My husband does not believe that you have read a single book by any competent authority on the question of liturgy.  

I completely agree with the quotation provided by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei but deny your conclusions which are derived from your misunderstanding of the pope, his office, and the Attributes of the Church.  You are now making the same tired arguments offered by sedevacantists who also reject the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal but they also do so for the wrong reasons.  The sedevacantists like the SSPX both make identical arguments that only vary in what they personally judge as "harmful to the faith."  This is not surprising because this conception of the liturgy can be traced back to Archbishop Lefebvre.  Both groups presuppose that the Bugnini principles of liturgical reform are legitimate but flawed in their application. Both regard the pope as the "master of the liturgy."  Both hold the pope as their rule of faith and therefore he can do whatever he pleases regarding the liturgy.  Both consider the liturgy as mere matter of discipline subject to the free and independent will of the legislator.  Both believe that they have the right to judge the rectitude of any liturgical changes and determine what is and what is not harmful to the faith.  Both regard Dogma as human axioms that approximate truth subject to constant refinement.  Both have a hopelessly flawed, legalistic, mechanical concept of liturgy.  

Dogma is the proximate rule of faith.  It is divine revelation formally and infallibly defined by the Magisterium that constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic faith.   This is proven as necessarily so, as explained before, by the very definition of heresy.   But you deny this truth and I will leave it at that because your intellect is driven by your will.  If anyone reading this thread is interested in the spiritual desert of sedevacantism, dogma as the proximate rule of faith, the distinction between the pope and his office, the Attributes of the Church and how they relate to the pope,  I invite them to read the thread:

Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg598503/#msg598503)
« on: March 09, 2018, 09:12:26 AM »

You need not worry about you posts being deleted on the thread because my husband always included your entire posts in all his replies.  This thread has been read more than twenty thousand times since it was locked and many have contacted us to say the discussion was helpful for them.

We have made no settled determination that the 1962 Missal is certainly not the "received and approved" rite.  It is Rome who has done that by relegating the Missal to the status of an Indult, and then as a grant of legal privilege conditioned upon accepting that Vatican II is without error and that the 1969 Bugnini Missal is a perfectly legitimate form of worship and the "Extraordinary Form" of the "Ordinary Form" (Novus Ordo).  As my husband has said, this is prime facie evidence that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal is not the "received and approved" Roman rite but rather a transitional step towards the creation of the N.O. and therefore a matter of mere discipline.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 26, 2019, 07:16:01 PM
Do you and Drew just copy-paste “replies” from some pre-written Word document?  Because most of the time, they are too long and have very little to do with the previous post...not to mention you say the same thing over and over again, without any added clarity.  Very annoying and very much a waste of time (for all of us).
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 27, 2019, 05:05:31 AM


PAX,
I assure you it will become quite clear before the end of this year when the "new edition" of the 1962 missal as authorized by Benedict XVI, is released.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Stanley N on January 27, 2019, 05:58:17 PM
Maria Auxiliadora:

In this post (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg641100/#msg641100) you provide quotes from Msgr. Gamber and Fr Kramer. These quotes refer to "abolish[ing] the traditional liturgy" or "chang[ing] into new rites". Trad. Catholics typically apply arguments like this to the mass of Paul VI as an attempt to replace the traditional liturgy with something else. Only you seem to apply it to changes within the traditional liturgy prior to the mass of Paul VI.

The mass of Paul VI, to paraphrase the Ottaviani intervention, displays a striking departure from the theology and dogma of the traditional liturgy as formulated at Trent. The authors of the Ottaviani intervention did not, however, say anything similar about any preceeding missal, not even the 1965 missal.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: nottambula on January 27, 2019, 09:15:01 PM

Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
N.B. John Vennari confirmed to me personally that Fr. Kramer only wrote one chapter of this book, one chapter was written by John Vennari, and one by Chris Ferrara, the rest of the book was written by Fr. Nicholas Gruner.

Absolutely false. Please get your facts straight. Fr. Kramer most certainly wrote the entirety of the book: The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy.  It was The Devil's Final Battle that was "Edited and Compiled by Father Paul Kramer" (right there on the front cover), and its contributors were Andrew Cesanek, Mark Fellows, Christopher Ferrara, Father Nicholas Gruner, Father Gregory Hesse, Father Paul Kramer and John Vennari.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 27, 2019, 10:07:39 PM
Absolutely false. Please get your facts straight. Fr. Kramer most certainly wrote the entirety of the book: The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy.  It was The Devil's Final Battle that was "Edited and Compiled by Father Paul Kramer" (right there on the front cover), and its contributors were Andrew Cesanek, Mark Fellows, Christopher Ferrara, Father Nicholas Gruner, Father Gregory Hesse, Father Paul Kramer and John Vennari.

I asked John Vennari directly when Fr. Kramer attacked my husband and I on CI as "Feeneyite heretics" (and contradicted his own book) and John told me that it wasn't a secret that he (JV) wrote one chapter, Chris Ferrara one chapter, Fr. Kramer wrote one chapter and Fr. Gruner the rest. I stand by it. My name is Claudia Drew, you may ask Mr. Ferrara what JV told me and ask him if he wrote one chapter of The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy. I don't know Mr. Ferrara personally and never asked him but if he confirms what you say in writting, I will definitely retract it.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 27, 2019, 10:11:51 PM
Maria Auxiliadora:

In this post (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg641100/#msg641100) you provide quotes from Msgr. Gamber and Fr Kramer. These quotes refer to "abolish[ing] the traditional liturgy" or "chang[ing] into new rites". Trad. Catholics typically apply arguments like this to the mass of Paul VI as an attempt to replace the traditional liturgy with something else. Only you seem to apply it to changes within the traditional liturgy prior to the mass of Paul VI.

The mass of Paul VI, to paraphrase the Ottaviani intervention, displays a striking departure from the theology and dogma of the traditional liturgy as formulated at Trent. The authors of the Ottaviani intervention did not, however, say anything similar about any preceeding missal, not even the 1965 missal.

You are correct. We know far more about the liturgy today than in 1969. There has been a good deal of historical works published like Bugnini’s book around 1990 and there have been many works written on the nature of the liturgy, immemorial tradition, organic liturgical development all in the last twenty years as well as the republication of many older liturgical works. I'm just reading Tradition and the Church  that was republished from 1928 that is an excellent and comprehensive treatment of the subject.  

Also, it has become manifest that Rome regards the 1962 Bugnini (transitional) Missal as a matter of mere discipline when they have treated it as an Indult and then as a grant of legal privilege subject to several unacceptable conditions for faithful Catholics.  It is impossible that the “received and approved” immemorial Roman rite of Mass could ever become an Indult or grant of legal privilege. Again, this is prima facie evidence that Rome does not regard this Missal as the “received and approved” Roman rite and we should accept this fact of law.  This was not recognized until 1983.  The prima facie evidence can only be refuted by competent authority.

Almost no one understood what was liturgically taking place in the 1950s and 1960s at that time.  No one knew what the end envisioned by the Bugnini commission was.  Many had a sense that things were terribly wrong but the nature of the problems was not understood by people like Cardinal Ottaviani, Msgr. Fenton, and Archbishop Lefebvre or even Fr. Gommer DePauw until long after the fact.  It became clear to +Ottaviani by 1968 but by that time it was like getting the license plate of a truck that has just run over you.  So, I am very sympathetic to these faithful Catholics who did not comprehend the nature of the attack at the time.  They often made what appeared to be minor compromises in principles that ultimately lead to serious unforeseen consequences.  

We now know from Bugnini’s own book that the end of liturgical revolution was completely envisioned from the beginning.  This goal was kept secret but in his book there are specific examples of meetings taking place in the early 1950s that adopted changes that were not implemented for 15 or so years down the road.  The end was perfectly visualized and every step taken was carefully and patiently implemented   to achieve this known end.  

The challenge for the Resistance is that it must articulate an intelligible comprehensive and compelling defense of Catholic doctrine and worship that can unite faithful Catholics in their opposition to an abusive and corrupt authority.  I think the first question to consider in this articulation is: When the Church is set aright again as it most certainly will, what are the heresies that will be formally condemned?  

The principle heresy today is Neo-modernism that postulates a disjunction between dogmatic truth and the words used to express the dogma, between the form and the matter of the dogma.  John XXIII’s opening address to Vatican II was an articulation of this heresy.  This heresy is the overriding theme of Vatican II.  The principle liturgical error is regarding worship as a man-made matter of mere legalistic and mechanical discipline open to the free and independent will of the legislator.  It is the failure to see that the liturgy is essentially the work of God and is grounded in Dogma.  The liturgical revolution is another form of the heresy of Iconoclasm and that was the intent from its inception.  

With all due respect for +Lefebvre, his plan of opposition failed to articulate these two essential problems and ultimately failed.  To continue the Resistance without understanding why the SSPX has failed will only lead to more failure.  If the bishops in the Resistance can address these two issues with clarity and passion the Resistance can take on an effective structure and direction on which to build.  

The letter below was written by my husband in 2010.

http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Culture%20Wars%20reply%20for%20web%20posting%209-10.htm
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 27, 2019, 11:30:23 PM
I asked John Vennari directly when Fr. Kramer attacked my husband and I on CI as "Feeneyite heretics" (and contradicted his own book) and John told me that it wasn't a secret that he (JV) wrote one chapter, Chris Ferrara one chapter, Fr. Kramer wrote one chapter and Fr. Gruner the rest. I stand by it. My name is Claudia Drew, you may ask Mr. Ferrara what JV told me and ask him if he wrote one chapter of The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy. I don't know Mr. Ferrara personally and never asked him but if he confirms what you say in writting, I will definitely retract it.

I just compared the two books and you are correct. I had the wrong book. My apology to Fr. Kramer. Perhaps Matthew would be so kind to remove the NB on Fr. Kramer's quote? https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg641100/#msg641100
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: nottambula on January 28, 2019, 12:35:28 AM
I just compared the two books and you are correct. I had the wrong book. My apology to Fr. Kramer. Perhaps Matthew would be so kind to remove the NB on Fr. Kramer's quote? https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg641100/#msg641100

Thank you. Much appreciated that you were able to see the mistake and humbly apologize. 

The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy was a publication of three formerly written works by Fr. Kramer, all issued under the new book title. In the book's Preface, Fr. Kramer writes that he has *included* the essay: "The Ecumenical Church of the Third Millennium" by John Vennari (it's in the Afterword section), so it was never a secret that JV's essay is in the book and was given full credit for it. 
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Stanley N on January 28, 2019, 03:49:38 PM
We now know from Bugnini’s own book that the end of liturgical revolution was completely envisioned from the beginning.  
What is first in intention is last in execution. The revolution that trads oppose happened in 1969 when a very different missal was published.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: MarylandTrad on January 28, 2019, 08:01:09 PM
I shall respond as time permits. I have Mass, a chapel 15th anniversary preparations for tomorrow and a wedding next Saturday but I'll try to find time later.

Fifteen years of a very public and militant Catholicism at a beautiful little chapel in York, PA! Happy anniversary. The denial of the dogmas that you have been defending at SS. Peter and Paul RCM concerning the Church's liturgical rites and the denial of important truths correlative to those dogmas is resulting in devastation for conservative Catholics. Just recently I have had conservative priests and other persons who only offer or assist at the traditional Roman rite tell me that they would disobey any command from their local ordinary that restricted their ability to publicly profess the faith, but they would obey their bishop if he told them to stop having Mass and the other liturgical rites used in the administration of the sacraments at their particular chapels because these rites are not, according to them, necessary to make the faith known and communicable to others.

The great American Redemptorist priest Fr. Michael Muller wrote in The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:

Quote
Man being constituted of a body and a soul, it is just that the body, with its various capabilities, which are so many gifts of God, should come forward on the side of religion, especially as it is the nature of man to need external assistance to enable him to rise to the meditation of divine things. Internal piety, therefore, requires to be excited and nourished by ceremonies, or certain sensible signs. Moreover, every man ought to be religious and pious, not only so as to be conscious within himself that he worships God, but also to the extent of promoting the piety and instruction of his fellow-men, especially of those who are entrusted to his care; and this cannot be done, unless we profess by some external sign the intimate sense of religion with which we are animated.

There are countless examples in the Roman Martyrolgy of saints who were martyred for refusing to deny the faith by assisting at false rites. If we can deny the faith by assisting at false rites, then we can profess the faith by assisting at true rites. Since the faith is immutable, the rites which are meant to express in the external forum the unchanging faith must necessarily have elements that are immutable. They cannot be entirely the object of mere Church discipline. The following is a divinely revealed dogma defined at the Council of Trent:

Quote
If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be...changed to other new ones by any pastor of the churches whomsoever: let him be anathema.

All of the Eastern rites of Mass of long prescription can ultimately be shown to be developments of either the Antiochene or Alexandrian rites, and both of those rites can be shown to be developments of apostolic rites. Can those who deny this point to one single example, pre-Vatican II, of an Eastern rite of Mass of long prescription that could truthfully be referred to as a “banal fabrication” or an “on-the-spot product?” In what century did this “banal fabrication” or “on-the-spot production” of an Eastern rite occur? I doubt we will ever receive an answer.  
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 28, 2019, 08:48:29 PM
I completely agree with the quotation provided by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei but deny your conclusions which are derived from your misunderstanding of the pope, his office, and the Attributes of the Church.  

I do not see how anyone can draw different conclusions when reading Mediator Dei. It is a very simple document to understand. Either you agree with what Pius XII says explicitly, or you do not. There is no room for interpretations here.

Quote
"The Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.”

If you disagree that "the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to introduce and approve new rites, and also to modify those he judges to require modification”, then it is you who seem to have a great misunderstanding of the Pope and his Office.

How do you read this Papal statement, in light of the cited Tridentine canon? Do you believe that the Pope is guilty of heresy in Mediator Dei by explicitly denying an Article of Faith, (if in fact this dogmatic canon concerned what you think it does?). If your interpretation is correct, then the only possible conclusion is that Mediator Dei contains heresy. 

Trent:
Quote
If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be...changed to other new ones by any pastor of the churches whomsoever: let him be anathema.

Pius XII:
Quote
"The SOVEREIGN PONTIFF ALONE enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.”

It is reasonable to believe that the Pope was fully acquainted with the Council of Trent at the time of writing his encyclical in 1947.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 29, 2019, 05:38:50 AM

Cantarella,

Why don't you read, pray and reflect on this quotes. There's none so blind as those who will not see". 

All emphasis mine.

Quote
"However, the term disciplina in no way applies to the liturgical rite of the Mass, particularly in light of the fact that the popes have repeatedly observed that the rite is founded on apostolic tradition (several popes are then quoted in the footnote).  For this reason alone, the rite cannot fall into the category of 'discipline and rule of the Church.'  To this we can add that there is not a single 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


Quote
   "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:
 

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

Pope Pius XII  said regarding the error of liturgists:
 

Quote
“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

AND:
 
"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
 

Quote
St. Pius X, in his condemnation of Modernists in Pascendi Dominid Gregis;

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”


 
Quote
 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
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 29, 2019, 10:23:07 AM
Cantarella,

Why don't you read, pray and reflect on this quotes. There's none so blind as those who will not see".

All emphasis mine.

Why don't you just simply address my last post, instead of re-posting the old quotes?

If the dogmatic canon is:

Quote
If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be...changed to other new ones by any pastor of the churches whomsoever (INCLUDING THE ROMAN PONTIFF HIMSELF): let him be anathema.

Then Pope Pius XII' Mediator's Dei contains this heretical statement:

Quote
"The SOVEREIGN PONTIFF ALONE enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.”




Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 29, 2019, 10:39:20 AM
Quote
All of the Eastern rites of Mass of long prescription can ultimately be shown to be developments of either the Antiochene or Alexandrian rites, and both of those rites can be shown to be developments of apostolic rites. Can those who deny this point to one single example, pre-Vatican II, of an Eastern rite of Mass of long prescription that could truthfully be referred to as a “banal fabrication” or an “on-the-spot product?” In what century did this “banal fabrication” or “on-the-spot production” of an Eastern rite occur? I doubt we will ever receive an answer.  

No rite is ever made from scratch. Liturgical practice begins with the very founding of the Church. "From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow - keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact - to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage." (Mediator Dei, 49)

As long as the substance of the Mass remains intact, the Holy See reserves the right to introduce or modify liturgical rites. For instance, the Rite of St. James translated into Syrian was examined and revised by Rome sometime in the XVIII century, and out of the 50 Anaphoras, most were deleted and only seven were kept. The Holy See deleted many Anaphoras which had been used for centuries by the Catholic Syrians, their "immemorial tradition" was altered, and no one ever questioned the authority of Rome to do so.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 29, 2019, 03:04:56 PM
Why don't you just simply address my last post, instead of re-posting the old quotes?

If the dogmatic canon is:

Then Pope Pius XII' Mediator's Dei contains this heretical statement:

Cantarella,

No reply will satisfy you. The two links below should answer  your questions on the last 2-3 posts. You have an erroneous understanding of the term "new rite" in pre VII documents. There is no contradiction between Canon XIII and Pius XII quotes. You insist that Pius V started a new rite. Fr. Kramer addresses your questions and your error on Chapter one. So does Michael Davis. In the link to Short History of the Roman Mass by Michael Davis you can also click any chapter. I recommended the book Tradition and the Church in a previous post, you can get it from TAN Books.

The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy
https://fatima.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/The-Suicide-of-Altering-the-Faith-in-the-Liturgy.pdf

Short History of the Roman Mass
https://unavocecanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Short-History-of-the-Roman-Mass.pdf
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 29, 2019, 03:10:25 PM
Double post, was trying to modify.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 29, 2019, 03:29:05 PM
What is first in intention is last in execution. The revolution that trads oppose happened in 1969 when a very different missal was published.


Cardinal Ottaviani like others did not see the crime for what it was until everything was in ruins and the dead body was on the floor.  Hind sight is much clearer.  We know that Bugnini envisioned the Novus Ordo from the beginning.  Every liturgical innovation was directed to overcome all opposition and achieve the overthrow of the “received and approved” rite of Mass.  Fr. Anscar Chupungco, a strong admirer of Bugnini, said:

Quote from: Chupungco
Bugnini himself, then secretary to the Congregation of Divine Worship, was not spared. He was a systematic person who programmed the liturgical reform and courageously pushed its implementation against all opposition. I remember that in one of his visits to the Pontifical Liturgical Institute he declared, “I am the liturgical reform!” In more ways than one his self-assessment was correct. The postconciliar reform would not have progressed with giant steps had it not been for his dauntless spirit and tenacity.
Fr. Anscar Chupungco OSB, former president of the Pontifical Liturgical Institute in Rome, from his book, What, Then, Is Liturgy? Musings and Memoir

There is also the famous quote from Bugnini’s collaborator, Fr. Josef Jungmann, S.J., commenting on the success of Bugnini:

Quote from: Jungmann
“The Roman Rite is dead.”
Fr. Josef Andreas Jungmann, S.J., member of the Concilium, one of the chief liturgical revolutionaries, author of the 2-volume set, The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development, in 1969

Bugnini was able to overcome because he had the support of the popes and he always argued from the perspective of false charity of human respect, such as, when he changed the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of “heretics and schismatics”, to “unity with our separated brethren,” he said:

Quote from: Bugnini
“And yet it is the love of souls and the desire to help in any way the road to union of the separated brethren, by removing every stone that could even remotely constitute an obstacle or difficulty, that has driven the Church to make even these painful sacrifices.”
Rev. Annibale Bugnini, March 19, 1965 edition of L’Osservatore Romano, on changing the Good Friday prayer for heretics and schismatics.

By the time the 1969 Bugnini Missal was published it was more clear as to what was going on.  It is easy to see the 1969 Missal and say it is not the “received and approved” Roman rite but it is not easy to say exactly at what point in Bugnini reform that this happened.  We know that Popes JPII, Benedict XVI, and Francis have all treated the 1962 Bugnini Missal as if it is not the “received and approved” rite by reducing it to an indult and then, a grant of legal privilege conditionally tied to accepting that the 1969 and the 1962 Missals are two forms of worship constituting one identical ‘lex orandi, lex credenda.’  The use of the 1962 Missal also is tied to unconditional acceptance of Vatican II being without error.   So it has become clear since 1983 that the 1962 Bugnini Missal is not the “received and approved” rite because there is something about it which constitutes an essential break in liturgical tradition.  

St. Pius X in Pascendi referenced Nicaea II which condemned the heresy of Iconoclasm which is the destruction of the images of our faith.  He reaffirmed its condemnations.

Quote from: Nicaea II
“Those therefore who after the manner of wicked heretics dare to set aside Ecclesiastical Traditions, and to invent any kind of novelty, or to reject any of those things entrusted to the Church, or who wrongfully and outrageously devise the destruction of any of those Traditions enshrined in the Catholic Church, are to be punished thus:
 “IF THEY ARE BISHOPS, WE ORDER THEM TO BE DEPOSED; BUT IF THEY ARE MONKS OR LAY PERSONS, WE COMMAND THEM TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE COMMUNITY.”   Second Council of Nicaea 787 A.D.

Bugnini “wrongfully and outrageously devised the destruction” the greatest of all of “those Traditions enshrined in the Catholic Church.”   It is ruinous to the Resistance to argue how much of Bugnini’s reforms can be digested without sickening true worship.  No one would tolerate any black water contaminating the potable water.  Why would any faithful Catholic be complacent in defending the true worship of God?  


Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 29, 2019, 05:18:19 PM


Powerful short video (11:08 mins.) of Father Gommar A. De Pauw on Quo Primum. He always said the Roman Missal given to him at his ordination.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuBu5Utd3LY
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Stanley N on January 29, 2019, 06:45:07 PM
St. Pius X in Pascendi referenced Nicaea II which condemned the heresy of Iconoclasm which is the destruction of the images of our faith.  He reaffirmed its condemnations.
I think you've come up with what looks like a simple answer to a difficult problem, but from my viewpoint, your answer just doesn't match reality.

For example, in the breviary before 1911 there was a tradition of reciting the "laudete" psalms every morning at lauds. This practice was one of the most ancient traditions in the prayer of the Church. Our Lord may very well have said these same psalms in morning prayer.

Nevertheless, St. Pius X's reform of the breviary did away with this.

If I understand your argument correctly, you must reject the breviary reform of Pope St. Pius X as "iconoclast" for daring to set aside ecclesiastical traditions.

The liturgy is not "purely discipline" and no one here thinks that. We all agree the divine elements can't be changed. But human elements can and have changed, as evidenced by history such as the Pius X breviary reform.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 29, 2019, 06:45:50 PM
Cantarella,

So does Michael Davis. In the link to Short History of the Roman Mass by Michael Davis you can also click any chapter.

Short History of the Roman Mass
https://unavocecanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Short-History-of-the-Roman-Mass.pdf

Michael Davis does not seem to have any problem with the Tridentine Missal revision made by John XXIII.

From the link above:

Quote
In 1955 Pope Pius XII authorized a rubrical revision, chiefly concerned with the calendar. In 1951 he restored the Easter Vigil from the morning to the evening of Holy Saturday, and, on 16 November 1955, he approved the Decree Maxima redemptionis, reforming the Holy Week ceremonies. These reforms were welcomed and have been highly praised by some of the traditionalists, who implacably opposed to the reform of Pope Paul VI. Pope John XXIII also made an extensive rubrical reform which was promulgated on 25 July 1960 and took effect from 1 January 1961. Once again this was concerned principally with the calendar. In none of these reforms was any significant change made to the Ordinary of the Mass. It is thus unscholarly, dishonest even, to attempt to refute traditionalist criticisms of the New Mass by citing changes made in the Missal by the popes just named.

"In none of these reforms was any significant change made to the Ordinary of the Mass".

My point is that if John XXIII was indeed a legitimate Pope of the Catholic Church, then he had the full authority to modify the rite, just like his predecessors had done several times, as long as the substance of the Mass is carefully kept intact. Can you prove that the substance was altered? Even if by the original intention of the reformers was modernist in principle, once the legitimate Pope promulgates the revision, it becomes binding to all Catholics.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 29, 2019, 07:00:56 PM
You have an erroneous understanding of the term "new rite" in pre VII documents. There is no contradiction between Canon XIII and Pius XII quotes.

There is no contradiction simply because Canon XIII does not include the Supreme Pontiff, of course!.

Quote
You insist that Pius V started a new rite.
Where do I insist so?

He could have simply modified it, and the end result is the same. Revisions were made to the pre-Tridentine Liturgy. (Not the Divine core, or substance of the Mass which comes from Christ, of course). The Tridentine Mass is the Roman Rite Mass which appears in the Missals published from 1570 to 1962. All of the editions approved by the Church are safe for the faithful to use. If the last one is harmful, then the only possibility is that the Authority who promulgated it is false.  I don't oppose you using a pre-1962 Missal. I do so myself, but I think you do it for the wrong reasons, lacking the proper obedience due to the one you consider Pope, in all matters liturgical, as stipulated in Vatican I Council.  

Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 29, 2019, 07:18:35 PM
How do you in right conscience reject the infallible teachings of Vatican I Council? Your traditionalist position is a contradiction, merely founded upon rebellion towards the one you consider Vicar of Christ.

Pastor Aeternus, Chapter III "On the Power and Nature of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff"

Quote
Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses a sovereignty of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, which is truly Episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatsoever rite and dignity, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world; so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor, through the preservation of unity, both of communion and of profession of the same faith, with the Roman pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation.

If John XXIII was indeed Pope, then the 1962' Tridentine Missal is the one you should be using, in good Faith.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 29, 2019, 07:21:22 PM
There is no contradiction simply because Canon XIII does not include the Supreme Pontiff, of course!.
Where do I insist so?

He could have simply modified it, and the end result is the same. Revisions were made to the pre-Tridentine Liturgy. (Not the Divine core, or substance of the Mass which comes from Christ, of course). The Tridentine Mass is the Roman Rite Mass which appears in the Missals published from 1570 to 1962. All of the editions approved by the Church are safe for the faithful to use. If the last one is harmful, then the only possibility is that the Authority who promulgated it is false.  I don't oppose you using a pre-1962 Missal. I do so myself, but I think you do it for the wrong reasons, lacking the proper obedience due to the one you consider Pope, in all matters liturgical, as stipulated in Vatican I Council.  

The purpose for those links was to correct your error that Pius V created a "new rite". I know Michael Davies believe the 1962 to be the traditional Roman Rite. So does Fr. Kramer. That is why I posted the video of Fr. Gommar de Pauw. Did you take the time to see it ? It's only 11:08 min. long

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg641598/#msg641598
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 29, 2019, 07:30:07 PM
There is no contradiction simply because Canon XIII does not include the Supreme Pontiff, of course!.
Where do I insist so?

He could have simply modified it, and the end result is the same. Revisions were made to the pre-Tridentine Liturgy. (Not the Divine core, or substance of the Mass which comes from Christ, of course). The Tridentine Mass is the Roman Rite Mass which appears in the Missals published from 1570 to 1962. All of the editions approved by the Church are safe for the faithful to use. If the last one is harmful, then the only possibility is that the Authority who promulgated it is false.  I don't oppose you using a pre-1962 Missal. I do so myself, but I think you do it for the wrong reasons, lacking the proper obedience due to the one you consider Pope, in all matters liturgical, as stipulated in Vatican I Council.  

Here and at least in one other post.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg639201/#msg639201

And my husband reasponded to this one.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg639268/#msg639268
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 29, 2019, 07:38:08 PM
The purpose for those links was to correct your error that Pius V created a "new rite".

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg641598/#msg641598

So now I am in error just because Fr. Kramer's opinion differs from mine?  It is not the first time that happens :laugh1:


Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 29, 2019, 07:40:39 PM
Here and at least in one other post.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg639201/#msg639201

And my husband reasponded to this one.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg639268/#msg639268
Fine. You have more time than me to remember every.single.post. ever made

Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 29, 2019, 07:47:23 PM
Fine. You have more time than me to remember every.single.post. ever made
I don't have more time but I remember obvious errors. Listen to Fr. de Pauw.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 29, 2019, 08:29:30 PM
I think you've come up with what looks like a simple answer to a difficult problem, but from my viewpoint, your answer just doesn't match reality.

For example, in the breviary before 1911 there was a tradition of reciting the "laudete" psalms every morning at lauds. This practice was one of the most ancient traditions in the prayer of the Church. Our Lord may very well have said these same psalms in morning prayer.

Nevertheless, St. Pius X's reform of the breviary did away with this.

If I understand your argument correctly, you must reject the breviary reform of Pope St. Pius X as "iconoclast" for daring to set aside ecclesiastical traditions.

The liturgy is not "purely discipline" and no one here thinks that. We all agree the divine elements can't be changed. But human elements can and have changed, as evidenced by history such as the Pius X breviary reform.

No Stanley, you do not understand the argument correctly.  I am not familiar with the changes in the breviary but the breviary is not the “received and approved” rite and even if it were, my argument is NOT grounded upon making formal judgments that are reserved to properly constituted authority.  My argument is grounded upon drawing conclusions from a few simple facts:

1)      Bugnini began in 1948 as head of the Pian commission with the intent of overturning the “received and approved” rite of Mass.  This was accomplished with certainty by in his Missal 1969 by both sides of this question.
2)      Exactly when the “received and approved” rite ended and the new rite began is a matter of speculation but we know for fact that:
a)      The “received and approved” rite was ended before 1962 because Rome under three popes has legally relegated this Missal to an Indult and to a grant of legal privilege attached to unacceptable conditions for faithful Catholics.  This fact is absolutely incompatible with a “received and approved” rite.
b)      There must be a presumption in favor of the legislator as to the correctness and meaning of their laws.  That is, until proven otherwise by competent authority, 1962 rite must be regarded as sharing a common provenance with the 1969 Bugnini Missal expressing one ‘lex orandi, lex credenda.’
3)      That the “received and approved” rites cannot be changed into other new rites by any pastor of the churches whomsoever is dogma, that is, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith that has been incorporated into the Tridentine profession of faith.
4)      Therefore, every Catholic faithful to tradition must, whenever possible, attend a Mass that is without question the “received and approved” Roman rite of Mass.
5)      My argument is not based upon determining exactly what is and what is not of divine origin, OR what is and what is not of discipline.  Those that affirm that they can on their own authority determine what Bugnini corruptions are compatible and what are not have usurped to themselves an authority they do not possess.  What is worse, they cannot structure an intelligible argument against an abusive authority that is grounded upon dogmatic truth.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 29, 2019, 09:10:41 PM
How do you in right conscience reject the infallible teachings of Vatican I Council? Your traditionalist position is a contradiction, merely founded upon rebellion towards the one you consider Vicar of Christ.

Pastor Aeternus, Chapter III "On the Power and Nature of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff"

If John XXIII was indeed Pope, then the 1962' Tridentine Missal is the one you should be using, in good Faith.

Yes we understand your argument.  "If John XXIII is the pope you must accept the 1962 Missal".  "If Paul VI is the pope you must accept the 1969 Missal, and that Vatican II is without error".  "If John Paul II is the pope you must accept the indult".  "If Benedict XVI is the pope you must accept the 1962 Bugnini Missal as a grant of legal privilege, the Novus Ordo and all of Vatican II".  This is your same old argument.  You hold the pope as your rule of faith when your rule of faith should be DOGMA.  You corrupt moral obligations to regulate obedience by the virtue of Religion.  You corrupt the law by divorcing from its necessary relationship to being an act of reason for the common good. 
 
You have read nothing.  Your entire reason is subjected to a perverse will.  You read little snippets, sentences taken out of context to support your particular passion and never enter into yourself for serious reflection upon what you say.  You cannot even remember what you say from one post to the other and are offended when reminded of your contradictions.
 
Dogma is the proximate rule of faith.  Until you understand this you will have no intellectual or moral grounding. 
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 29, 2019, 09:33:31 PM
CIC 1917, Canon 1257:

Quote
The Holy See alone has the right to enact the form of the sacred liturgy, as well as to approve the liturgical books.

(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/51236097_10156206623913691_2210488632093966336_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=f85ca14abb7903a57d541ba156d2aca5&oe=5CF5C2E3)

Until you can demonstrate that the form of the Sacred Liturgy was indeed altered in the 1962 revision of the Tridentine Rite, you have no grounds to resist anything.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 29, 2019, 09:40:19 PM

Dogma is the proximate rule of faith.  Until you understand this you will have no intellectual or moral grounding.

Your appeal to Dogma does not work in your favor. The Council of Trent declared concerning "the power of the Church as regards the dispensation of the Sacraments of the Eucharist"

Council of Trent, Session 21, Chapter 2
Quote
"It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,- or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places…. Wherefore, holy Mother Church, knowing this her authority in the administration of the sacraments, although the use of both species has,- from the beginning of the Christian religion, not been infrequent, yet, in progress of time, that custom having been already very widely changed,- she, induced by weighty and just reasons,- has approved of this custom of communicating under one species, and decreed that it was to be held as a law; which it is not lawful to reprobate, or to change at pleasure, without the authority of the Church itself."
  

The introduction, approval, and modification of liturgical rites does belong to the Church, so long as the substance is not changed.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 29, 2019, 09:46:05 PM
Quote
You have read nothing.  Your entire reason is subjected to a perverse will.
This is just uncalled for.  We’re trying to have a discussion and you’re calling people perverse?  Bad will?  Maybe you’re right and we’re totally wrong but did you ever stop to think that your EXPLANATIONS are lacking or aren’t perfect?  Is there ANY way, in ANY SMALL degree, you could be wrong, or are you infallible?  Or is everyone perverse who disagrees with you?  It’s not like we’re making fun of you’re view; we’re asking intelligent questions. Golly whiz, take a chill pill.  
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 29, 2019, 09:48:27 PM
CIC 1917, Canon 1257:

(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/51236097_10156206623913691_2210488632093966336_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=f85ca14abb7903a57d541ba156d2aca5&oe=5CF5C2E3)

Until you can demonstrate that the form of the Sacred Liturgy was indeed altered in the 1962 revision of the Tridentine Rite, you have no grounds to resist anything.

I do not have to demonstrate this.  It is established fact by Pope John Paul II making the 1962 Missal an Indult and by Pope Benedict XVI making it a grant of legal privilege declaring it possessing an identical 'lex orandi, lex credendi' with the 1969 Bugnini Missal and making its use conditional upon accepting the entire legitimacy of the Bugnini liturgical reform and that Vatican II contains no doctrinal errors.  This being the case, it is impossible that the Bugnini transitional Missal of 1962 could be the "received and approved" Roman rite of immemorial tradition.
 
I do not know how to make the argument any simpler for you.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 29, 2019, 10:04:49 PM
I don't have more time but I remember obvious errors. Listen to Fr. de Pauw.

Pope Pius V promulgated the Tridentine Liturgy in 1570. It was used in the Latin West until 1962. The Pope himself calls it a "new" rite in Quo Primum bull, even though the intention was restoring the Roman Missal "to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers". The fact that there exists a pre-Tridentine Mass before the Tridentine Mass is evidence that changes, modifications, and revisions of the original Mass in Aramaic and Greek, indeed occurred. You can blind yourself to historical realities; but when you deny reality, it automatically works against you.

Quo Primum, 4:
Quote
This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom.

Did the Pope make a complete liturgical innovation out of thin air? of course not. Undeniably, the substance of the Eucharist cannot ever be changed because Christ Himself instituted the Sacrament. That part alone is what is unchangeable until the end of time and what you can call "immemorial" because it is of Divine origin.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 29, 2019, 10:40:33 PM
Your appeal to Dogma does not work in your favor. The Council of Trent declared concerning "the power of the Church as regards the dispensation of the Sacraments of the Eucharist"

Council of Trent, Session 21, Chapter 2
The introduction, approval, and modification of liturgical rites does belong to the Church, so long as the substance is not changed.

That's on the power of the Church as regards the dispensation of the sacrament of the Eucharist. I don't see a problem. You seem to have a problem with session 7, canon XIII.

You still insist on the first part of  reply # 189  that: "[Session 7,]Canon XIII does not include the Supreme Pontiff, of course!".

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg641619/#msg641619

You have been corrected about that several times.
Here:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604850/#msg604850
and here:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/msg604807/#msg604807

By the way, the bottom of the second link includes one of the previous replies regarding Mediator Dei.




Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 29, 2019, 10:49:51 PM
Pope Pius V promulgated the Tridentine Liturgy in 1570. It was used in the Latin West until 1962. The Pope himself calls it a "new" rite in Quo Primum bull, even though the intention was restoring the Roman Missal "to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers". The fact that there exists a pre-Tridentine Mass before the Tridentine Mass is evidence that changes, modifications, and revisions of the original Mass in Aramaic and Greek, indeed occurred. You can blind yourself to historical realities; but when you deny reality, it automatically works against you.

Quo Primum, 4:
Did the Pope make a complete liturgical innovation out of thin air? of course not. Undeniably, the substance of the Eucharist cannot ever be changed because Christ Himself instituted the Sacrament. That part alone is what is unchangeable until the end of time and what you can call "immemorial" because it is of Divine origin.

You still have not listened to Fr. de Pauw. It will do you good. About him: http://www.latinmass-ctm.org/about/ourleader/leader.htm

Video link:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg641598/#msg641598

Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 29, 2019, 11:19:09 PM
That's on the power of the Church as regards the dispensation of the sacrament of the Eucharist. I don't see a problem. You seem to have a problem with session 7, canon XIII.

The problem is that you have constructed an entire reason for "resistance" based upon a massive, unbelievable, misinterpretation of that particular Tridentine canon, which is addressed to the Catholic clergy to simply stop them from using the pre-Tridentine liturgies that were common at the time and varied from one region to another, making it chaotic and subject to liturgical abuse. It was an effort of Pius V to regulate and codify an uniform Latin Rite of Mass to be used by everyone, which he in fact did shortly after, in Quo Primum.

You are hopelessly wrong on this, and I think you have spent entire decades of your life following this single error, so I can understand why you would not want to admit it. The "approved and received" rites of the Catholic Church are simply the ones which the Pope (the Holy See) "approves and receives". Once the Roman Pontiff promulgates a liturgical rite, such rite becomes part of the "approved and received".
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 30, 2019, 04:57:49 AM
The problem is that you have constructed an entire reason for "resistance" based upon a massive, unbelievable, misinterpretation of that particular Tridentine canon, which is addressed to the Catholic clergy to simply stop them from using the pre-Tridentine liturgies that were common at the time and varied from one region to another, making it chaotic and subject to liturgical abuse. It was an effort of Pius V to regulate and codify an uniform Latin Rite of Mass to be used by everyone, which he in fact did shortly after, in Quo Primum.

You are hopelessly wrong on this, and I think you have spent entire decades of your life following this single error, so I can understand why you would not want to admit it. The "approved and received" rites of the Catholic Church are simply the ones which the Pope (the Holy See) "approves and receives". Once the Roman Pontiff promulgates a liturgical rite, such rite becomes part of the "approved and received".

We are in the company of Fr. Gommar de Pauw who ONLY did the Missal he was given at his ordination in 1942 until his death, so when he speaks about the changes in the Missal he includes the 1962 although not specifically. But again, you have either not watched it or didn't like what he says.
At be beginning of the thread you said:

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg638830/#msg638830

And you still don't have a clue. Read Tradition and the Church.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 30, 2019, 08:44:51 AM
Quote
We are in the company of Fr. Gommar de Pauw who ONLY did the Missal he was given at his ordination in 1942 until his death, so when he speaks about the changes in the Missal he includes the 1962 although not specifically.
He could do that and no laity would notice because both missals are 99.9% the same, as far as daily/weekly mass is concerned.  If you throw out the addition of "St Joseph" and add back the 2nd confiteor, then the mass is exactly the same.
The changes to Holy Week and the calendar of saints are NOT essential changes because they don't affect the mass AT ALL.  There was a time in Church history when there was NO Holy Week ceremonies and the calendar of saints is updated like every 50 years for new saints, so these changes are minor.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 30, 2019, 10:29:47 AM
The problem is that you have constructed an entire reason for "resistance" based upon a massive, unbelievable, misinterpretation of that particular Tridentine canon, which is addressed to the Catholic clergy to simply stop them from using the pre-Tridentine liturgies that were common at the time and varied from one region to another, making it chaotic and subject to liturgical abuse. It was an effort of Pius V to regulate and codify an uniform Latin Rite of Mass to be used by everyone, which he in fact did shortly after, in Quo Primum.

You are hopelessly wrong on this, and I think you have spent entire decades of your life following this single error, so I can understand why you would not want to admit it. The "approved and received" rites of the Catholic Church are simply the ones which the Pope (the Holy See) "approves and receives". Once the Roman Pontiff promulgates a liturgical rite, such rite becomes part of the "approved and received".
I didn't have time for a full reply earlier.

Yes, again. You do not hold Dogma as your proximate rule of faith and this post may help explain why.  This is evidence that you do not know what Dogma is.  You say, that the dogmatic canon XIII is addressed to the Catholic clergy to simply stop them from using the pre-Tridentine liturgies that were common at the time and varied from one region to another, making it chaotic and subject to liturgical abuse.”

You are claiming that the Dogma is a preceptive norm in the category of authority/obedience commanding the clergy to “stop… using the pre-Tridentine liturgies” because they “varied from one region to another, making it chaotic and subject to liturgical abuse.”  

You have been told this many, many times before but you continue doing it.  So I will tell you again. Dogmas are, as St. Pius X taught, “truths fallen from heaven.”  They are not preceptive norms.  In fact, it is a condemned error of Modernism to treat dogmas as preceptive norms.

Canon XIII is, like all dogmas, a revealed doctrine formally defined.  It is a universal truth that is a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  You have been provided the reference to the lecture of Fr. Hesse multiple times who specifically addresses this dogma and its correct Latin translation. So does Fr. Kramer. Still you continue to corrupt it.  

Pax is offended that bad will is attributed to your posts but when intellectual rectitude has been eliminated as a possible explanation. That only leaves bad will unless there is some unknown physiological or psychological explanation in which case I would certainly apologize.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 30, 2019, 10:40:31 AM
At be beginning of the thread you said:

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg638830/#msg638830

And you still don't have a clue. Read Tradition and the Church.

Quote
You keep saying "the immemorial received and approved" rites of Mass. What do you even mean by that? Approved by who? Without the living Pope as supreme authority on these matters, such immemorial "received and approved" rite of Mass in the Roman rite would probably be the pre-Tridentine Mass before 1570, not even the Tridentine Mass of Pius V with Quo Primum.

<<<<< You obviously did not get that that was a rhetorical question.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 30, 2019, 10:55:12 AM
Canon XIII is, like all dogmas, a revealed doctrine formally defined.  It is a universal truth that is a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  You have been provided the reference to the lecture of Fr. Hesse multiple times who specifically addresses this dogma and its correct Latin translation. So does Fr. Kramer. Still you continue to corrupt it.  

Canon XIII prevents the clergy from saying Mass in whatever rite they please or with whatever modification or innovation they want to add. There is all there is to it.  I don't care what Fr. Hesse says and Fr. Kramer even less; but I care what the Church actually says.

If I provided the historical context of the Tridentine canon is not because I want to undermine its dogmatic status; or because I believe that it applied then; but no longer applies now, as the modernists do.  The dogma is not subject to change according to time. However, this "universal truth that is a formal object of divine and Catholic Faith" simply has absolutely nothing to do with your claims. It concerns something else, completely different. It prevents priests from changing the approved rites by the Holy See into new ones. It is true then; and it is true forever. You don't want having individual priests all over the world modifying and creating new liturgical rites at whim. That is why the Authority to do so is reserved to the HOLY SEE ALONE.

You may seriously reconsider your reasons for rejecting the 1962's Mass, because I tell with you with all certainty, that the Tridentine canon has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 30, 2019, 02:48:04 PM
Canon XIII prevents the clergy from saying Mass in whatever rite they please or with whatever modification or innovation they want to add. There is all there is to it.  I don't care what Fr. Hesse says and Fr. Kramer even less; but I care what the Church actually says.

If I provided the historical context of the Tridentine canon is not because I want to undermine its dogmatic status; or because I believe that it applied then; but no longer applies now, as the modernists do.  The dogma is not subject to change according to time. However, this "universal truth that is a formal object of divine and Catholic Faith" simply has absolutely nothing to do with your claims. It concerns something else, completely different. It prevents priests from changing the approved rites by the Holy See into new ones. It is true then; and it is true forever. You don't want having individual priests all over the world modifying and creating new liturgical rites at whim. That is why the Authority to do so is reserved to the HOLY SEE ALONE.

You may seriously reconsider your reasons for rejecting the 1962's Mass, because I tell with you with all certainty, that the Tridentine canon has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Rather than correcting your errors you re-post the same non-sense with qualifications that supposedly excuse your blunder. Canon XIII does not “prevent” anything.  It is a revealed truth.  Those that do not comport their lives with the revealed truth are heretics by definition.  After posting your disclaimer which is an accurate descriptive definition of dogma, you repeat the same blunder you posted before saying, “It prevents priests from changing the approved rites by the Holy See into new ones.”  The dogma “prevents” nothing.  It is not a law; it is not a command; it is not a preceptive norm, it is not a regulation, it is a revealed truth that the intellect must conform itself as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  Laws, commands, preceptive norms, regulations, etc. are in the category of authority/obedience.  Dogmas are in the category of truth/falsehood.  The Church may or may not create canonical laws to enforce the conformity of Catholics to revealed truth by imposing a criminal penalty for its violation, but the categories remain distinct.

And for the record, you do not care what the “Church actually says,” you only care about what you say conforms to what you want to do.

It is a dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that no pastor whomsoever can change the “received and approved” immemorial rite of Mass into a new rite.  This truth binds ever faithful Catholic.  The denial of this truth is heresy by definition.  To affirm as you have, that this revealed truth binds everyone in the Church but not the pope is absurd.  The pope is bound by every dogma as much as every other Catholic.  That is the nature of TRUTH itself.  Your claim that this truth binds everyone but the pope could only be possible if it were a preceptive norm but it is not. You peddle this non-sense by corrupting the translation of the dogma and the nature of dogma itself.  Dogma is the proximate rule of faith and those who corrupt dogma incur a double curse from God for destroying their neighbors landmarks.

You cannot tell anyone anything with “all certainty” because you reject dogma as your rule of faith.  Therefore, you know nothing with “all certainty.”  We reject the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as the “received and approved” immemorial Roman rite because the Popes JPII, Benedict XVI and Francis have all relegated this Missal to an object of mere discipline and declared that this Missal is the same ‘lex orandi, lex credendi’ as the 1969 Bugnini Missal.  Now I could offer you several arguments why this is so, but I have not because that would simply be my opinion to explain the facts as they are, and people like you would confuse and conflate the meaning of the word “because,” which can be either a reason for or the cause of something.
That being the case, I will stick only to the facts and the necessary implications that follow. 

You are not part of the Resistance.  You are a sedevacantist who has abandoned the Church for one of your own making.  You refuse to conform your religion to dogmatic truth.  In the end, you have nothing to contribute to this discussion.  The Resistance can only be effective if it is grounded on the immutable truth of Catholic dogma.  If the Resistance does not learn this truth they will end in utter failure.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on January 30, 2019, 08:52:39 PM
Quote
It is a dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that no pastor whomsoever can change the “received and approved” immemorial rite of Mass into a new rite.  This truth binds ever faithful Catholic.  The denial of this truth is heresy by definition.  To affirm as you have, that this revealed truth binds everyone in the Church but not the pope is absurd.  The pope is bound by every dogma as much as every other Catholic. That is the nature of TRUTH itself.  Your claim that this truth binds everyone but the pope could only be possible if it were a preceptive norm but it is not. You peddle this non-sense by corrupting the translation of the dogma and the nature of dogma itself.  Dogma is the proximate rule of faith and those who corrupt dogma incur a double curse from God for destroying their neighbors landmarks.

It is not that the Pope is not bound by the Tridentine canons. It is simply that such tridentine canon has nothing to do with the approbation, introduction, modification, or annulment of liturgical Catholic rites, which is reserved to the Holy See alone. I know this single mistake is at the core if your 'Resistance' so you won't ever have the humility to admit it. As I said, the canon is addressed to the clergy to stop them from committing liturgical abuse by unapproved innovations; not preventing the Supreme Pontiff from making revisions, modifications, introductions or annulment of liturgical rites. This is so easily proved by historical evidence, that anyone can see it and you are just embarrassing yourself by keep insisting in this error. Just think of the first revision ever made to the Tridentine Missal, and the last one...the substance, the essential was never changed. 

If you ever find a pre - Vatican II ecclesiastical resource of reputation (long before the Fr. Kramers of this world came to existence), which teaches that the Pope himself is to be included in the "any pastors of the Churches" in Canon XIII from Trent,  then I will sincerely apologize.

I'll wait....

Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Stanley N on January 30, 2019, 10:36:08 PM
No Stanley, you do not understand the argument correctly.  I am not familiar with the changes in the breviary but the breviary is not the “received and approved” rite and even if it were, my argument is NOT grounded upon making formal judgments that are reserved to properly constituted authority.  My argument is grounded upon drawing conclusions from a few simple facts:
The breviary is the official prayer of the Church. It is part of the liturgy of the Church. But you just dismiss the historical argument as if it doesn't matter. I could have made similar historical observations from reforms of the missal.

It appears to me that your argument is incompatible with liturgical history. If your argument is not incompatible, you're not doing a great job of explaining how.

Quote
a)      The “received and approved” rite was ended before 1962 because Rome under three popes has legally relegated this Missal to an Indult and to a grant of legal privilege attached to unacceptable conditions for faithful Catholics.  This fact is absolutely incompatible with a “received and approved” rite.
I want to make sure I understand this. So if an indult were ever given to use, for example, the 1949 missal, that would mean the "received and approved" had to have ended before then, and therefore would rule out the 1949 missal as "received and approved"?

And therefore the faithful would be required to find a mass following an even older missal?
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 31, 2019, 08:26:27 AM
Great points, Stanley.

Here's another problem with that view:  Maria/Drew think that the 62 missal is an indult even though it was never outlawed/abrogated, which means it's also NOT an indult.  That's why I call it legal trickery - it's only an indult for those who believe that the novus ordo replaced the True Mass.  For Traditionalists, who can read a simple law and question legal history, the 62 missal is still legal, therefore an indult isn't required.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: drew on January 31, 2019, 10:11:13 PM
The breviary is the official prayer of the Church. It is part of the liturgy of the Church. But you just dismiss the historical argument as if it doesn't matter. I could have made similar historical observations from reforms of the missal.

It appears to me that your argument is incompatible with liturgical history. If your argument is not incompatible, you're not doing a great job of explaining how.
I want to make sure I understand this. So if an indult were ever given to use, for example, the 1949 missal, that would mean the "received and approved" had to have ended before then, and therefore would rule out the 1949 missal as "received and approved"?

And therefore the faithful would be required to find a mass following an even older missal?


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

I have already said, but will repeat again for repetition may be helpful.  If Rome at some future date determines that the laws enacted by John Paul II and Benedict XVI regarding the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal were wrong and abrogates them and restores all the rights of immemorial tradition to this Missal and recognizes it as the normative form of the "received and approved" rite, I would accept that judgment.  But that is very unlikely to ever happen because when a restoration is accomplished by some future pope, the restoration will not include anything from Bugnini's Pian Commission.

Until then, the presupposition must be to the correctness of the law.  Why do you have a problem with this?  It is not my claim or my responsibility to determine what exactly is the limits of papal authority with regard to what pertains to liturgical discipline with the Mass, but it is possible to tell what is manifestly beyond the competency of the pope. 

It is dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that no pastor in churches whomsoever can change the "received and approved" rite into another new rites.   No pope has the authority to create a new rite out whole cloth.  Those that say that he does are heretics.  The 1969 Bugnini Missal is a new rite as determined by those who created it and those who promulgated it.  The exact moment when the new rite was created is a matter of dispute and I do not claim to know that exact moment.  But I do know that you are ignorant of the question as well.

What is known is that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal shares a common provenance with  the 1969 Bugnini Missal expressing a singular 'lex orandi, lex credendi,' and thus, both are matters of mere discipline subject to the free and independent will of the legislator.  This is not speculation; this is the current state of Church liturgical law.

Now you can stay with the 1962 Bugnini Missal for all I care, but it is a liturgical argument that cannot be opposed to authority and it comes at a high price.  Those attending Mass by virtue of this grant of legal privilege have, whether they like it or not, accepted all the conditions tied its use and have no argument if the privilege is withdrawn or modified in any way.

You might be surprised to know that your arguments are alike in kind to those defending the 1969 Bugnini Missal.  They make the pope their rule of faith and insist that the substance of the Mass, although deficient in many respects, has not been adversely affected. They are the people, just like Pax, who insist that the pope can throw out any immemorial tradition he wants, such as, genuflecting at the Incarnatus est, as a free and independent act of his personal will.
 
That explains why Pax thinks you made a "great point."  

Drew
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 31, 2019, 10:39:36 PM
It is not that the Pope is not bound by the Tridentine canons. It is simply that such tridentine canon has nothing to do with the approbation, introduction, modification, or annulment of liturgical Catholic rites, which is reserved to the Holy See alone. I know this single mistake is at the core if your 'Resistance' so you won't ever have the humility to admit it. As I said, the canon is addressed to the clergy to stop them from committing liturgical abuse by unapproved innovations; not preventing the Supreme Pontiff from making revisions, modifications, introductions or annulment of liturgical rites. This is so easily proved by historical evidence, that anyone can see it and you are just embarrassing yourself by keep insisting in this error. Just think of the first revision ever made to the Tridentine Missal, and the last one...the substance, the essential was never changed.

If you ever find a pre - Vatican II ecclesiastical resource of reputation (long before the Fr. Kramers of this world came to existence), which teaches that the Pope himself is to be included in the "any pastors of the Churches" in Canon XIII from Trent,  then I will sincerely apologize.

I'll wait....


The reason for canon XIII was your insistence that Pope Pius V had created a "new rite". In case you forgot:

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg641628/#msg641628

No other comments. Good luck.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 01, 2019, 04:17:22 AM
Definition of “immemorial” : extending or existing since beyond the reach of memory, record, or tradition existing from time immemorial.


Quote
They are the people, just like Pax, who insist that the pope can throw out any immemorial tradition he wants, such as, genuflecting at the Incarnatus est, as a free and independent act of his personal will.

You’re falsely applying the word “immemorial” to many liturgical changes because you don’t know what the word means.  Since we know when the genuflection during the Creed was added (and many other such liturgical additions), then such additions/edits are not “immemorial”, per the definition above.  

You fail to distinguish between these non-immemorial customs (which any pope can change) and the ACTUAL immemorial rubrics of the mass, such as are described in books like “How Christ said the First Mass”, which details the similarities/fulfillment of the mass with the Jewish liturgy.  Such customs/rubrics which are of Jewish origin (and there are many) cannot/should not be changed since they are “immemorial”.  All other customs/rubrics can be changed, in theory.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 01, 2019, 04:37:55 AM

Quote
What is known is that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal shares a common provenance with  the 1969 Bugnini Missal expressing a singular 'lex orandi, lex credendi,' and thus, both are matters of mere discipline subject to the free and independent will of the legislator.  This is not speculation; this is the current state of Church liturgical law.
1. You continue to peddle the ASSUMPTION that the 62 missal was Bugnini’s by ignoring the fact that Pope John took Bugnini off the liturgical commission.  Therefore you don’t know which changes in 62 are from Bugnini and which aren’t.  To assert an assumption as fact is dishonest.  At least admit your error.  

2.  The 62 missal (previous to the 80s indult laws) DID NOT HAVE ANY CONNECTION to the new mass.  So for 20+ years, the 62 missal was NOT a “grant of privilege” or a “mere discipline”. 

3.  The indult laws of the 80s only apply to priests who are “in communion with” new-Rome.  Those traditionalists who reject V2, the novus ordo and new-Rome’s heresies aren’t obligated to follow the indult laws and there is no penalty for ignoring them.

Traditionalists can/should continue to use the 62 missal UNDER THE LAW PREVIOUS TO THE 80s, before the indult existed.  The law of Pope John which created/allowed the 62 missal is still valid, still applicable and still in force.  No indult law changed Pope John’s law, therefore the indults are unnecessary, unenforceable and can/should be ignored.  
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: drew on February 01, 2019, 06:06:02 PM
Quote from: PAX
Quote from: Drew
What is known is that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal shares a common provenance with  the 1969 Bugnini Missal expressing a singular 'lex orandi, lex credendi,' and thus, both are matters of mere discipline subject to the free and independent will of the legislator.  This is not speculation; this is the current state of Church liturgical law.
1. You continue to peddle the ASSUMPTION that the 62 missal was Bugnini’s by ignoring the fact that Pope John took Bugnini off the liturgical commission.  Therefore you don’t know which changes in 62 are from Bugnini and which aren’t.  To assert an assumption as fact is dishonest.  At least admit your error.

I do not "ignore" this fact but recognize that it is immaterial and has already been addressed to you.  In fact, to suggest that this IS material, is an attempt to obfuscate the essential historical development of the liturgical reform.  

Bugnini directed the liturgical reform as secretary of the Pian commission beginning in 1948.  This commission envisioned the Novus Ordo as its end from the beginning of its deliberations.  This fact is confirmed in Bugnini's book.  On June 6, 1960, Bugnini was named Secretary of the Pontifical Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy for the Council by John XXIII which established the agenda for Vatican II on the liturgy.  John XXIII's Motu Proprio, Rubricarum Instructum, approving the new Roman Breviary and Missal was published July 25, 1960 in which he says directly that he is anticipating the Council and introducing the liturgical changes from the Bugnini Pian Commission.  The Council began in October 1962 at which time the Preparatory Commission changed its name to the Council Commission on the Sacred Liturgy.  Bugnini was replaced as secretary at that time in October 1962 and then restored by Paul VI as its secretary.  Nothing of Bugnini's preparatory work for the Council was ever changed.  Bugnini took full credit for the liturgical changes implemented before the Council.

Historically your complaint is bogus.  The removal has nothing to do with the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal which was actually implemented by a succession of acts by the Sacred Congregation on the Liturgy.  

It might not have occurred to you that the removal of Bugnini by John XXIII may not have been motivated by any opposition to his plans of liturgical reform, but rather by the hope of John XXIII that a less controversial figure might be more successful in actualizing Bugnini's preparatory agenda?

In summary, your #1 complaint is historically wrong and intellectually baseless and to point out this fact is not "dishonest."


Quote from: PAX
2.  The 62 missal (previous to the 80s indult laws) DID NOT HAVE ANY CONNECTION to the new mass.  So for 20+ years, the 62 missal was NOT a “grant of privilege” or a “mere discipline”.

This is absurd.  "No Connection"?  Bugnini is the acknowledged author of both works.  Bugnini's own book is entitled,  The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975.  It may surprise you but 1962 and 1969 are included in the years 1948 to 1975.  I have a copy of this book and it might do you some good to buy one.  For "20+ years" the 1962 Missal was regarded as on obrogated Bugnini transitional Missal.  It has been relegated to the status of an Indult and then a grant of legal privilege with specific conditions legally stipulated for its use.  Those using this Missal willingly or unwillingly have accepted these conditions.


Quote from: PAX
3.  The indult laws of the 80s only apply to priests who are “in communion with” new-Rome.  Those traditionalists who reject V2, the novus ordo and new-Rome’s heresies aren’t obligated to follow the indult laws and there is no penalty for ignoring them.
Traditionalists can/should continue to use the 62 missal UNDER THE LAW PREVIOUS TO THE 80s, before the indult existed.  The law of Pope John which created/allowed the 62 missal is still valid, still applicable and still in force.  No indult law changed Pope John’s law, therefore the indults are unnecessary, unenforceable and can/should be ignored.

"The indult laws of the 80s only apply to priests who are 'in communion with' new-Rome."   So, when John XXIII makes a liturgical law, it must be accepted but when John Paul II or Benedict XVI make a liturgical law it only applies to those "in communion with new-Rome."  And who are you to render this legal determination?  And this is just your opinion and nothing more, and an opinion based on what?  You appeal to Summorum Pontificum to "prove" that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal is "legal" and yet you pretend that the legal stipulations for its use do not apple to you.  You pick and choose the evidence that suits your ideology.  You may have convinced yourself but your argument could not get you a passing mark in a high school civics class.  

Bugnini was an enemy of the Catholic faith with the intent to destroy the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite of Mass.  Those who accept his earlier steps in the implementation of this mutilation of the liturgical calendar which began well before 1962, as well as his overturning of the apostolic tradition of only including martyrs in the canon of the Mass, are liturgical philistines.  Those who would permit the crown jewel of the Catholic Faith to be mutilated by Bugnini deserve what they will get.

You hold the pope as your proximate rule of faith and the liturgy as a matter of mere discipline.  You therefore recognize in the pope the arbitrary authority to do whatever he wills with regard to the worship of God as long as it does not offend your personal sensibilities.  Your concept of liturgy is crude, legalistic with a gross mechanical understanding of divine worship.  Your theology is evidently a product of the SSPX who have a conception that the substance of the Mass involves only the words of consecration and nothing more.  It is from this conception that the SSPX actually believes the ridiculous idea that a priest can simply say "this is my body" and consecrate all the bread in a bakery or "this is my blood" and consecrate all the wine in a wine cellar.  You are in the same mold, the same liturgical tradition.

You can whine all you want but in accepting the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal you have accepted all its legal conditions and have no grounds to argue with anyone about anything.  Imagine making your argument before the Roman Rota.  They would laugh you out the door.

Drew


Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 01, 2019, 08:02:12 PM
If we can’t use the 62 missal without sinning by accepting the new mass, and if we can’t use an earlier missal because it’s a sin to use an illegal missal (since John XXIII abrogated all missals pre-62), then there are only 2 logical conclusions.  

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

Or 2.)  Pius XII and John were popes but There’s no missal anyone in the Roman rite can use.  The 62 is immoral and all others illegal.  
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: drew on February 01, 2019, 08:06:16 PM

Quote from: PAX
Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg641923/#msg641923)
« Reply #217 on: Today at 04:17:22 AM »
Quote from: Drew
They are the people, just like Pax, who insist that the pope can throw out any immemorial tradition he wants, such as, genuflecting at the Incarnatus est, as a free and independent act of his personal will.
You’re falsely applying the word “immemorial” to many liturgical changes because you don’t know what the word means.  Since we know when the genuflection during the Creed was added (and many other such liturgical additions), then such additions/edits are not “immemorial”, per the definition above. 

It was I who defined "immemorial" for you in a previous post.
Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg639133/#msg639133)
« Reply #86 on: January 11, 2019, 06:48:45 AM »
 
With few exceptions the entire "received and approved" rite is composed of immemorial custom. Some of the immemorial custom is of divine or apostolic tradition and some is a ecclesiastical tradition.  With very few exceptions liturgical changes are first established by immemorial custom before they are approved by Rome and given to the universal Church.  They can at best be traced to a general historical time and a general location.  That is why they are called "immemorial."  Since you claim that the genuflection at the incarnatus est was a rubic "added" by Rome, then you should be able to provide a specific person who did it on a specific date and through a specific document.  So who was it that invented this rubric and imposed it upon the Church?   Perhaps the work of an early "liturgical committee"?
 
But those who have a mechanical, legalistic conception of worship have no problem with what you propose as possible.  In fact, the Novus Ordo has eliminated the genuflection at the incarnatus est on all days excepting Christmas and the Annunciation.  The practice has become so rare that they do not even remember to add it on those particular days.
 
The suppression is typically Bugninian and it is no surprise that you and Bugnini would agree on this that it is perfectly within the right of the pope to dump this little act of piety, this little profession of faith.  We can say much the same for such practices as kneeling for communion, that is received on the tongue, distributed by the hands of a priest being of the same order.  Bugnini would call these little things "gross accretions and evident distortions."  You may not like it but you have no argument to offer in opposing these barbarians within the sanctuary.  But after all, the sanctuary itself is of ecclesiastical immemorial tradition and according to your insights can be summarily dispensed with as the Novus Ordo Church has done.


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

I own and have read this book.  It is very interesting but is without documentation.  It does make a good case that the general structural form of all liturgies was established at the Last Supper.  But your opinion that "immemorial" is exclusive limited to divine or apostolic tradition is sorely mistaken.  You are confusing the term "immemorial" with divine and/or apostolic tradition.  They may overlap but they are not identical.  You also do not recognize that ecclesiastical tradition is not necessarily the work of men but that of God and for that reason cannot be summarily dispensed with without grave reason.
 
Why don't you purchase Dom Gueranger's The Liturgical Year.  You should read it daily for several years.  Slowly and almost imperceptibly you will gain an insight into what immemorial tradition is and how it is given to the Church.  Divine worship is and has always been the work of God and God's providential direction can be clearly seen in hindsight. 
 
Lastly, with your conception of liturgy, it is impossible to oppose Bugnini and any of his liturgical reforms.  You can offer no intelligible argument for stopping at 1962.  The only complaint you can make is that it's not your style and they will reply, 'So what'!
 
Drew 
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: drew on February 01, 2019, 09:10:43 PM
If we can’t use the 62 missal without sinning by accepting the new mass, and if we can’t use an earlier missal because it’s a sin to use an illegal missal (since John XXIII abrogated all missals pre-62), then there are only 2 logical conclusions.  

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

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

I previously posted:

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

Drew

John XXIII has no authority to corrupt the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite with Bugnini's corruptions.  No one historically suggested that Pope Nicholas II was therefore not the pope because he attempted the unjust suppression of the immemorial Ambrosian rite.  This line of thinking is like the sedevacantists who argue that pope is the rule of faith and he must necessarily be obeyed in everything he says because he is personally infallible and personally indefectible.  This is untenable.
 
The faithful Catholic is free to reject the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal on the grounds of immemorial custom alone.  But, the Catholic can also appeal to Quo Primum which says:
 
Quote
“…this missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used… Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. … Accordingly, no one whatsoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, direction, will, decree and prohibition.  Should any person venture to do so, let him understand he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

Pope St. Pius V, Papal Bull, QUO PRIMUM

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

Quote
  "However, the term disciplina in no way applies to the liturgical rite of the Mass, particularly in light of the fact that the popes have repeatedly observed that the rite is founded on apostolic tradition (several popes are then quoted in the footnote).  For this reason alone, the rite cannot fall into the category of 'discipline and rule of the Church.'  To this we can add that there is not a single 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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
“Indeed if we wanted to state quite clearly and absolutely the relation existing between the faith and the sacred liturgy we could rightly say that the law of our faith must establish the law of our prayer:”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei
 
This liberty taken with a theological tradition going back to apostolic times has been considered by some a most serious flaw in an otherwise excellent exposition of Catholic teaching on the liturgy.

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

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

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

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

Drew

Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Stanley N on February 04, 2019, 12:27:58 AM
Your hypothetical question is of no interest to us.  It is immaterial to the discussion because it presupposes an expertise and authority that we do not claim to possess.  What is a fact is that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal has been reduced to an Indult and a grant of legal privilege tied to unacceptable conditions for faithful Catholics.  This constitutes prima facie evidence that it cannot be the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite of Mass.  You cannot dismiss this evidence as Pax has done by calling "trickery."   
It is unfortunate that it is of no interest. This explores the consequences of your argument.
If there were an indult from Rome to use some other, older missal (for example, the 1949 missal), would that be "prima facie evidence" that that older version could not be the immemorial rite of Mass?
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: drew on February 04, 2019, 02:49:37 PM
It is unfortunate that it is of no interest. This explores the consequences of your argument.
If there were an indult from Rome to use some other, older missal (for example, the 1949 missal), would that be "prima facie evidence" that that older version could not be the immemorial rite of Mass?

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

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

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

Drew  

Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on February 04, 2019, 08:23:52 PM

The reason for canon XIII was your insistence that Pope Pius V had created a "new rite". In case you forgot:

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg641628/#msg641628

No other comments. Good luck.

The fact that he did, even if you want to insist that Quo Primum was only a revision or restoration of the "immemorial rite", proves that the canon indeed excludes the Pope. Once a liturgical rite receives the approbation of the Supreme Pontiff, as previously said, such rite becomes part of the "received and approved" ones used by the Catholic Church. It is the right of the Holy See alone and not yours, to determine which revisions are valid and safe for the faithful.


From Pope Leo XIII, in Apostolicae Curae:

Quote
24. In the examination of any rite for the effecting and administering of Sacraments, distinction is rightly made between the part which is ceremonial and that which is essential, the latter being usually called the “matter and form”. All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify. Although the signification ought to be found in the whole essential rite, that is to say, in the “matter and form”, it still pertains chiefly to the “form”; since the “matter” is the part which is not determined by itself, but which is determined by the “form”.

The only possible way that the 62's Missal is defective is if John XXIII was not a true Pope of the Catholic Church, so the Holy See did not really promulgated it. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe that the "essential" of the Mass has been changed. The right for the "examination of any rite" belongs to the Holy See alone, as well as for the "effecting and administering of Sacraments".
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Cantarella on February 04, 2019, 08:39:20 PM
There is a historical example of a pope declaring a “received and approved” rite illegal and this “law” was overturned and declared to have been unjust, that is, it was declared to not have been a law at all.  Therefore, should the pope attempt this act he need not be obeyed.   He does not possess the authority to overturn the dogmatically established rites or the authority to enact laws that are contrary to right reason and against the common good.  This is fully consistent with what Msgr. Gamber said which I previously posted, and it is fully consistent with Catholic moral theology, which I also previously posted.

The only historical evidence here is that, consistent to the teachings of the Catholic Church, "the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification" (Mediator Dei,58 ).

A pope wanted to suppress a rite (Ambrosian) and passed a law to that effect. During his pontificate, the law remained valid. The next pope overturned it. That is a historical example of popes having equal authority on matters of discipline such liturgical rites. You want to see here an encouraging example for "resistance" on the part of the laity, but there is nothing really to it. Ultimately, it was the decision of a pope alone which did away with the "unjust" law of the previous pope. A pope is not superior to the other.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 04, 2019, 09:39:57 PM
Agree on both points, Cantarella.  Drew wants to take the approach that he will ignore the 62 missal unless a FUTURE pope confirms that it’s ok.  In absense of a grave reason to ignore the missal, the logic should be the other way around.  If John was the pope, we have to accept his missal until it’s been outlawed by a future pope.  

I don’t want to get into sedevacantism here but...it’s ironic that Drew uses the same sede logic which he so vehemently opposes.  The sedes argue that the pope is not the pope due to grave reasons, unless a future one clarifies the matter.  I argue that, in both the liturgy and the papacy, you must have a grave and CERTAIN reason to declare either the pope or the liturgy to be ignored.  

With the 62 missal, we have circumstantially grave reasons (ie Bugnini) but the changes themselves aren’t certain and factually bad.  You could argue that the indult makes it a certainty but I would argue that the indult laws are unnecessary, being that the original permission granted for the 62 missal was never abolished...a legal fact Drew continues to ignore.  This fact brings the argument back full circle and we are left to judge the 62 missal on its liturgical/doctrinal merits alone, which cannot be said to be objectively wrong, therefore we must logically assume the missal is valid until a future pope says otherwise.  Assuming that John was a valid pope...
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Stanley N on February 04, 2019, 09:44:06 PM
The question is still of no interest and it has nothing to do with the consequences of the argument.  It is not possible for the “received and approved” immemorial Roman rite to be reduced to the status of an Indult or grant of legal privilege regardless of the conditions.  It becomes even more unpalatable when the conditions are morally and doctrinally repugnant.  
What I think you're saying is that you think the 1949 missal is the "received and approved" rite, so any attempt to give it as an indult would be void. If so, how is that different than Pax's argument about the 1962 missal - that 1962 is "received and approved" and the later attempt to give it as an indult is void? The 1962 missal, like the missals before, included Quo Primum and the constitutions of Urban VIII and Clement VIII; it is prima facie in the line of revisions of the missal of St. Pius V. This is unlike the missal of Paul VI which only has the constitution of Paul VI - it clearly started a new line.

However, if you're saying that 1949 has the capacity to be "received and approved" because as far as you know it hasn't been given as an indult, that is a question of fact. Indults have been given for things other than 1962. I recalled one for a church to use 1949, but unfortunately can't find verification any more, so something may have changed, 

Nevertheless, as you must know, the FSSP has an indult to use the old holy week (from before 1952). According to the way you apply your argument to 1962, because the old holy week has been given as an indult, and an indult is not compatible with the received and approved rite, the old holy week cannot be the received and approved rite.

I could see someone object that this FSSP indult is for only the FSSP, and it has one prayer different (and I'm sure you can guess which one if you didn't already know). If so, then consider that the SSPX (and probably many other priests using 1962 missals) do some details different, too
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: nottambula on February 05, 2019, 02:50:07 AM
The Need for Mutual Humility and Support Between the SSPX and the FSSP (http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2019/02/the-need-for-mutual-humility-and.html)
PETER KWASNIEWSKI

(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cZoitSL9LBQ/XEtxBkiSsQI/AAAAAAAAGJE/rB22M7OEclQCK0FwtMq-HvhDRxsxy5zlgCLcBGAs/s400/sspx-fssp.jpg) (https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cZoitSL9LBQ/XEtxBkiSsQI/AAAAAAAAGJE/rB22M7OEclQCK0FwtMq-HvhDRxsxy5zlgCLcBGAs/s1600/sspx-fssp.jpg)
We all know about the recent decision (http://www.lmschairman.org/2019/01/cdf-absorbs-pced.html) to suppress the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. In reaction, the SSPX issued this snubbing statement (https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/pontifical-commission-ecclesia-dei-suppressed-pope-francis-44060):

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2019/02/the-need-for-mutual-humility-and.html
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 05, 2019, 07:04:02 AM
That article is garbage.  The FSSP accepts the 62 as a “gift”/indult and the heresies of the new mass/V2 along with it, in exchange for this “gift”.

Traditionalists, of which the SSPX still claims to be, view the 62 missal as a “legal right” and reject the V2 novelties, which arent required or imposed on any catholic.

Drew says the use of the 62 missal is always an indult/gift.  But the facts show that the use of the 62 while still rejecting V2 is legal and can be used outside of the indult requirements.  Rome has said that to attend an sspx mass (ie any trad mass) is illicit, BUT NOT BECAUSE THE MASS/missal IS ILLICIT only because the priests have no jurisdiction (which is technically true, though canon law supplies this jurisdiction).  

If the 62 missal was only legal IF ONE ACCEPTS V2 then the sspx’s masses THEMSELVES would be illegal, all the time, everyday and Rome could condemn the entire Trad movement with one simple, legal document and excommunicate every Trad catholic in a split-second.  Yet Rome has never said this because they can’t.  Because the 62 missal IS NOT ILLEGAL, and THE INDULT LAWS ARE NOT BINDING.    

The only generalized statement of “condemnation” against Trads that new-Rome can say is that we're “not in full communion” with new-rome.  But this “full communion” phrase is a novel term, only in existence since the 50s.  So new-rome is just saying that we’re not “in communion” with their heresies and their indults (and we don’t want to be); it has nothing to do with doctrine or law, which new-rome seeks to avoid debating because they know that their modernism is both heretical and illegal, therefore immoral. 
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 05, 2019, 10:09:55 AM
P.s.  The article equates St Pius X’s updates to the breviary (ie a liturgical modernization) with the new mass.  He calls St Pius X a hypocrite for condemning Modernism but then being the first pope to “modernize” the liturgy.  God have mercy on the author’s soul...
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on February 05, 2019, 12:02:33 PM
That article is garbage.  The FSSP accepts the 62 as a “gift”/indult and the heresies of the new mass/V2 along with it, in exchange for this “gift”.

Traditionalists, of which the SSPX still claims to be, view the 62 missal as a “legal right” and reject the V2 novelties, which arent required or imposed on any catholic.

Drew says the use of the 62 missal is always an indult/gift.  But the facts show that the use of the 62 while still rejecting V2 is legal and can be used outside of the indult requirements.  Rome has said that to attend an sspx mass (ie any trad mass) is illicit, BUT NOT BECAUSE THE MASS/missal IS ILLICIT only because the priests have no jurisdiction (which is technically true, though canon law supplies this jurisdiction).  

If the 62 missal was only legal IF ONE ACCEPTS V2 then the sspx’s masses THEMSELVES would be illegal, all the time, everyday and Rome could condemn the entire Trad movement with one simple, legal document and excommunicate every Trad catholic in a split-second. Yet Rome has never said this because they can’t.  Because the 62 missal IS NOT ILLEGAL, and THE INDULT LAWS ARE NOT BINDING.    

The only generalized statement of “condemnation” against Trads that new-Rome can say is that we're “not in full communion” with new-rome.  But this “full communion” phrase is a novel term, only in existence since the 50s.  So new-rome is just saying that we’re not “in communion” with their heresies and their indults (and we don’t want to be); it has nothing to do with doctrine or law, which new-rome seeks to avoid debating because they know that their modernism is both heretical and illegal, therefore immoral.

PAX,

Benedict explains in the Letter to all the Bishops also 7/7/07 accompanying Summorum Pontificum:


Quote
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.  At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal.  Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level.  Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood..."

And in Summorum Pontificum he issues the new norms:


Quote
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html

 "...the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful."
  
 "...For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal.  The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage.  The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.
 I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church."

Summorum Pontificum is just "updating" the previous indult of 1988. In fact, all 4 indults quote Quattuor abhinnc annos, issued as the first indult by the Congregation for Divine Worship under JPII in 1984 "granting" the use of the 1962 missal. Like it or not, this is what the legislators say in S.P. and its related documents.

The writing is on the wall for those with eyes to see it.

Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 05, 2019, 12:20:43 PM
Maria,
You and Drew keep ignoring the obvious.  What law existed from 1969 to 1988 which allowed the 1962 missal?  The 1962 law, of course.  Was this law ever overturned?  No.  Was it ever revised?  No.  Did the indult laws change the 1962 law?  No.  Therefore it's still law!


Quote
At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal.


The 1969 new mass DID NOT CHANGE THE ALLOWANCE TO USE THE 1962 MISSAL.  This allowance CONTINUED TO EXIST for 20+ years until the 1980s indult.  The indult DID NOT ABROGATE/OVERRULE THE PREVIOUS ALLOWANCE/COMMANDS, therefore it is still allowed to say the 1962 missal now, just as it was allowed from 1969 to 1988.

All Benedict is confirming above, is that there was no indult law from 1969 to 1988 (and there didn't need to be...just like I don't need one now to attend this mass).
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on February 05, 2019, 01:03:24 PM
You are the one ignoring the obvious. It was not abrogated because: "At the time...it did not seem necessary...". Which means that it could have. If it was the "received and approved" Roman rite, it could not. Time will tell and I don't think it will be long. That ONLY the 1962 is the subject of indults, should be a concern to all. I don't think ABL would have kept it after Summorum Pontificum.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 05, 2019, 02:00:08 PM
Benedict is saying the modernists didn't think it was necessary to allow the latin mass (i.e. force the heretic bishops to admit that the latin mass was legal) from 1969 til 1988 because (they hoped) all catholics would've accepted the new mass and the old mass would be forgotten.  He was speaking practically, not legally.

Notice, he never said that those who used/attended the latin mass from 1969 til 1988 (i.e. BEFORE THE INDULT) were illegally attending this mass, because they weren't.  And they still aren't, indult or not.

The indult only applies if you want to attend a diocesan church which is "in communion with" new-rome.  No one is prevented legally/morally from the 1962 missal by new-rome.  The only consequence is that you'll be considered "not in full communion" (i.e. not a heretic).  Which is a badge of honor and a sign you're a True Catholic.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on February 05, 2019, 04:15:17 PM
PAX:

Quote
Benedict is saying the modernists didn't think it was necessary to allow the latin mass (i.e. force the heretic bishops to admit that the latin mass was legal) from 1969 til 1988 because (they hoped) all catholics would've accepted the new mass and the old mass would be forgotten.  He was speaking practically, not legally.
 

OH, excuse me! He was talking about the Modernists! And Benedict is not one? When did you see him offer even ONE public Mass according to the 1962 Missal after Summorum Pontificum?


PAX:
Quote
Notice, he never said that those who used/attended the latin mass from 1969 til 1988 (i.e. BEFORE THE INDULT) were illegally attending this mass, because they weren't.  And they still aren't, indult or not.

Of course not. It wasn't abrogated. They hadn't thought it necessary until 1984 (First indult). Not until Summorum Pontificum some really saw the direction the 1962 missal was going. Do you think AB Lefebvre would have kept the 1962 missal after Summorum Pontificum? You didn't answer. Would he have accepted the 1962 missal as the "Extraordinary Form" and the Novus Ordo as the "Ordinary Form"? Or would he have been appalled and adopted another missal?

PAX:
Quote
The indult only applies if you want to attend a diocesan church which is "in communion with" new-rome.  No one is prevented legally/morally from the 1962 missal by new-rome.  The only consequence is that you'll be considered "not in full communion" (i.e. not a heretic).  Which is a badge of honor and a sign you're a True Catholic.

The "badge of honor" will go to those who saw clearly after S.P. and did not wait until it was juridically abrogated, which has to happen after the new missal according to the "new norms" is out.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 05, 2019, 04:51:10 PM
Quote
OH, excuse me! He was talking about the Modernists! And Benedict is not one?
The modernists "in charge" in 1969, of which Benedict wasn't one.  He was also a modernist, but wasn't pope in 1969.  Don't put words in my mouth.

Quote
Of course not. It wasn't abrogated. They hadn't thought it necessary until 1984 (First indult).
THIS IS THE POINT.  The indult laws DID NOT ABROGATE THE 1962 MISSAL.  None of them did.  And IT'S STILL NOT ABROGATED.  Therefore, it is legal to use regardless of the indults or not.

Quote
Not until Summorum Pontificum some really saw the direction the 1962 missal was going. Do you think AB Lefebvre would have kept the 1962 missal after Summorum Pontificum? You didn't answer.
I don't care what he would've done.  I'm not going to put words into his mouth.

Quote
Would he have accepted the 1962 missal as the "Extraordinary Form" and the Novus Ordo as the "Ordinary Form"? Or would he have been appalled and adopted another missal?
The only people who have to accept the new mass as the "ordinary form" are those who want to be "in communion with" new-rome.  All real Trads can just ignore the indults (there is no penalty for ignoring them) and CONTINUE TO USE THE PERMISSIONS OF THE 1962 LAW, WHICH WERE NEVER ABROGATED.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: King Wenceslas on February 06, 2019, 12:28:20 PM
I see the spreaders of disinformation have done their job well.

There are none so dangerous to the traditionalist cause than those who write voluminous amounts of words that confuse the unwary.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 10, 2019, 04:13:07 PM

Quote
The Reform of Holy Week in the Years 1951-1956
Rorate Caeli first presented the following translation of Fr. Stefano Carusi's work on the reform of Holy Week under Pope Pius XII seven years ago. As our readership has grown dramatically over that time we are compelled to bring it back and share with new readers. This translation is the work of Fr. Charles W. Johnson, a U.S. military chaplain, and one of the first priests in the Rorate Caeli Purgatorial Society:
 
THE REFORM OF HOLY WEEK IN THE YEARS 1951-1956
 FROM LITURGY TO THEOLOGY BY WAY OF THE STATEMENTS OF CERTAIN LEADING THINKERS (ANNIBALE BUGNINI, CARLO BRAGA, FERDINANDO ANTONELLI)

 
 by Stefano Carusi
 
From Disputationes Theologicae (http://disputationes-theologicae.blogspot.com/2010/03/la-riforma-della-settimana-santa-negli.html):
(link to the original Italian publication)
 
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-reform-of-holy-week-in-years-1951.html

 (https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-reform-of-holy-week-in-years-1951.html)


Many are familiar with the Bugnini changes in Holy Week but not many understand the liturgical and theological significance of those changes. This examination by Fr. Stefano Carusi was translated from the Italian by Rorate Caeli and posted on their blog in 2010. It was posted again in 2018. Fr. Stefano Carusi covers not just what was done but why and the theological and liturgical implications of the changes. It should be examined and reflected upon by everyone concerned in restoring the purity of divine worship. If the resistance clings to the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal they will become a non-entity in this fight, and thus, the fight to defend dogma.

In the 2010 posting of Fr. Carusi's article, this comment was posted:

Quote
(We) should stop using Fr. Bugnini as a liturgical bogeyman and look instead at the person who formed the Commission for Liturgical Reform, gave it its mission, appointed its members, and ordered its ideas to be implemented: the same person who, in giving the First International Congress in Pastoral Liturgy (Assisi, 1956) his "whole-hearted" Apostolic Blessing, praised the liturgical movement for making "undeniable progress... both in extent and in depth" and the new decree on Holy Week for having "helped the faithful to a better understanding and closer participation in the love, suffering, and triumph of our Lord."
Anonymous poster, quoting Pope Pius XII from The Assisi Papers, Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1957. 


Pope Pius XII overturned the dogma, 'lex orandi, lex credendi,' initiated the liturgical reform, and lined up all the key players that would give us Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. Surprising that he has not already been declared a Novus Ordo "saint."
 
It is unfortunate that has fallen to conservative Catholics to take the lead in the work of liturgical restoration while "traditional" Bugninian apologists (whether they know it or not), who hold the pope as their rule of faith, cling to the 1962 version of the liturgical reform which includes the Bugnini mutilations of Holy Week that were implemented in 1956, but that is what in fact has happened.

Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: songbird on March 10, 2019, 05:41:03 PM
chapter 12 of Daniel, makes it clear, the Sacrifice of the Mass will end. Now that is in the Old Testament.  Our Lord referred the Apostles to Daniel in Matthew 24.

The Redemptorist priest made this understood in the introduction of the book, "Holy Eucharist."

IMO many clergy knew what could/would come.  Pope Pius V with Quo Primum was to stop liturgical abuse.  Good for Him!

And it was understood, that it was the Canon of the Mass to not be changed or touched.  We have ringing of the bells, but no liturgical abuse.  Bells were brought to bring our attention to the True Presence of Christ.

We do not change liturgy.  Those who did, shame on them!  Holy Mother Church does not want the "Power of the Most Precious Blood" to be taken from the people.

Sad to say, this is what has happened!  From No Ordination and the changes of the Thee's and Thou's to YOU, YOU, YOU throughout the liturgy for one example.  It takes away from man that he is in the True Presence of Christ. Toe in the door, here, and a foot in the door there, and before you know it, you are changed.  Those who keep with the most unchanged, can see themselves as Remnant.  Chapter 12 of Daniel.  For those who remain true, tribulations etc.  will earn a crown.
Title: Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 12, 2019, 11:30:10 AM

Many are familiar with the Bugnini changes in Holy Week but not many understand the liturgical and theological significance of those changes. This examination by Fr. Stefano Carusi was translated from the Italian by Rorate Caeli and posted on their blog in 2010. It was posted again in 2018. Fr. Stefano Carusi covers not just what was done but why and the theological and liturgical implications of the changes. It should be examined and reflected upon by everyone concerned in restoring the purity of divine worship. If the resistance clings to the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal they will become a non-entity in this fight, and thus, the fight to defend dogma.

In the 2010 posting of Fr. Carusi's article, this comment was posted:


Pope Pius XII overturned the dogma, 'lex orandi, lex credendi,' initiated the liturgical reform, and lined up all the key players that would give us Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. Surprising that he has not already been declared a Novus Ordo "saint."
 
It is unfortunate that has fallen to conservative Catholics to take the lead in the work of liturgical restoration while "traditional" Bugninian apologists (whether they know it or not), who hold the pope as their rule of faith, cling to the 1962 version of the liturgical reform which includes the Bugnini mutilations of Holy Week that were implemented in 1956, but that is what in fact has happened.

Fr. Hesse on Pius XII:
https://youtu.be/d1-G7HVbERk?t=317