CathInfo.com

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 docuмents a specific king who on a specific date decided to genuflect at the Credo but I do not question the legend.  If a king is inspired to genuflect during the Credo and this practice becomes a universal custom throughout the rite, the pope does not possess the authority to suppress it.  Why? Because the act was inspired by God and approved by God.  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.
 

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 Oecuмenici. 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 docuмent 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.     
 

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 docuмents 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 Oecuмenici 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 docuмent Rubricarum Instructum.
      3.      Explain how Archbishop Lefebvre erred by not recognizing what is evident to you until 1983.
 

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 Pontificuм (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 docuмents Sacram Liturgiam and Inter Oecuмenici if they were not legal obrogations of the Bugnini transitional missals?  You 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 Oecuмenici can be abrogated (or obrogated) so can Summorum Pontificuм.  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

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 docuмent, 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.