Author Topic: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei (Read 27509 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #90 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 Oecuмenici.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stanley N · « **Reply #91 on:** January 11, 2019, 01:29:49 PM »

Quote from: drew on January 11, 2019, 06:48:45 AM

[...] 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.

drew · « **Reply #92 on:** January 11, 2019, 03:21:09 PM »

Quote

PAX

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

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

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

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

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

drew · « **Reply #93 on:** January 11, 2019, 03:38:37 PM »

Quote from: 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 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.

"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 Pontificuм, 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 docuмent, 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 docuмent, 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

drew · « **Reply #94 on:** January 11, 2019, 04:12:49 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on January 11, 2019, 01:29:49 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

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #95 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 docuмent 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 docuмent 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 docuмent 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 docuмents, 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 docuмent, 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.

Stanley N · « **Reply #96 on:** January 11, 2019, 06:08:39 PM »

Quote from: drew on January 11, 2019, 04:12:49 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.

Cantarella · « **Reply #97 on:** January 11, 2019, 10:06:03 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on January 11, 2019, 06:08:39 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.

Cantarella · « **Reply #98 on:** January 11, 2019, 11:23:49 PM »

Quote from: drew on January 11, 2019, 04:12:49 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, who in 1592 had issued a revised edition of the 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 quotiescuмque 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.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #99 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 docuмents, 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.

drew · « **Reply #100 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

Cantarella
Quote
Drew
Quote from: drew on Yesterday at 04:12:49 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...

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/msg604638/#msg604638

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/msg604853/#msg604853

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/msg604878/#msg604878

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/msg604914/#msg604914

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/msg605090/#msg605090

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

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #101 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.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #102 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

Cantarella · « **Reply #103 on:** January 12, 2019, 06:58:41 PM »

Quote from: 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.

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.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #104 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.

Author Topic: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei (Read 27509 times)

Pax Vobis

Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei

Stanley N

Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei

drew

Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei

drew

Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei

drew

Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei

Pax Vobis

Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei

Stanley N

Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei

Cantarella

Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei

Cantarella

Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei

Pax Vobis

Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei

drew

Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei

Pax Vobis

Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei

Maria Auxiliadora

Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei

Cantarella

Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei

Maria Auxiliadora

Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei