Author Topic: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei (Read 27652 times)

Cantarella · « **Reply #135 on:** January 23, 2019, 12:18:07 AM »

Quote

Ecuмenism 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 Jєωs, and the noun perfidiam (impiety) with reference to Judaism. It left the door open for John Paul II’s visit to the ѕуηαgσgυє.

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."

nottambula · « **Reply #136 on:** January 23, 2019, 04:00:25 AM »

Quote from: JmJ2cents on January 22, 2019, 06:14:34 AM

The people who think this theory of Pope Benedict being αssαssιnαtҽd 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.

drew · « **Reply #137 on:** January 23, 2019, 07:04:55 AM »

Quote from: 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.

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 docuмent 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

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #138 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).

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #139 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 docuмent 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.

Cantarella · « **Reply #140 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 docuмent 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".

drew · « **Reply #141 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 docuмents 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 docuмent 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 docuмents 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

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #142 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.

poche · « **Reply #143 on:** January 23, 2019, 10:32:28 PM »

Quote from: 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:

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?

Cantarella · « **Reply #144 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.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #145 on:** January 24, 2019, 05:39:23 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella on January 23, 2019, 10:33:14 PM

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.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #146 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 docuмents 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), 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 docuмent, 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.

drew · « **Reply #147 on:** January 24, 2019, 10:17:02 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 23, 2019, 10:08:34 PM

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 Pontificuм 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 docuмent you will accept and what you will not. You have accepted Summorum Pontificuм 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

Cantarella · « **Reply #148 on:** January 24, 2019, 11:22:49 AM »

Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora on January 24, 2019, 05:39:23 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.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #149 on:** January 24, 2019, 01:01:16 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on January 24, 2019, 11:22:49 AM

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.”

Author Topic: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei (Read 27652 times)

Cantarella

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

nottambula

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

Pax Vobis

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

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

poche

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

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

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