Cantarella,

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

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

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

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

Simply address the point. 

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


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

Simply address the point.

Cantarella,

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

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

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

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

May I recommend you read the book Tradition and the Church?

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

Pope Nicholas II abolished the "received and approved" Ambrosian Rite. Then, Pope Alexander II reversed his predecessor' policy. How could he reverse it? or how could Nicholas II abolish the rite to begin with? it is simple: Liturgical Rites are disciplinary matters. If this were concerning dogma, then no Pope could ever touch it, as no Pope has ever done in history.

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

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

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

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

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

Drew

This doctrine was ultimately defined as a dogma of faith at Trent that declared that 'no pastors of the churches whomsoever may change the received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments into other new rites.'  This dogma, of the many dogmas declared at Trent, was incorporated in the Tridentine Profession Faith.

If this dogma was referring at all to what you think it does, then the Ambrosian Rite would not have been revised and edited by the Holy See in 1475, 1594, 1609, 1902 and 1954. 

Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora

You have completely missed the point.  Nicholas II passed a law abolishing the Ambrosian rite in Milan.  This law, since it was not an act of reason for the common good, was never a valid law.  Pope Alexander II revoked this "law" declaring it to have been "unjust," this is, he declared it to be no law at all.  St. Thomas directly says that an "unjust law is no law."  The reason the law was "unjust" is because the "received and approved" Ambrosian rite is not a matter of mere discipline subject to the free and independent will of the legislator.

  Yet the Ambrosian Rite has been revised several times. Many editions of the Missal have been issued, latest being in the 50's, I believe. The same with the Tridentine Missal. The latest authorized edition is the one from 1962. The only way to say this Missal edition is harmful to the faithful is if the Authority (Pope) who promulgated it was not legitimate. Otherwise, it is safe to assume that Catholics adhering to the Tridentine Rite are just fine using the 62s Missal. If I believed that John XXIII was actually Pope, then I would not have a choice. The previous editions have been abrogated.

[font={defaultattr}] [/font]
 
 

Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora

This doctrine was ultimately defined as a dogma of faith at Trent that declared that 'no pastors of the churches whomsoever may change the received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments into other new rites.'  This dogma, of the many dogmas declared at Trent, was incorporated in the Tridentine Profession Faith.

 If this dogma was referring at all to what you think it does, then the Ambrosian Rite would not have been revised and edited by the Holy See in 1475, 1594, 1609, 1902 and 1954.

 

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

    "However, the term disciplina in no way applies to the liturgical rite of the Mass, particularly in light of the fact that the popes have repeatedly observed that the rite is founded on apostolic tradition (several popes are then quoted in the footnote).  For this reason alone, the rite cannot fall into the category of 'discipline and rule of the Church.'  To this we can add that there is not a single docuмent, including the Codex Iuris Canonici, in which there is a specific statement that the pope, in his function as the supreme pastor of the Church, has the authority to abolish the traditional rite.  In fact, nowhere is it mentioned that the pope has the authority to change even a single local liturgical tradition.  The fact that there is no mention of such authority strengthens our case considerably.
     "There are clearly defined limits to the plena et suprema potestas (full and highest powers) of the pope.  For example, there is no question that, even in matters of dogma, he still has to follow the tradition of the universal Church-that is, as St. Vincent of Lerins says, what has been believed (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab ominibus).  In fact, there are several authors who state quite explicitly that it is clearly outside the pope's scope of authority to abolish the traditional rite."
Msgr. Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy

 

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

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