Author Topic: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei (Read 28059 times)

Cantarella · « **Reply #210 on:** January 30, 2019, 10:55:12 AM »

Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora on January 30, 2019, 10:29:47 AM

Canon XIII is, like all dogmas, a revealed doctrine formally defined. It is a universal truth that is a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. You have been provided the reference to the lecture of Fr. Hesse multiple times who specifically addresses this dogma and its correct Latin translation. So does Fr. Kramer. Still you continue to corrupt it.

Canon XIII prevents the clergy from saying Mass in whatever rite they please or with whatever modification or innovation they want to add. There is all there is to it. I don't care what Fr. Hesse says and Fr. Kramer even less; but I care what the Church actually says.

If I provided the historical context of the Tridentine canon is not because I want to undermine its dogmatic status; or because I believe that it applied then; but no longer applies now, as the modernists do. The dogma is not subject to change according to time. However, this "universal truth that is a formal object of divine and Catholic Faith" simply has absolutely nothing to do with your claims. It concerns something else, completely different. It prevents priests from changing the approved rites by the Holy See into new ones. It is true then; and it is true forever. You don't want having individual priests all over the world modifying and creating new liturgical rites at whim. That is why the Authority to do so is reserved to the HOLY SEE ALONE.

You may seriously reconsider your reasons for rejecting the 1962's Mass, because I tell with you with all certainty, that the Tridentine canon has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #211 on:** January 30, 2019, 02:48:04 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on January 30, 2019, 10:55:12 AM

Canon XIII prevents the clergy from saying Mass in whatever rite they please or with whatever modification or innovation they want to add. There is all there is to it. I don't care what Fr. Hesse says and Fr. Kramer even less; but I care what the Church actually says.

If I provided the historical context of the Tridentine canon is not because I want to undermine its dogmatic status; or because I believe that it applied then; but no longer applies now, as the modernists do. The dogma is not subject to change according to time. However, this "universal truth that is a formal object of divine and Catholic Faith" simply has absolutely nothing to do with your claims. It concerns something else, completely different. It prevents priests from changing the approved rites by the Holy See into new ones. It is true then; and it is true forever. You don't want having individual priests all over the world modifying and creating new liturgical rites at whim. That is why the Authority to do so is reserved to the HOLY SEE ALONE.

You may seriously reconsider your reasons for rejecting the 1962's Mass, because I tell with you with all certainty, that the Tridentine canon has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Rather than correcting your errors you re-post the same non-sense with qualifications that supposedly excuse your blunder. Canon XIII does not “prevent” anything. It is a revealed truth. Those that do not comport their lives with the revealed truth are heretics by definition. After posting your disclaimer which is an accurate descriptive definition of dogma, you repeat the same blunder you posted before saying, “It prevents priests from changing the approved rites by the Holy See into new ones.” The dogma “prevents” nothing. It is not a law; it is not a command; it is not a preceptive norm, it is not a regulation, it is a revealed truth that the intellect must conform itself as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. Laws, commands, preceptive norms, regulations, etc. are in the category of authority/obedience. Dogmas are in the category of truth/falsehood. The Church may or may not create canonical laws to enforce the conformity of Catholics to revealed truth by imposing a criminal penalty for its violation, but the categories remain distinct.

And for the record, you do not care what the “Church actually says,” you only care about what you say conforms to what you want to do.

It is a dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that no pastor whomsoever can change the “received and approved” immemorial rite of Mass into a new rite. This truth binds ever faithful Catholic. The denial of this truth is heresy by definition. To affirm as you have, that this revealed truth binds everyone in the Church but not the pope is absurd. The pope is bound by every dogma as much as every other Catholic. That is the nature of TRUTH itself. Your claim that this truth binds everyone but the pope could only be possible if it were a preceptive norm but it is not. You peddle this non-sense by corrupting the translation of the dogma and the nature of dogma itself. Dogma is the proximate rule of faith and those who corrupt dogma incur a double curse from God for destroying their neighbors landmarks.

You cannot tell anyone anything with “all certainty” because you reject dogma as your rule of faith. Therefore, you know nothing with “all certainty.” We reject the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as the “received and approved” immemorial Roman rite because the Popes JPII, Benedict XVI and Francis have all relegated this Missal to an object of mere discipline and declared that this Missal is the same ‘lex orandi, lex credendi’ as the 1969 Bugnini Missal. Now I could offer you several arguments why this is so, but I have not because that would simply be my opinion to explain the facts as they are, and people like you would confuse and conflate the meaning of the word “because,” which can be either a reason for or the cause of something.
That being the case, I will stick only to the facts and the necessary implications that follow.

You are not part of the Resistance. You are a sedevacantist who has abandoned the Church for one of your own making. You refuse to conform your religion to dogmatic truth. In the end, you have nothing to contribute to this discussion. The Resistance can only be effective if it is grounded on the immutable truth of Catholic dogma. If the Resistance does not learn this truth they will end in utter failure.

Cantarella · « **Reply #212 on:** January 30, 2019, 08:52:39 PM »

Quote

It is a dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that no pastor whomsoever can change the “received and approved” immemorial rite of Mass into a new rite. This truth binds ever faithful Catholic. The denial of this truth is heresy by definition. To affirm as you have, that this revealed truth binds everyone in the Church but not the pope is absurd. The pope is bound by every dogma as much as every other Catholic. That is the nature of TRUTH itself. Your claim that this truth binds everyone but the pope could only be possible if it were a preceptive norm but it is not. You peddle this non-sense by corrupting the translation of the dogma and the nature of dogma itself. Dogma is the proximate rule of faith and those who corrupt dogma incur a double curse from God for destroying their neighbors landmarks.

It is not that the Pope is not bound by the Tridentine canons. It is simply that such tridentine canon has nothing to do with the approbation, introduction, modification, or annulment of liturgical Catholic rites, which is reserved to the Holy See alone. I know this single mistake is at the core if your 'Resistance' so you won't ever have the humility to admit it. As I said, the canon is addressed to the clergy to stop them from committing liturgical abuse by unapproved innovations; not preventing the Supreme Pontiff from making revisions, modifications, introductions or annulment of liturgical rites. This is so easily proved by historical evidence, that anyone can see it and you are just embarrassing yourself by keep insisting in this error. Just think of the first revision ever made to the Tridentine Missal, and the last one...the substance, the essential was never changed.

If you ever find a pre - Vatican II ecclesiastical resource of reputation (long before the Fr. Kramers of this world came to existence), which teaches that the Pope himself is to be included in the "any pastors of the Churches" in Canon XIII from Trent, then I will sincerely apologize.

I'll wait....

Stanley N · « **Reply #213 on:** January 30, 2019, 10:36:08 PM »

Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora on January 29, 2019, 08:29:30 PM

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

The breviary is the official prayer of the Church. It is part of the liturgy of the Church. But you just dismiss the historical argument as if it doesn't matter. I could have made similar historical observations from reforms of the missal.

It appears to me that your argument is incompatible with liturgical history. If your argument is not incompatible, you're not doing a great job of explaining how.

Quote

a) The “received and approved” rite was ended before 1962 because Rome under three popes has legally relegated this Missal to an Indult and to a grant of legal privilege attached to unacceptable conditions for faithful Catholics. This fact is absolutely incompatible with a “received and approved” rite.

I want to make sure I understand this. So if an indult were ever given to use, for example, the 1949 missal, that would mean the "received and approved" had to have ended before then, and therefore would rule out the 1949 missal as "received and approved"?

And therefore the faithful would be required to find a mass following an even older missal?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #214 on:** January 31, 2019, 08:26:27 AM »

Great points, Stanley.

Here's another problem with that view: Maria/Drew think that the 62 missal is an indult even though it was never outlawed/abrogated, which means it's also NOT an indult. That's why I call it legal trickery - it's only an indult for those who believe that the novus ordo replaced the True Mass. For Traditionalists, who can read a simple law and question legal history, the 62 missal is still legal, therefore an indult isn't required.

drew · « **Reply #215 on:** January 31, 2019, 10:11:13 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on January 30, 2019, 10:36:08 PM

The breviary is the official prayer of the Church. It is part of the liturgy of the Church. But you just dismiss the historical argument as if it doesn't matter. I could have made similar historical observations from reforms of the missal.

It appears to me that your argument is incompatible with liturgical history. If your argument is not incompatible, you're not doing a great job of explaining how.
I want to make sure I understand this. So if an indult were ever given to use, for example, the 1949 missal, that would mean the "received and approved" had to have ended before then, and therefore would rule out the 1949 missal as "received and approved"?

And therefore the faithful would be required to find a mass following an even older missal?

Your hypothetical question is of no interest to us. It is immaterial to the discussion because it presupposes an expertise and authority that we do not claim to possess. What is a fact is that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal has been reduced to an Indult and a grant of legal privilege tied to unacceptable conditions for faithful Catholics. This constitutes prima facie evidence that it cannot be the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite of Mass. You cannot dismiss this evidence as Pax has done by calling "trickery."

I have already said, but will repeat again for repetition may be helpful. If Rome at some future date determines that the laws enacted by John Paul II and Benedict XVI regarding the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal were wrong and abrogates them and restores all the rights of immemorial tradition to this Missal and recognizes it as the normative form of the "received and approved" rite, I would accept that judgment. But that is very unlikely to ever happen because when a restoration is accomplished by some future pope, the restoration will not include anything from Bugnini's Pian Commission.

Until then, the presupposition must be to the correctness of the law. Why do you have a problem with this? It is not my claim or my responsibility to determine what exactly is the limits of papal authority with regard to what pertains to liturgical discipline with the Mass, but it is possible to tell what is manifestly beyond the competency of the pope.

It is dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that no pastor in churches whomsoever can change the "received and approved" rite into another new rites.   No pope has the authority to create a new rite out whole cloth. Those that say that he does are heretics. The 1969 Bugnini Missal is a new rite as determined by those who created it and those who promulgated it. The exact moment when the new rite was created is a matter of dispute and I do not claim to know that exact moment. But I do know that you are ignorant of the question as well.

What is known is that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal shares a common provenance with the 1969 Bugnini Missal expressing a singular 'lex orandi, lex credendi,' and thus, both are matters of mere discipline subject to the free and independent will of the legislator. This is not speculation; this is the current state of Church liturgical law.

Now you can stay with the 1962 Bugnini Missal for all I care, but it is a liturgical argument that cannot be opposed to authority and it comes at a high price. Those attending Mass by virtue of this grant of legal privilege have, whether they like it or not, accepted all the conditions tied its use and have no argument if the privilege is withdrawn or modified in any way.

You might be surprised to know that your arguments are alike in kind to those defending the 1969 Bugnini Missal. They make the pope their rule of faith and insist that the substance of the Mass, although deficient in many respects, has not been adversely affected. They are the people, just like Pax, who insist that the pope can throw out any immemorial tradition he wants, such as, genuflecting at the Incarnatus est, as a free and independent act of his personal will.

That explains why Pax thinks you made a "great point."

Drew

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #216 on:** January 31, 2019, 10:39:36 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella on January 30, 2019, 08:52:39 PM

It is not that the Pope is not bound by the Tridentine canons. It is simply that such tridentine canon has nothing to do with the approbation, introduction, modification, or annulment of liturgical Catholic rites, which is reserved to the Holy See alone. I know this single mistake is at the core if your 'Resistance' so you won't ever have the humility to admit it. As I said, the canon is addressed to the clergy to stop them from committing liturgical abuse by unapproved innovations; not preventing the Supreme Pontiff from making revisions, modifications, introductions or annulment of liturgical rites. This is so easily proved by historical evidence, that anyone can see it and you are just embarrassing yourself by keep insisting in this error. Just think of the first revision ever made to the Tridentine Missal, and the last one...the substance, the essential was never changed.

If you ever find a pre - Vatican II ecclesiastical resource of reputation (long before the Fr. Kramers of this world came to existence), which teaches that the Pope himself is to be included in the "any pastors of the Churches" in Canon XIII from Trent, then I will sincerely apologize.

I'll wait....

The reason for canon XIII was your insistence that Pope Pius V had created a "new rite". In case you forgot:

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/a-step-for-the-regularization-of-the-sspx-dissolution-of-ecclesia-dei/msg641628/#msg641628

No other comments. Good luck.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #217 on:** February 01, 2019, 04:17:22 AM »

Definition of “immemorial” : extending or existing since beyond the reach of memory, record, or tradition existing from time immemorial.

Quote

They are the people, just like Pax, who insist that the pope can throw out any immemorial tradition he wants, such as, genuflecting at the Incarnatus est, as a free and independent act of his personal will.

You’re falsely applying the word “immemorial” to many liturgical changes because you don’t know what the word means. Since we know when the genuflection during the Creed was added (and many other such liturgical additions), then such additions/edits are not “immemorial”, per the definition above.

You fail to distinguish between these non-immemorial customs (which any pope can change) and the ACTUAL immemorial rubrics of the mass, such as are described in books like “How Christ said the First Mass”, which details the similarities/fulfillment of the mass with the Jєωιѕн liturgy. Such customs/rubrics which are of Jєωιѕн origin (and there are many) cannot/should not be changed since they are “immemorial”. All other customs/rubrics can be changed, in theory.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #218 on:** February 01, 2019, 04:37:55 AM »

Quote

What is known is that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal shares a common provenance with the 1969 Bugnini Missal expressing a singular 'lex orandi, lex credendi,' and thus, both are matters of mere discipline subject to the free and independent will of the legislator. This is not speculation; this is the current state of Church liturgical law.

1. You continue to peddle the ASSUMPTION that the 62 missal was Bugnini’s by ignoring the fact that Pope John took Bugnini off the liturgical commission. Therefore you don’t know which changes in 62 are from Bugnini and which aren’t. To assert an assumption as fact is dishonest. At least admit your error.

2. The 62 missal (previous to the 80s indult laws) DID NOT HAVE ANY CONNECTION to the new mass. So for 20+ years, the 62 missal was NOT a “grant of privilege” or a “mere discipline”.

3. The indult laws of the 80s only apply to priests who are “in communion with” new-Rome. Those traditionalists who reject V2, the novus ordo and new-Rome’s heresies aren’t obligated to follow the indult laws and there is no penalty for ignoring them.

Traditionalists can/should continue to use the 62 missal UNDER THE LAW PREVIOUS TO THE 80s, before the indult existed. The law of Pope John which created/allowed the 62 missal is still valid, still applicable and still in force. No indult law changed Pope John’s law, therefore the indults are unnecessary, unenforceable and can/should be ignored.

drew · « **Reply #219 on:** February 01, 2019, 06:06:02 PM »

Quote from: PAX

Quote from: Drew
What is known is that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal shares a common provenance with the 1969 Bugnini Missal expressing a singular 'lex orandi, lex credendi,' and thus, both are matters of mere discipline subject to the free and independent will of the legislator. This is not speculation; this is the current state of Church liturgical law.
1. You continue to peddle the ASSUMPTION that the 62 missal was Bugnini’s by ignoring the fact that Pope John took Bugnini off the liturgical commission. Therefore you don’t know which changes in 62 are from Bugnini and which aren’t. To assert an assumption as fact is dishonest. At least admit your error.

I do not "ignore" this fact but recognize that it is immaterial and has already been addressed to you. In fact, to suggest that this IS material, is an attempt to obfuscate the essential historical development of the liturgical reform.

Bugnini directed the liturgical reform as secretary of the Pian commission beginning in 1948. This commission envisioned the Novus Ordo as its end from the beginning of its deliberations. This fact is confirmed in Bugnini's book. On June 6, 1960, Bugnini was named Secretary of the Pontifical Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy for the Council by John XXIII which established the agenda for Vatican II on the liturgy. John XXIII's Motu Proprio, Rubricarum Instructum, approving the new Roman Breviary and Missal was published July 25, 1960 in which he says directly that he is anticipating the Council and introducing the liturgical changes from the Bugnini Pian Commission. The Council began in October 1962 at which time the Preparatory Commission changed its name to the Council Commission on the Sacred Liturgy. Bugnini was replaced as secretary at that time in October 1962 and then restored by Paul VI as its secretary. Nothing of Bugnini's preparatory work for the Council was ever changed. Bugnini took full credit for the liturgical changes implemented before the Council.

Historically your complaint is bogus. The removal has nothing to do with the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal which was actually implemented by a succession of acts by the Sacred Congregation on the Liturgy.

It might not have occurred to you that the removal of Bugnini by John XXIII may not have been motivated by any opposition to his plans of liturgical reform, but rather by the hope of John XXIII that a less controversial figure might be more successful in actualizing Bugnini's preparatory agenda?

In summary, your #1 complaint is historically wrong and intellectually baseless and to point out this fact is not "dishonest."

Quote from: PAX

2. The 62 missal (previous to the 80s indult laws) DID NOT HAVE ANY CONNECTION to the new mass. So for 20+ years, the 62 missal was NOT a “grant of privilege” or a “mere discipline”.

This is absurd. "No Connection"? Bugnini is the acknowledged author of both works. Bugnini's own book is entitled, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975. It may surprise you but 1962 and 1969 are included in the years 1948 to 1975. I have a copy of this book and it might do you some good to buy one. For "20+ years" the 1962 Missal was regarded as on obrogated Bugnini transitional Missal. It has been relegated to the status of an Indult and then a grant of legal privilege with specific conditions legally stipulated for its use. Those using this Missal willingly or unwillingly have accepted these conditions.

Quote from: PAX

3. The indult laws of the 80s only apply to priests who are “in communion with” new-Rome. Those traditionalists who reject V2, the novus ordo and new-Rome’s heresies aren’t obligated to follow the indult laws and there is no penalty for ignoring them.
Traditionalists can/should continue to use the 62 missal UNDER THE LAW PREVIOUS TO THE 80s, before the indult existed. The law of Pope John which created/allowed the 62 missal is still valid, still applicable and still in force. No indult law changed Pope John’s law, therefore the indults are unnecessary, unenforceable and can/should be ignored.

"The indult laws of the 80s only apply to priests who are 'in communion with' new-Rome." So, when John XXIII makes a liturgical law, it must be accepted but when John Paul II or Benedict XVI make a liturgical law it only applies to those "in communion with new-Rome." And who are you to render this legal determination? And this is just your opinion and nothing more, and an opinion based on what? You appeal to Summorum Pontificuм to "prove" that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal is "legal" and yet you pretend that the legal stipulations for its use do not apple to you. You pick and choose the evidence that suits your ideology. You may have convinced yourself but your argument could not get you a passing mark in a high school civics class.

Bugnini was an enemy of the Catholic faith with the intent to destroy the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite of Mass. Those who accept his earlier steps in the implementation of this mutilation of the liturgical calendar which began well before 1962, as well as his overturning of the apostolic tradition of only including martyrs in the canon of the Mass, are liturgical philistines. Those who would permit the crown Jєωel of the Catholic Faith to be mutilated by Bugnini deserve what they will get.

You hold the pope as your proximate rule of faith and the liturgy as a matter of mere discipline. You therefore recognize in the pope the arbitrary authority to do whatever he wills with regard to the worship of God as long as it does not offend your personal sensibilities. Your concept of liturgy is crude, legalistic with a gross mechanical understanding of divine worship. Your theology is evidently a product of the SSPX who have a conception that the substance of the Mass involves only the words of consecration and nothing more. It is from this conception that the SSPX actually believes the ridiculous idea that a priest can simply say "this is my body" and consecrate all the bread in a bakery or "this is my blood" and consecrate all the wine in a wine cellar. You are in the same mold, the same liturgical tradition.

You can whine all you want but in accepting the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal you have accepted all its legal conditions and have no grounds to argue with anyone about anything. Imagine making your argument before the Roman Rota. They would laugh you out the door.

Drew

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #220 on:** February 01, 2019, 08:02:12 PM »

If we can’t use the 62 missal without sinning by accepting the new mass, and if we can’t use an earlier missal because it’s a sin to use an illegal missal (since John XXIII abrogated all missals pre-62), then there are only 2 logical conclusions.

1.). John XXIII isn’t the pope since he didn’t have the power to create/approve the 62 changes....Pius XII is also not a pope since his changes are wrong being they came from Bugnini as well.

Or 2.) Pius XII and John were popes but There’s no missal anyone in the Roman rite can use. The 62 is immoral and all others illegal.

drew · « **Reply #221 on:** February 01, 2019, 08:06:16 PM »

Quote from: PAX

Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
« Reply #217 on: Today at 04:17:22 AM »
Quote from: Drew
They are the people, just like Pax, who insist that the pope can throw out any immemorial tradition he wants, such as, genuflecting at the Incarnatus est, as a free and independent act of his personal will.
You’re falsely applying the word “immemorial” to many liturgical changes because you don’t know what the word means. Since we know when the genuflection during the Creed was added (and many other such liturgical additions), then such additions/edits are not “immemorial”, per the definition above.

It was I who defined "immemorial" for you in a previous post.
Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
« Reply #86 on: January 11, 2019, 06:48:45 AM »

With few exceptions the entire "received and approved" rite is composed of immemorial custom. Some of the immemorial custom is of divine or apostolic tradition and some is a ecclesiastical tradition. With very few exceptions liturgical changes are first established by immemorial custom before they are approved by Rome and given to the universal Church. They can at best be traced to a general historical time and a general location. That is why they are called "immemorial." Since you claim that the genuflection at the incarnatus est was a rubic "added" by Rome, then you should be able to provide a specific person who did it on a specific date and through a specific docuмent. So who was it that invented this rubric and imposed it upon the Church? Perhaps the work of an early "liturgical committee"?

But those who have a mechanical, legalistic conception of worship have no problem with what you propose as possible. In fact, the Novus Ordo has eliminated the genuflection at the incarnatus est on all days excepting Christmas and the Annunciation. The practice has become so rare that they do not even remember to add it on those particular days.

The suppression is typically Bugninian and it is no surprise that you and Bugnini would agree on this that it is perfectly within the right of the pope to dump this little act of piety, this little profession of faith. We can say much the same for such practices as kneeling for communion, that is received on the tongue, distributed by the hands of a priest being of the same order. Bugnini would call these little things "gross accretions and evident distortions." You may not like it but you have no argument to offer in opposing these barbarians within the sanctuary. But after all, the sanctuary itself is of ecclesiastical immemorial tradition and according to your insights can be summarily dispensed with as the Novus Ordo Church has done.

Quote from: PAX

You fail to distinguish between these non-immemorial customs (which any pope can change) and the ACTUAL immemorial rubrics of the mass, such as are described in books like “How Christ said the First Mass”, which details the similarities/fulfillment of the mass with the Jєωιѕн liturgy. Such customs/rubrics which are of Jєωιѕн origin (and there are many) cannot/should not be changed since they are “immemorial”. All other customs/rubrics can be changed, in theory.

I own and have read this book. It is very interesting but is without docuмentation. It does make a good case that the general structural form of all liturgies was established at the Last Supper. But your opinion that "immemorial" is exclusive limited to divine or apostolic tradition is sorely mistaken. You are confusing the term "immemorial" with divine and/or apostolic tradition. They may overlap but they are not identical. You also do not recognize that ecclesiastical tradition is not necessarily the work of men but that of God and for that reason cannot be summarily dispensed with without grave reason.

Why don't you purchase Dom Gueranger's The Liturgical Year. You should read it daily for several years. Slowly and almost imperceptibly you will gain an insight into what immemorial tradition is and how it is given to the Church. Divine worship is and has always been the work of God and God's providential direction can be clearly seen in hindsight.

Lastly, with your conception of liturgy, it is impossible to oppose Bugnini and any of his liturgical reforms. You can offer no intelligible argument for stopping at 1962. The only complaint you can make is that it's not your style and they will reply, 'So what'!

Drew

drew · « **Reply #222 on:** February 01, 2019, 09:10:43 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 01, 2019, 08:02:12 PM

If we can’t use the 62 missal without sinning by accepting the new mass, and if we can’t use an earlier missal because it’s a sin to use an illegal missal (since John XXIII abrogated all missals pre-62), then there are only 2 logical conclusions.

1.). John XXIII isn’t the pope since he didn’t have the power to create/approve the 62 changes....Pius XII is also not a pope since his changes are wrong being they came from Bugnini as well.

Or 2.) Pius XII and John were popes but There’s no missal anyone in the Roman rite can use. The 62 is immoral and all others illegal.

I previously posted:

Quote

When Pope Nicholas II ordered the suppression of the Ambrosian Rite, he was opposed by the Catholics of Milan who refused his order. This order was subsequently overturned by Pope Alexander II who declared it to have been “unjust.” Further, human law, even the highest form of human law imposed by the pope, has all the limitations of every human law. That is, it must be a promulgation of reason, by the proper authority, promoting the common good, and not in any way opposed to Divine or natural law. As St. Thomas has said, an ‘unjust law is not a law.’ St. Thomas lists three principal conditions which must be met for any human law to be valid: 1) It must be consistent with the virtue of Religion; that is, it must not contain anything contrary to Divine law, 2) It must be consistent with discipline; that is, it must conform to the Natural law; and 3) It must promote human welfare; that is, it must promote the good of society (Fr. Dominic Prummer, Moral Theology). These criteria, required for the validity of any human law, make the suppression of immemorial tradition all but impossible to legitimately effect. The pope has no authority to bind an unjust law and therefore the Catholics of Milan were completely within their rights to refuse the order of Pope Nicholas II. And we are, like them, within our rights to refuse any of liturgical innovations that overturn immemorial custom.

Drew

John XXIII has no authority to corrupt the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite with Bugnini's corruptions. No one historically suggested that Pope Nicholas II was therefore not the pope because he attempted the unjust suppression of the immemorial Ambrosian rite. This line of thinking is like the sedevacantists who argue that pope is the rule of faith and he must necessarily be obeyed in everything he says because he is personally infallible and personally indefectible. This is untenable.

The faithful Catholic is free to reject the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal on the grounds of immemorial custom alone. But, the Catholic can also appeal to Quo Primum which says:

Quote

“…this missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used… Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. … Accordingly, no one whatsoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, direction, will, decree and prohibition. Should any person venture to do so, let him understand he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

Pope St. Pius V, Papal Bull, QUO PRIMUM

Your second objection presupposes that the pope can make the immemorial "received and approved" Roman rite "illegal." This is just fantastic. I am reposting the previously provided quote from Msgr. Klaus Gamber and Fr. Kramer. Read them carefully.

Quote

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

Quote

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

Fr. Paul Kramer, The ѕυιcιdє in Altering the Faith in the Liturgy

Pope Pius XI, in Divini cultus, quotes Celestine I who refers to ‘lex orandi, lex credendi’ as a “canon of faith,” that is, a dogma.

The aphorism “lex orandi, lex credenda” has been interpreted to mean the ‘law of belief determines the law of prayer’ which is actually an inversion of the original meaning. Dr. Geoffrey Hull, a linguistic expert, said in his book, Banished Heart:

Quote

Considering much of what has taken place in the sanctuaries of the Latin Church since Mediator Dei, Pius XII’s reversal in that encyclical of the historical principle “legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi, i.e. let the rule of prayer establish the rule of belief”, is no less disturbing:

Quote
“Indeed if we wanted to state quite clearly and absolutely the relation existing between the faith and the sacred liturgy we could rightly say that the law of our faith must establish the law of our prayer:”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei

This liberty taken with a theological tradition going back to apostolic times has been considered by some a most serious flaw in an otherwise excellent exposition of Catholic teaching on the liturgy.

The maxim quoted above was first expressed in the fifth century by Prosper of Aquitaine in an anti-Pelagian treatise entitled Indiculus de gratia Dei, and it is commonly shortened to the aphorism “lex orandi, lex credenda” ...

The basic meaning of the teaching is that in the traditional liturgy we have the oldest witness to what the Church believes, since Christians were worshipping God in public well before the first theological treatises were composed. Living tradition is bipartite, its two aspects distinct yet interrelated. ‘The rational aspect of Catholic Tradition consists of the Magisterium which interprets Sacred Scripture and apostolic teaching, while the sacred liturgy constitutes its symbolic and mystical aspect, and the latter has a chronological primacy over the former. Given, therefore, that the sacred liturgy is not something arbitrarily devised by theologians but theologia prima, the ontological condition of theology, the Church’s teachings must always be in harmony with the beliefs that the traditional liturgical texts express. This is of course very different from George Tyrrell’s modernistic abuse of Prosper’s maxim, by which doctrines are valid only insofar as they are found in the liturgical texts and have produced practical fruits of charity and sanctification.

However, given the normative and testimonial nature of the liturgical tradition whose historical growth had its own dynamic, there can be absolutely no question of artificially restructuring sacred rites to make them reflect new doctrines or new doctrinal emphases, which is precisely the Protestant approach to liturgy.

Dr. Geoffrey Hull, Banished Heart: Origins of Heteropraxis in the Catholic Church

Doctrinal truth is established upon the law of prayer. The the liturgy cannot have less authority than the doctrine it establishes. If liturgy is merely a matter of discipline, then doctrine has no greater authority than being the work of man. But this is not so and explains why the acceptance of immemorial ecclesiastical traditions, particularly the "recieved and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments" are an object of Dogma and have been incorporated in the Tridentine profession of faith.

Drew

Stanley N · « **Reply #223 on:** February 04, 2019, 12:27:58 AM »

Quote from: drew on January 31, 2019, 10:11:13 PM

Your hypothetical question is of no interest to us. It is immaterial to the discussion because it presupposes an expertise and authority that we do not claim to possess. What is a fact is that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal has been reduced to an Indult and a grant of legal privilege tied to unacceptable conditions for faithful Catholics. This constitutes prima facie evidence that it cannot be the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite of Mass. You cannot dismiss this evidence as Pax has done by calling "trickery."

It is unfortunate that it is of no interest. This explores the consequences of your argument.
If there were an indult from Rome to use some other, older missal (for example, the 1949 missal), would that be "prima facie evidence" that that older version could not be the immemorial rite of Mass?

drew · « **Reply #224 on:** February 04, 2019, 02:49:37 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on February 04, 2019, 12:27:58 AM

It is unfortunate that it is of no interest. This explores the consequences of your argument.
If there were an indult from Rome to use some other, older missal (for example, the 1949 missal), would that be "prima facie evidence" that that older version could not be the immemorial rite of Mass?

The question is still of no interest and it has nothing to do with the consequences of the argument. It is not possible for the “received and approved” immemorial Roman rite to be reduced to the status of an Indult or grant of legal privilege regardless of the conditions. It becomes even more unpalatable when the conditions are morally and doctrinally repugnant. The 1949 Roman Missal is clearly the “received and approved” rite because there is no evidence or argument to think otherwise. This is not the case with the 1962 Missal which is appropriately called the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal. This Missal is a transitional Missal that existed during the changing of the “received and approved” rite into another new rite. Where one ends and other begins is a matter of dispute and can only be determined by competent authority, but the legal status of the 1962 as an Indult, then grant of legal privilege is presumptive evidence against it being the “received and approved” rite. That being the case, in the administration of the sacraments, a doubtful opinion, even if probable, may not be followed especially when it is possible to act with certainty.

There is a historical example of a pope declaring a “received and approved” rite illegal and this “law” was overturned and declared to have been unjust, that is, it was declared to not have been a law at all. Therefore, should the pope attempt this act he need not be obeyed. He does not possess the authority to overturn the dogmatically established rites or the authority to enact laws that are contrary to right reason and against the common good. This is fully consistent with what Msgr. Gamber said which I previously posted, and it is fully consistent with Catholic moral theology, which I also previously posted.

If the Resistance is to have any hope, it must be established upon solid dogmatic and liturgical grounds. Truth is the only weapon against an abusive authority. Dogma must be proclaimed as the proximate rule of faith, and from this, the "received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments" can be defended.

Drew