PAXYou 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 documents 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?
DREW I'm not speculating - I'm reading the laws and what they say
Your questions are immaterial. I can speculate just as well as you and it will make no difference whatsoever.
DrewSo 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.
John XXIII has no authority to implement changes in the “received and approved” rite of Mass whose end is the destruction of that rite.
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.
DrewJohn XXIII removed Bugnini from the commission, a historical fact. Bugnini was put back on under Paul VI.
The claim that John XXIII changes were not an implementation of the Pian commission headed by Bugnini is absurd. It is referenced in the document itself.
So what? What I said is true, and your reply is completely immaterial.
DrewIs 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.
To say that, “Quo Primum….started the Tridentine rite” is historically inaccurate and grossly misleading.
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.
DrewWrong. 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 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.
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.
DrewYour 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?
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.
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 documents 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.
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.