Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 27

Author Topic: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo  (Read 19733 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 14769
  • Reputation: +6100/-909
  • Gender: Male
Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
« Reply #315 on: October 23, 2020, 09:36:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: forlorn on October 23, 2020, 08:06:54 AM
    Missale Romanum was legally on the same level as Quo Primum, so no Quo Primum could not have prohibited Missale Romanum from doing anything. Where laws of equal standing contradict, the newer overrides the older.

    If the NO Mass was a revision of the Tridentine Mass as you claim, then it was perfectly lawful to do so.
    Quo Primum is the law governing the Roman Liturgy, which is the Roman Missal, the Novus Ordo Missae, being a revision of the Roman Missal is, according to Quo Primum, illegal.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11528
    • Reputation: +6471/-1195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #316 on: October 23, 2020, 09:38:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: PAT317 on October 23, 2020, 09:36:01 AM
    If Dr C is not radtradthomist, it's news to me.  Maybe he recently sold the domain name?  
    Quote from Louie Verrechio July 14, 2017:  

    "After taking a hiatus from the blogosphere, Dr. Chojnowski has decided to resume blogging at his website, RadTrad Thomist."
    Perhaps there is a difference between @radtradthomist and the blog?  This is the tweet I am referring to:
    https://twitter.com/SisterLucyTruth/status/1317623636216352769
    Logged

    Offline PAT317

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 913
    • Reputation: +787/-117
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #317 on: October 23, 2020, 09:49:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on October 23, 2020, 09:38:41 AM
    Perhaps there is a difference between @radtradthomist and the blog?  This is the tweet I am referring to:
    https://twitter.com/SisterLucyTruth/status/1317623636216352769
    Thanks.  I just noticed the discrepancy.  
    For the record, the false information in the OP of this thread came from the blog, which is Dr. C's.
    Logged

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2521
    • Reputation: +1041/-1106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #318 on: October 23, 2020, 09:56:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 23, 2020, 08:19:07 AM
    Right, this applies to the True Mass.  It doesn't apply to the novus ordo, because it's NOT FROM THE CHURCH.  You could only argue it's from the Church if everyone in the Latin Rite was OBLIGATED to attend it, use it, accept it.  But that's not the case.

    Right, but I'm saying that if the missal is from the Church, then so too is the Mass said using it.

    Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 23, 2020, 08:19:07 AM
    Can the Church issue an optional dogma?  We declare, say and define, using our Apostolic Authority, that the Holy Spirit is God.  You can believe this if you want to, or not.
    .
    Of course an optional dogma would not be part of Church teaching; so an optional liturgy isn't part of the Church.
    Depends what you mean by optional. There are plenty of minor rites and even rites specific to certain religious orders. These are "optional" in the sense no one's forcing you to go attend them rather than a "regular" church. They even have conditions that they're only licit to say in certain circuŠ¼stances. The fact that the NO may be illicit to say under the provisions of QP doesn't make it invalid. If its missal was legally promulgated, and is a missal of the Church, then the Mass said using it must be valid per Trent. A Mass can easily be illicit but valid.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12312
    • Reputation: +7803/-2405
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #319 on: October 23, 2020, 10:14:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    Missale Romanum was legally on the same level as Quo Primum, so no Quo Primum could not have prohibited Missale Romanum from doing anything. Where laws of equal standing contradict, the newer overrides the older.
    The newer law only overrides the older law if it expressly says it is doing so.  You have no idea what you're talking about, legally.
    .

    Quote
    If the NO Mass was a revision of the Tridentine Mass as you claim, then it was perfectly lawful to do so.

    Stubborn is wrong.  The NO is not a revision; it's called the "new order missal" for a reason.  The fact that the NO is similar to the True Mass does not have anything to do with a revision, which is a legal term, meaning a continuation.  The NO was never intended to be a revision, and it was clearly named as a new missal.  This is a legal fact.
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14769
    • Reputation: +6100/-909
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #320 on: October 23, 2020, 10:17:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Sin of Adam on October 23, 2020, 08:42:35 AM
    The Catholic Church cannot, by the protection of God the Holy Spirit, impose a blasphemous "Mass," invalid Holy Orders, a false faith, corrupt tradition, heretical Freemasons as Popes, Protestant Cardinals/Bishops/Priests, destroy sacredness, teach unbelief, and an endless list of things that even Martin Luther & John Calvin would be disgusted with.
    Either these things are not evil and should be followed or they are evil and this is not the true Roman Catholic Church. No other option if one is to remain Catholic.
    No argument from me here.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14769
    • Reputation: +6100/-909
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #321 on: October 23, 2020, 10:26:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 23, 2020, 10:14:08 AM
    The newer law only overrides the older law if it expressly says it is doing so.  You have no idea what you're talking about, legally.
    .

    Stubborn is wrong.  The NO is not a revision; it's called the "new order missal" for a reason.  The fact that the NO is similar to the True Mass does not have anything to do with a revision, which is a legal term, meaning a continuation.  The NO was never intended to be a revision, and it was clearly named as a new missal.  This is a legal fact.
    Pax, it is a mute point. The new "mass" which, although that's what they decided to call it, is not a Mass at all but a mockery of it. Their religion is not Catholic although that is what they decided to call it. The new missal is not the Missale but that's what they decided to call it. So if you work it backwards, the new missal is immoral, if it is immoral then it is sinful, if it is sinful then it is illicit, if it is illicit then it is illegal and by law cannot be used.

    If they decided to mas produce the new missal, glued all the pages together and used them as weights to hold down hot air balloons then no, the new missal would not be illegal.  
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2521
    • Reputation: +1041/-1106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #322 on: October 23, 2020, 10:30:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 23, 2020, 10:14:08 AM
    The newer law only overrides the older law if it expressly says it is doing so.  You have no idea what you're talking about, legally.
    No, otherwise some forgotten law from 400 AD could somehow block a new law without anyone knowing. Utter nonsense. If a newer law contradicts an older law on the same level of authority, it overrides the parts of the older law it contradicts, whether that's explicitly stated or not.

     
    Logged

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2521
    • Reputation: +1041/-1106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #323 on: October 23, 2020, 10:33:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on October 23, 2020, 09:36:45 AM
    Quo Primum is the law governing the Roman Liturgy, which is the Roman Missal, the Novus Ordo Missae, being a revision of the Roman Missal is, according to Quo Primum, illegal.
    No law can render itself irreformable*. The intent of QP was to stop lesser authorities altering the missal in their regions. QP can not and did not try to stop future popes from altering it in papal bulls. Missale Romanum was also not the first bull to amend QP or alter the Mass, not by a long shot.

    *With the exception of Divine Law of course, if you want to get technical, but that's more so God choosing not to reform it because He does not change.
    Logged

    Offline Veritatis

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 39
    • Reputation: +16/-28
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #324 on: October 23, 2020, 11:01:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • "even according to the mind of the Council of Florence itself, the traditio instrumentorum is not required for the substance and validity of this Sacrament by the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. If it was at one time necessary even for validity by the will and command of the Church, every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established." (Sacramentum ORdinis, Pius XII)

    If the Church has the power to change what she herself instituted as necessary for validity, she certainly has the power to change what she has instituted in the surrounding ceremony.
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14769
    • Reputation: +6100/-909
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #325 on: October 23, 2020, 11:58:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: forlorn on October 23, 2020, 10:33:20 AM
    No law can render itself irreformable*. The intent of QP was to stop lesser authorities altering the missal in their regions. QP can not and did not try to stop future popes from altering it in papal bulls. Missale Romanum was also not the first bull to amend QP or alter the Mass, not by a long shot.

    *With the exception of Divine Law of course, if you want to get technical, but that's more so God choosing not to reform it because He does not change.
    According to the the law of Quo Primum, the law itself remains in effect "in perpetuity."

    If you say it can be changed, then pope St. Pius V had no authority to make the law remain in effect forever. If he did not have that authority, then obviously no one told him he couldn't do that. smh
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12312
    • Reputation: +7803/-2405
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #326 on: October 23, 2020, 12:09:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    If they decided to mas produce the new missal, glued all the pages together and used them as weights to hold down hot air balloons then no, the new missal would not be illegal. 
    Exactly my point.  The new missal's existence is legal.  To USE it is illegal.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12312
    • Reputation: +7803/-2405
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #327 on: October 23, 2020, 12:15:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    No, otherwise some forgotten law from 400 AD could somehow block a new law without anyone knowing. Utter nonsense.
    How is a law "forgotten"?  When laws are being written, all kinds of research is done to see how they affect other laws which already exist.  ...Do you have any legal experience whatsoever, or are you talking out of your arse?
    .

    Quote
    If a newer law contradicts an older law on the same level of authority, it overrides the parts of the older law it contradicts, whether that's explicitly stated or not.

    The 2 laws don't even contradict one another...this is my whole point.  St Pius V revised all previous missals and ordered everyone to use the new version and disallowed the use of any other version.  Paul 6's law did not replace Quo Primum because Paul 6 never allowed, ordered, or required anyone to use his missal.  All he did was create a missal.  The only similarities of the laws are that they relate to a missal. 
    Logged

    Offline Veritatis

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 39
    • Reputation: +16/-28
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #328 on: October 23, 2020, 12:56:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on October 23, 2020, 11:58:06 AM
    According to the the law of Quo Primum, the law itself remains in effect "in perpetuity."

    If you say it can be changed, then pope St. Pius V had no authority to make the law remain in effect forever. If he did not have that authority, then obviously no one told him he couldn't do that. smh

    If you say "in perpetuity" means no Pope could make changes to the missal (that's what Pius V promulgated in perpetuity), then Pius V himself violated the law he enacted, since he changed the missal a few years after promulgating Quo Primum by adding the Feast of the Holy Rosary to the missal.  And Pius XII made huge revisions to the Missal when he revised Holy Week.  

    So, either "in perpetuity" doesn't mean what you think it means, or Pius V and Pius XII (as well as other Popes) have done what the law forbids and have incurred the wrath of Almighty God and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.  

    So, explain why you believe in perpetuity, in the context of a law established by a Pope, means what you think it means.  If your answer is that you are simply applying the word based on your understanding of what it mean, that's not good enough.  You need to show that when the Church uses the phrase in the context of a liturgical law it means no future Pope can change or abrogate it.  
    Logged

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2521
    • Reputation: +1041/-1106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #329 on: October 23, 2020, 01:00:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 23, 2020, 12:15:20 PM
    How is a law "forgotten"?  When laws are being written, all kinds of research is done to see how they affect other laws which already exist.  ...Do you have any legal experience whatsoever, or are you talking out of your arse?

    By being old and obscure. It's a regular occurrence for authorities to realise an ancient law is still technically on the books. In certain towns of England they realised it was still technically legal to kill a Welshman after dark. I have no idea why you think legal authorities are able to infallibly compile and scour every single statute ever produced for thousands of years. It's a well established legal precedent that newer laws override older laws for the reason that they cannot do that. It's called lex posterior derogat legi priori.

    What's your own legal experience? 

    Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 23, 2020, 12:15:20 PM
    The 2 laws don't even contradict one another...this is my whole point.  St Pius V revised all previous missals and ordered everyone to use the new version and disallowed the use of any other version.  Paul 6's law did not replace Quo Primum because Paul 6 never allowed, ordered, or required anyone to use his missal.  All he did was create a missal.  The only similarities of the laws are that they relate to a missal.  
    Seeing as we're going bold here.

    I WAS RESPONDING TO STUBBORN.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 27
    « previous next »