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

Author Topic: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo  (Read 19704 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline forlorn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2521
  • Reputation: +1041/-1106
  • Gender: Male
Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
« Reply #330 on: October 23, 2020, 01:02:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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
    No one told him he couldn't do that because he wasn't trying to do that. No one has the unilateral authority to limit the powers of their own successors; that's insane. A pope can't revoke powers from future popes. And anyway, as Veritatis pointed out, even St. Pius V himself altered QP. Was he really stupid enough to break his own law? Or perhaps are you just misunderstanding his intent?

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11528
    • Reputation: +6470/-1191
    • Gender: Female
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #331 on: October 23, 2020, 01:37:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    And, for the record, John Salza still hasn't been upfront with where his loyalties lie:  SSPX or indult or a combination of both?


    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12284
    • Reputation: +7782/-2372
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #332 on: October 23, 2020, 02:20:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    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.

    We're not talking about local ordinances, city statues, etc, which are in the millions.  Papal laws regarding liturgical norms are only passed a few times in a handful of CENTURIES.  It's akin to a Constitutional amendment.  Those aren't hard to research, nor to see if a new amendment overrides and old one.
    .
    Paul 6's law of 1969 did not amend/override/revise in any way John XXIII's law of 1962.  They were passed a mere 7 years apart.  It doesn't take a legal scholar to pull up the 1962 law and make sure it was revised, if that's what Paul 6 intended.  But he didn't intend to revise/overrule the law; he intended to make a NEW LAW, a new missal...which is why it's called the "novus ordo".

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14760
    • Reputation: +6091/-908
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #333 on: October 23, 2020, 02:36:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.  
    "In perpetuity", means "forever." In perpetuity is how long the law itself remains in effect. The law states that the Roman Missal ("this missal") "is hereafter to be followed absolutely." Anything that lasts forever is unchangeable, the law is unchangeable. 

    So to use any other missal since then till forever is against the law of Quo Primum.
    "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 #334 on: October 23, 2020, 02:49:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • We're not talking about local ordinances, city statues, etc, which are in the millions.  Papal laws regarding liturgical norms are only passed a few times in a handful of CENTURIES.  It's akin to a Constitutional amendment.  Those aren't hard to research, nor to see if a new amendment overrides and old one.
    .
    Paul 6's law of 1969 did not amend/override/revise in any way John XXIII's law of 1962.  They were passed a mere 7 years apart.  It doesn't take a legal scholar to pull up the 1962 law and make sure it was revised, if that's what Paul 6 intended.  But he didn't intend to revise/overrule the law; he intended to make a NEW LAW, a new missal...which is why it's called the "novus ordo".
    I'm not arguing that he didn't make a new missal, but Stubborn insisted that he didn't, and I was saying that Missale Romanum would've still been lawful even if it was a just revision.


    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2521
    • Reputation: +1041/-1106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #335 on: October 23, 2020, 02:51:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "In perpetuity", means "forever." In perpetuity is how long the law itself remains in effect. The law states that the Roman Missal ("this missal") "is hereafter to be followed absolutely." Anything that lasts forever is unchangeable, the law is unchangeable.  

    So to use any other missal since then till forever is against the law of Quo Primum.
    Once again, that's referring to lesser authorities. QP also says that the missal may not be altered at all, and yet it was altered a number of times down the years.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14760
    • Reputation: +6091/-908
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #336 on: October 23, 2020, 02:54:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No one told him he couldn't do that because he wasn't trying to do that. No one has the unilateral authority to limit the powers of their own successors; that's insane. A pope can't revoke powers from future popes. And anyway, as Veritatis pointed out, even St. Pius V himself altered QP. Was he really stupid enough to break his own law? Or perhaps are you just misunderstanding his intent?
    Along with all things Catholic, popes are bound to protect and defend whatever unchangeable laws there are that were put in place and remain in force forever for the purpose of protecting the Liturgy forever - that's why the law is there.  That's the pope's job, that's what he does, there is no one else who does that. Who else is going to defend and protect it?

    What you are saying is it is ok for popes to break this law because they can, they can break it in order to do whatever they want to the Liturgy, even if they want to destroy or replace it - for no reason other than future popes are not bound by their predecessors.  
    "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 #337 on: October 23, 2020, 03:38:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Along with all things Catholic, popes are bound to protect and defend whatever unchangeable laws there are that were put in place and remain in force forever for the purpose of protecting the Liturgy forever - that's why the law is there.  That's the pope's job, that's what he does, there is no one else who does that. Who else is going to defend and protect it?

    What you are saying is it is ok for popes to break this law because they can, they can break it in order to do whatever they want to the Liturgy, even if they want to destroy or replace it - for no reason other than future popes are not bound by their predecessors.  
    Changing the law is not breaking the law. Missals are not "unchangeable laws" and the several other times Quo Primum was altered should tell you that.


    Offline Veritatis

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 39
    • Reputation: +16/-28
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #338 on: October 23, 2020, 03:39:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "In perpetuity", means "forever." In perpetuity is how long the law itself remains in effect.
    But equal cannot bind equal, and "every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established." (Sacramentum ORdinis, Pius XII).  Therefore, Pius V and Pius XII did not exceed their authority when they changed the missal that Pius V promulgated in perpetuity.  

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12516
    • Reputation: +8293/-1581
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #339 on: October 23, 2020, 04:00:46 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • If a Blessing was used by the true religion during the time of the Old Testament, why would you concluded based on that fact alone that it is cursed and blasphemous to use today?…
    Even if it was, it is indeed cursed and anathematized.

    Have you never read Cantate Domino?

    Cantate Domino from the infallible ecuмenical Council of Florence under His Holiness Pope Eugene IV defining the Solemn Doctrine: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (“Outside the Church, there is no salvation.”), promulgated by papal bull, February 4, 1444 [Florentine calendar] in Denziger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, § 712-714

    Quote
    “§ 712 It [the Holy Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to Divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the Sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circuмcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors….
     
    “§714 The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil, and his angels,’ (Matthew 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, alms deeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”


    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14760
    • Reputation: +6091/-908
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #340 on: October 23, 2020, 04:02:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Changing the law is not breaking the law. Missals are not "unchangeable laws" and the several other times Quo Primum was altered should tell you that.
    Substantially changing the Missal into a new missal is breaking the law.
    "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 #341 on: October 23, 2020, 04:07:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Substantially changing the Missal into a new missal is breaking the law.
    QP makes no mention of "substantial changes". You're just inventing your own rules now.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14760
    • Reputation: +6091/-908
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #342 on: October 23, 2020, 04:40:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • But equal cannot bind equal, and "every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established." (Sacramentum ORdinis, Pius XII).  Therefore, Pius V and Pius XII did not exceed their authority when they changed the missal that Pius V promulgated in perpetuity.  
    You are on the total wrong track because the question of 'equals able or unable to bind each other' is not even the issue.

    We are discussing the law of Quo Primum, put in place to protect the Missale Romanum which is by this law, the official Roman Liturgy, canonized as the only liturgy permitted for the Roman rite for all time.

    No one is disputing popes may, after due diligence and explaining their reasons (which all the popes who did make any change to the missal did), make incidental changes to this missal. No one disputes this.

    The issue is that the law was put in place to forever protect the central, most important part of the Roman Catholic faith, the Liturgy. Popes are the protectors of all things that in any way pertain the Catholic faith, including and most especially her Liturgy.

    It is their job to preserve and to protect that which their predecessors have preserved and protected, and hand all of that down to future popes, who are also expected to the same - and on and on it goes till the end of time, this is how the Catholic faith has and will remain till the end of time. After Pius V, all future popes' obligation and duty is to protect and preserve everything, all laws, teachings, disciplines, decrees and everything else of all their predecessors, that's is what popes do.

    Our Lord did not institute the papacy in order for popes to be inventive and to change, and change some more just because as the Church's supreme ruler on earth, no one can tell him he can't - that is an idea that is anti-Catholic.

    So it is not about whether or not as pope, they are bound or not bound to the law, or have or have not the power to change the law, it is their job to uphold the law, as they alone have the authority to maintain the law, to protect it and preserve it for the future Church and popes - that is why they are there.  
    "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: 14760
    • Reputation: +6091/-908
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #343 on: October 23, 2020, 04:43:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • QP makes no mention of "substantial changes". You're just inventing your own rules now.
    In your zeal to go by the letter of the law, you are missing the spirit of the law - consider the fact that popes have in fact made incidental changes.
    "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 #344 on: October 23, 2020, 04:54:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In your zeal to go by the letter of the law, you are missing the spirit of the law - consider the fact that popes have in fact made incidental changes.
    Exactly, which means that popes are allowed to change the missal. Your idea that it only prohibits "substantial" changes is one you invented to reconcile the fact that many popes have altered it with the fact that QP prohibits any alteration. But it doesn't say that in the text. It says no changes at all. So either all those other popes who altered it broke the law, or popes are able to alter QP with bulls of their own. 

    The answer is, of course, the latter.