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 33909 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
« Reply #365 on: October 24, 2020, 03:44:00 PM »
It's a vague term, so people should be more careful when using it.  For many Novus Ordo means the 1969 missal, for others it includes the traditional masses said with permission of the diocese, for others, as you correctly state, it's the belief system.  
Agreed.  It would be better to refer to the Conciliar sect.

Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
« Reply #366 on: October 24, 2020, 03:46:13 PM »
The substance of the Mass is not to be changed by altering the rites. That's not the same as unsubstantial changes. The new order rites and service (erroneously called "mass") are substantial changes.
Quo Primum makes no distinction. It doesn't imply or state it permits "unsubstantial changes".

Again, putting words in Pope St. Pius V's mouths to justify a nonsensical and legally impossible interpretation of the bull.


Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
« Reply #367 on: October 24, 2020, 04:11:11 PM »
Quo Primum makes no distinction.
Yes it does but you refuse to see and accept it.


Quote
It doesn't imply or state it permits "unsubstantial changes".

Again, putting words in Pope St. Pius V's mouths to justify a nonsensical and legally impossible interpretation of the bull.
Going by your "logic", you must not believe in the Holy Trinity because the bible doesn't specifically state the Name, nor do you believe in the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, or the Coronation, because they aren't specifically stated in the bible. Forget holy tradition, we have to take a literalist word-for-word view of written precepts whether it's canon or papal decrees.

Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
« Reply #368 on: October 24, 2020, 04:57:03 PM »

Going by your "logic", you must not believe in the Holy Trinity because the bible doesn't specifically state the Name, nor do you believe in the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, or the Coronation, because they aren't specifically stated in the bible. Forget holy tradition, we have to take a literalist word-for-word view of written precepts whether it's canon or papal decrees.

Be fair, Tourmalet. You are pushing your argument too far, specifically in that the Bible and Tradition are simply irrelevant in the present context. That is, the matters you cite are all dogmas, not matters of papal jurisdiction—or rather, each one lost any jurisdictional dimension it might ever have had once it was dogmatically defined.

I simply do not know enough of the precise circuмstances surrounding the drafting of Quo Primum to weigh in one way or the other on forlorn's assertion regarding the bull's primary target audience. His assertion does, however, have the great merit of being prima facie defensible, which is more than can be said for assertions regarding the bull's permanently irreformable character. That is to say, it is by no means plain from the language of the bull that it indissolubly links the celebration of the Roman rite with the content of the Faith as defined for all time.

Surely the plain meaning of the power of the Keys is that it confers upon each and every pope enormous latitude to act as he chooses, for good or for ill, while being answerable to God alone—save in the few exceptional circuмstances whose character is so resistant to definition that Bellarmine and other authorities cannot even agree upon what those circuмstances are or what options are available to those who would counter the abuse!

Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
« Reply #369 on: October 24, 2020, 05:23:26 PM »
Yes it does but you refuse to see and accept it.
It does not.

Going by your "logic", you must not believe in the Holy Trinity because the bible doesn't specifically state the Name, nor do you believe in the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, or the Coronation, because they aren't specifically stated in the bible. Forget holy tradition, we have to take a literalist word-for-word view of written precepts whether it's canon or papal decrees.
"If you don't accept me blatantly lying about the contents of a law, you reject the Faith!"

Are you actually mentally unwell?

Quo Primum does not refer to "substantial change", nor is there any dogma or tradition(I don't think you even know what this means, the way you use it) that it does. It bars any change to the Missal at all. Yet Pope St. Pius V himself and other popes later changed it. How could this be? Oh yes, because papal bulls cannot restrict the power of the pope itself, and that was never the intention of Quo Primum. New bulls can override, modify, abrogate old ones at the pope's leisure.