Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum

The Church Courtyard => Catholic Liturgical Life => Topic started by: bben15 on January 23, 2014, 05:30:59 PM

Title: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: bben15 on January 23, 2014, 05:30:59 PM
Pope Benedict XVI stated in his Summorum Pontificum that the TLM was never abrogated, and its celebration never needed permission. If this was the case, then were the various indults granted irrelevant? Such as the Agatha Christie indult; the 1984 indult; the indult allowing older and infirm priests to celebrate it?

Thank you.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: tradne4163 on January 23, 2014, 05:41:55 PM
There are differing opinions on it.

As a sedevacantist, to give you one example, I regard the "indults" as irrelevant because Paul VI had no authority over the Liturgy to begin with, so the suppression of the Latin Mass (as well as the promulgation of the New Mass) had no force whatsoever.

Those in the SSPX crowd, as well as many of those who might fall under the Ecclesia Dei/Motu Proprio Mass crowd, will say that as an immemorial custom, the Traditional Mass could not be suppressed, and thus indirectly also say the indults are irrelevant. Well, actually SSPXers will outright say the suppression was illegal.

Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Cesar_Augustus on January 23, 2014, 06:43:52 PM
Well, in practice it was different, Priests were persecuted for example.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Greg on January 23, 2014, 07:40:03 PM
If you could not access the Tridentine mass it was abrogated.  Arguing over legalisms is silly.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Bonaventure on January 23, 2014, 07:57:55 PM
Quote from: Greg on January 23, 2014, 07:40:03 PM
If you could not access the Tridentine mass it was abrogated.  Arguing over legalisms is silly.

I agree.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Kaesekopf on January 23, 2014, 08:32:29 PM
Also agreed.

It's a novel legalism to wash away the last 50 years that Rome and the Curia have treated like trash devout traditionalists and devout Catholics who simply wanted the Mass.

Much like the new prayer for blessing holy water, it means nothing.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: bben15 on January 23, 2014, 10:20:12 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on January 23, 2014, 08:32:29 PM
Also agreed.

It's a novel legalism to wash away the last 50 years that Rome and the Curia have treated like trash devout traditionalists and devout Catholics who simply wanted the Mass.

Much like the new prayer for blessing holy water, it means nothing.

It seems as if the Tridentine Mass was de facto abolished, but not de jure. But yes, I agree. The 40 years of prohibiting the Mass of the Ages to us is unacceptable, and can't just be forgotten by a simple "it was never abrogated, and its celebration never needed permission." Even today, we have particularly liberal bishops who circumvent Rome and force their personal prejudice towards the TLM on the faithful of their diocese, that is, prohibiting the celebration of the TLM in their diocese.

Not very good bishops, if you ask me. I never understood how forcing your personal prejudice on the faithful of the diocese can be beneficial towards their spiritual welfare.  >:(
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Maximilian on January 23, 2014, 10:33:41 PM
Quote from: bben15 on January 23, 2014, 10:20:12 PM

It seems as if the Tridentine Mass was de facto abolished, but not de jure.


I was both de facto and de jure. Benedict's statement was nothing more than a straightforward denial of reality. In fact, Pope Paul VI forbade the Latin Mass, both in theory and in practice.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Kaesekopf on January 23, 2014, 10:41:09 PM
Quote from: bben15 on January 23, 2014, 10:20:12 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on January 23, 2014, 08:32:29 PM
Also agreed.

It's a novel legalism to wash away the last 50 years that Rome and the Curia have treated like trash devout traditionalists and devout Catholics who simply wanted the Mass.

Much like the new prayer for blessing holy water, it means nothing.

It seems as if the Tridentine Mass was de facto abolished, but not de jure. But yes, I agree. The 40 years of prohibiting the Mass of the Ages to us is unacceptable, and can't just be forgotten by a simple "it was never abrogated, and its celebration never needed permission." Even today, we have particularly liberal bishops who circumvent Rome and force their personal prejudice towards the TLM on the faithful of their diocese, that is, prohibiting the celebration of the TLM in their diocese.

Not very good bishops, if you ask me. I never understood how forcing your personal prejudice on the faithful of the diocese can be beneficial towards their spiritual welfare.  >:(

You'd be surprised at how quickly bygones are bygones in certain circles.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Greg on January 24, 2014, 04:02:09 AM
Quote from: bben15 on January 23, 2014, 10:20:12 PM
Even today, we have particularly liberal bishops who circumvent Rome and force their personal prejudice towards the TLM on the faithful of their diocese, that is, prohibiting the celebration of the TLM in their diocese.

Not very good bishops, if you ask me. I never understood how forcing your personal prejudice on the faithful of the diocese can be beneficial towards their spiritual welfare.  >:(

I admire those ones the most.  The are at least being mentally consistent and defending their religion.  It is easy to think of these people as the enemy, but that appears to be a childish and simplistic view to me.

The ones that ban or restrict the TLM in the parishes are sending a clear signal that the new religion and the old are not compatible.  In this way the dolts in the pews can make their choice.

I have long held the suspicion that it is the appeasers in the middle who are the real enemy and now I am convinced of it.  The people who will never call a spade a spade, never speak in simple terms, make excuses for both sides, tell us what they think the Pope really meant, use canonical legalisms to sow confusion everywhere, resort to fideism when rational arguments desert them, call themselves peacemakers and moderates but actually just facilitate a state of permanent tension and confusion.

Over time you lose far more souls to apathy than you would to an all out war.

This is why, l believe a God hates the lukewarm and the excuse makers so much and wants to vomit them out of His mouth.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: nmoerbeek on January 25, 2014, 10:52:02 AM
Quote from: Greg on January 24, 2014, 04:02:09 AM
Quote from: bben15 on January 23, 2014, 10:20:12 PM
Even today, we have particularly liberal bishops who circumvent Rome and force their personal prejudice towards the TLM on the faithful of their diocese, that is, prohibiting the celebration of the TLM in their diocese.

Not very good bishops, if you ask me. I never understood how forcing your personal prejudice on the faithful of the diocese can be beneficial towards their spiritual welfare.  >:(




I have long held the suspicion that it is the appeasers in the middle who are the real enemy and now I am convinced of it.  The people who will never call a spade a spade, never speak in simple terms, make excuses for both sides, tell us what they think the Pope really meant, use canonical legalisms to sow confusion everywhere, resort to fideism when rational arguments desert them, call themselves peacemakers and moderates but actually just facilitate a state of permanent tension and confusion.

Over time you lose far more souls to apathy than you would to an all out war.

This is why, l believe a God hates the lukewarm and the excuse makers so much and wants to vomit them out of His mouth.



"When you hear anyone spoken ill of, make the accusation doubtful if you can do so justly.  If you cannot, excuse the intention of the accused party.  If that cannot be done, express sympathy for him [and] change the subject of the conversation"  St Frances De Sales, Introduction to the Devout Life pg 205

It is a hard line to walk when discussing our neighbor and not cross over into sin.  It is better to condemn ideas and ignorance rather than people.

Also the term lukewarm is much more broad than the fervor of the confession of our lips, but is to describe the zeal at which we amend our whole life in conquering sin and growing in virtue. 
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Parresia on January 29, 2014, 08:27:13 AM
If the TLM was never officially abrogated, then a whole bunch of priests and members of the laity were treated unjustly by the Church for decades.  The Church needs to own up to that. 
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Kaesekopf on January 29, 2014, 11:26:42 AM
Quote from: Parresia on January 29, 2014, 08:27:13 AM
If the TLM was never officially abrogated, then a whole bunch of priests and members of the laity were treated unjustly by the Church for decades.  The Church needs to own up to that.

Also this.
If we can apologize for the Crusades, Inquisition, etc...
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Parresia on January 29, 2014, 11:35:46 AM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on January 29, 2014, 11:26:42 AM
Quote from: Parresia on January 29, 2014, 08:27:13 AM
If the TLM was never officially abrogated, then a whole bunch of priests and members of the laity were treated unjustly by the Church for decades.  The Church needs to own up to that.

Also this.
If we can apologize for the Crusades, Inquisition, etc...

Ding ding ding. 
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: OSB Melitensis on April 07, 2015, 01:54:06 AM
Quote from: bben15 on January 23, 2014, 05:30:59 PM
Pope Benedict XVI stated in his Summorum Pontificum that the TLM was never abrogated, and its celebration never needed permission. If this was the case, then were the various indults granted irrelevant? Such as the Agatha Christie indult; the 1984 indult; the indult allowing older and infirm priests to celebrate it?

Thank you.

Yes and no. The previous indults were needed in view of the consistent attacks by the hierarchy. Then Summorum Pontificum was needed because of various reasons, specified in the link:

http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2012/09/fifth-anniversary-of-summorum-pontificum_14.html (http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2012/09/fifth-anniversary-of-summorum-pontificum_14.html) 

In Malta, the TLM was de facto suppressed and although there was a resurgence between 2007 - 2011, since the pontificate of Francis began, it's become a rarity.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Prayerful on April 07, 2015, 02:58:25 AM
Quote from: Maximilian on January 23, 2014, 10:33:41 PM
Quote from: bben15 on January 23, 2014, 10:20:12 PM

It seems as if the Tridentine Mass was de facto abolished, but not de jure.


I was both de facto and de jure. Benedict's statement was nothing more than a straightforward denial of reality. In fact, Pope Paul VI forbade the Latin Mass, both in theory and in practice.

Yes, Paul VI banned it. The indults meant nothing for most people. I think Pope Francis would prefer if it could be suppressed, or at least strictly confined to priestly societies, or any traditional orders that Commissioner Volpi hasn't got around to investigating.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Xavier on April 07, 2015, 06:34:36 AM
This is from http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7729 "In 1986 Pope John Paul II appointed a commission of nine cardinals to examine the legal status of the Old Mass. The commission consisted of Agostino Cardinal Casaroli, Bernard Cardinal Gantin, Paul Augustin Cardinal Mayer, Antonio Cardinal Innocenti, Silvio Cardinal Oddi, Petro Cardinal Palazzini, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Alfons Cardinal Stickler and Jozef Cardinal Tomko and it was instructed to examine whether the New Rite of Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI abrogated the Old Rite, and whether a bishop can prohibit his priests from celebrating the Old Mass. The commission met in December 1986. Eight of nine cardinals answered that the New Mass had not abrogated the Old Mass. The nine cardinals unanimously determined that Pope Paul VI never gave the bishops the authority to forbid priest from celebrating Mass according to the Missal of St Pius V ...  Cardinal Medina Estévez, Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for Divine Worship writes in a letter of 21 May 2004: I reaffirm my personal opinion that the abrogation of the Missal of St Pius V is not proven and I can add that the decree that I signed promulgating the third typical edition of the Roman Missal does not contain any clause that abrogates the ancient form of the Roman Rite. (...) And I can also add that the absence of any abrogation clause whatsoever did not happen by chance, nor as it caused by inadvertence, but was intentional."

Pope St. Pius V has already told us any attempted censure will be unjust and invalid "in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, 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. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force," and all priests have the right, and informed priests the duty, to say the true Mass exclusively, and Rome's late public admission of what the Commission of 1986 had already discerned semi-privately confirms what traditional Catholics had always maintained.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: 1seeker on April 08, 2015, 09:50:14 AM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on January 23, 2014, 08:32:29 PM
Also agreed.

It's a novel legalism to wash away the last 50 years that Rome and the Curia have treated like trash devout traditionalists and devout Catholics who simply wanted the Mass.

Much like the new prayer for blessing holy water, it means nothing.


Agreed. I don't know how Benedict XVI could pull off the "never abrogated" idea. It was manifestly abrogated, by Paul VI's words and actions; by JP II's words and actions (including his indults, which demonstrates that TLM needed his permission).

How could Benedict XVI state such a thing?

Was it just a rhetorical arm-twist, to force the Catholic world to embrace TLM?
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Older Salt on April 08, 2015, 09:57:13 AM
Quote from: Maximilian on January 23, 2014, 10:33:41 PM
Quote from: bben15 on January 23, 2014, 10:20:12 PM

It seems as if the Tridentine Mass was de facto abolished, but not de jure.


I was both de facto and de jure. Benedict's statement was nothing more than a straightforward denial of reality. In fact, Pope Paul VI forbade the Latin Mass, both in theory and in practice.
Can you please give a source where Paul VI forbade the TLM?
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Jayne on April 08, 2015, 09:58:30 AM
I took the statement that the TLM was never abrogated as a vindication of the trads who had been saying that all along.  Pope Benedict was saying, in effect, "yes you were right all along and all those people who claimed or acted like it was abrogated were wrong."
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: VeraeFidei on April 09, 2015, 09:50:23 AM
It's pretty hard to see how in Vatican-speak a new edition of a Missal of the same Rite (according to those who promulgated it) does not ipso facto abrogate the old. The diehards who claim it was never abrogated live in a reality that does not extend beyond their own minds.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Older Salt on April 11, 2015, 07:05:02 AM
Quote from: Jayne on April 08, 2015, 09:58:30 AM
I took the statement that the TLM was never abrogated as a vindication of the trads who had been saying that all along.  Pope Benedict was saying, in effect, "yes you were right all along and all those people who claimed or acted like it was abrogated were wrong."
What would you say about all those good priests who just wanted to offer the TLM exclusively, but their bishops "suspended" them?

If a priest does not need express permission to offer the NO, then he needs no express permission to offer the TLM since, according to Rome, they are the same Mass of the same Rite.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Jayne on April 11, 2015, 08:20:30 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on April 11, 2015, 07:05:02 AM
Quote from: Jayne on April 08, 2015, 09:58:30 AM
I took the statement that the TLM was never abrogated as a vindication of the trads who had been saying that all along.  Pope Benedict was saying, in effect, "yes you were right all along and all those people who claimed or acted like it was abrogated were wrong."
What would you say about all those good priests who just wanted to offer the TLM exclusively, but their bishops "suspended" them?

If a priest does not need express permission to offer the NO, then he needs no express permission to offer the TLM since, according to Rome, they are the same Mass of the same Rite.

A priest does not need express permission to say the TLM.  It does not follow, however, that he has a right to disobey his bishop when told to say the NO. 

On the other hand, I can easily imagine that some priests could not in good conscience say the NO.  They should not have done so. 
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Older Salt on April 12, 2015, 08:54:33 AM
Quote from: Jayne on April 11, 2015, 08:20:30 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on April 11, 2015, 07:05:02 AM
Quote from: Jayne on April 08, 2015, 09:58:30 AM
I took the statement that the TLM was never abrogated as a vindication of the trads who had been saying that all along.  Pope Benedict was saying, in effect, "yes you were right all along and all those people who claimed or acted like it was abrogated were wrong."
What would you say about all those good priests who just wanted to offer the TLM exclusively, but their bishops "suspended" them?

If a priest does not need express permission to offer the NO, then he needs no express permission to offer the TLM since, according to Rome, they are the same Mass of the same Rite.

A priest does not need express permission to say the TLM.  It does not follow, however, that he has a right to disobey his bishop when told to say the NO. 

On the other hand, I can easily imagine that some priests could not in good conscience say the NO.  They should not have done so.
Yes it does follow since those priests who do not offer the NO realize that it is a protestanized service that does much to ruin the Faith and Faith ALWAYS is over obedience.
It is the Bishop who is being dis-obedient to the Catholic Church and 2000 years of organic development in the liturgy rather than Catholic priests who exclusively want to offer the TLM for souls sake.
Case in point, Fr Michael Rodriguez, a good and holy priest, who only wants souls to be saved, will not offer the NO even though His Ordinary is ordering him to.

It does follow since every priest who does not offer the NO does not do so out of a well formed conscience.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Prayerful on April 12, 2015, 02:28:39 PM
I wonder whether Pope Francis has the ambition of seducing the SSPX in to the NO Babylon. There would be a coverage of traditional chapels, together with a few priestly societies, which would give an opportunity to withdraw Indult Masses as there would be sufficient priestly society chapels offering it. Maybe.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Jayne on April 12, 2015, 03:15:54 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on April 12, 2015, 08:54:33 AM
Quote from: Jayne on April 11, 2015, 08:20:30 AM
A priest does not need express permission to say the TLM.  It does not follow, however, that he has a right to disobey his bishop when told to say the NO. 

On the other hand, I can easily imagine that some priests could not in good conscience say the NO.  They should not have done so.
Yes it does follow since those priests who do not offer the NO realize that it is a protestanized service that does much to ruin the Faith and Faith ALWAYS is over obedience.
It is the Bishop who is being dis-obedient to the Catholic Church and 2000 years of organic development in the liturgy rather than Catholic priests who exclusively want to offer the TLM for souls sake.
Case in point, Fr Michael Rodriguez, a good and holy priest, who only wants souls to be saved, will not offer the NO even though His Ordinary is ordering him to.

From the priest's perspective, he should not say the NO because he cannot do so in good conscience.  Nevertheless, from the bishop's perspective, this is a disobedient priest against whom sanctions should be taken.  The bishop's actions are guided by his own understanding of what is right and wrong, not by the priest's.  In such a situation, the priest suffers for doing good and will be blessed by God for it.

Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: aquinas138 on April 12, 2015, 03:46:06 PM
I have to join the chorus of those who think the idea that the TLM was "never abrogated" is preposterous; by some clever sophistry (and a papal letter), it can now be claimed that it was "never abrogated," but it manifestly was, as the sad story of so many clergy and laity, who only wanted to be Catholic as that was always understood, tells quite clearly. When Pope Paul promulgated the new missal in Missale Romanum, he speaks about it as a revision of the Roman Missal, and says he wishes that "Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by Our predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation," which seems to take care of Quo primum. We can quibble about the language, but it was obviously understood to suppress the TLM by the very fact that indults were required to say the TLM. An "in principle" right to say the TLM is pretty worthless if you cannot do so "in reality."
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: VeraeFidei on April 12, 2015, 04:02:55 PM
Quote from: aquinas138 on April 12, 2015, 03:46:06 PM
I have to join the chorus of those who think the idea that the TLM was "never abrogated" is preposterous; by some clever sophistry (and a papal letter), it can now be claimed that it was "never abrogated," but it manifestly was, as the sad story of so many clergy and laity, who only wanted to be Catholic as that was always understood, tells quite clearly. When Pope Paul promulgated the new missal in Missale Romanum, he speaks about it as a revision of the Roman Missal, and says he wishes that "Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by Our predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation," which seems to take care of Quo primum. We can quibble about the language, but it was obviously understood to suppress the TLM by the very fact that indults were required to say the TLM. An "in principle" right to say the TLM is pretty worthless if you cannot do so "in reality."

This. Well said.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Prayerful on April 12, 2015, 04:28:28 PM
Perhaps Pope Benedict meant it was not validly or rightly abrogated, as it was patently abrogated on a de-facto basis, but that doesn't really hold, and would not be sensible for a NO Pope to even imply. Pope Paul VI wanted the NO Mass to wholly supersede the Mass, barring rare exceptions, and did what was required in his office as Pope.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Older Salt on April 13, 2015, 08:52:44 AM
Quote from: Jayne on April 12, 2015, 03:15:54 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on April 12, 2015, 08:54:33 AM
Quote from: Jayne on April 11, 2015, 08:20:30 AM
A priest does not need express permission to say the TLM.  It does not follow, however, that he has a right to disobey his bishop when told to say the NO. 

On the other hand, I can easily imagine that some priests could not in good conscience say the NO.  They should not have done so.
Yes it does follow since those priests who do not offer the NO realize that it is a protestanized service that does much to ruin the Faith and Faith ALWAYS is over obedience.
It is the Bishop who is being dis-obedient to the Catholic Church and 2000 years of organic development in the liturgy rather than Catholic priests who exclusively want to offer the TLM for souls sake.
Case in point, Fr Michael Rodriguez, a good and holy priest, who only wants souls to be saved, will not offer the NO even though His Ordinary is ordering him to.

From the priest's perspective, he should not say the NO because he cannot do so in good conscience.  Nevertheless, from the bishop's perspective, this is a disobedient priest against whom sanctions should be taken.  The bishop's actions are guided by his own understanding of what is right and wrong, not by the priest's.  In such a situation, the priest suffers for doing good and will be blessed by God for it.
Yes I agree.
Even if an bishop suspends a priest, who out of good conscience exclusively offers the TLM, that priest will be blessed by God for doing so.
Yes.
I understand your point.
Thank you.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Xavier on April 13, 2015, 09:19:27 AM
A solid case can be made that Pope St. Pius V's decree is irreformable. But it is enough to show that many Cardinals close to Pope Paul VI after a study concluded that the true Mass was never banned, as if that was possible. It was a massive deception, wrought by a chosen few in high posts in the Church, including Bugnini, whose desire to pretend the Mass was abrogated was turned down.

"The commission judged the conditions for the 1984 indult too restrictive and proposed their relaxation. These conclusions served as functional guidelines for the Commission Ecclesia Dei, but they were never promulgated. In this context, it should be noted that the Holy See does recognize the right of the priest to celebrate the traditional Mass; this is borne out by the fact that whenever priests are unjustly suspended for celebrating the Old Mass against the will of their bishops, the Roman Curia always nullifies the penalty whenever the cases are appealed. It is the present jurisprudence of the Church that, upon appeal, any suspension that an Ordinary attempts to inflict on a priest for celebrating the Old Mass against the will of the bishop is automatically nullified."

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7729

And this is from the Remnant a few years ago, "And it was none other than Bugnini who revealed in his posthumously published autobiography that when he attempted to obtain a definitive declaration from the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts that Paul VI had abrogated and forbidden the traditional Latin Mass merely by announcing the publication of his own Missal in the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969), he was rebuffed with a reply from the Secretariat of State that such a declaration would be seen as "casting odium on the liturgical Tradition."9 Even the further "Notification" of October 28, 1974, another Bugnini document, did not declare abrogation of the traditional Mass, and thus, as Bugnini put it, "did not suffice to do away with the difficulties."10  Less than a year later, Bugnini was sacked and his congregation dissolved, almost immediately after Paul VI was given a dossier purportedly documenting Bugnini's Masonic affiliations, as Bugnini himself disclosed."

So, the beginning of the end of the revolution is the admission that Pope St. Pius V's decree remains valid and that all priests without the slightest "scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully" may offer the true Mass, that no one can be made to offer Mass "otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force" so that no one is obliged to offer any Mass other than that of St. Pius V, not only priests, but even bishops and Cardinals. Conservative and semi-traditional priests should take note and have the courage, as SSPX and other traditional priests have done, to make the principled decision to offer the true Mass exclusively without any scruple, knowing any attempted censure will be unjust and invalid.


Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: aquinas138 on April 13, 2015, 12:27:18 PM
Quote from: Xavier on April 13, 2015, 09:19:27 AM
A solid case can be made that Pope St. Pius V's decree is irreformable.

This is not really true. The solemn language at the end of Quo primum is boilerplate basically saying that the decree doesn't have an expiration date; a pope cannot bind a successor with respect to ecclesiastical law, since each pope holds supreme power in this regard. Furthermore, the solemn language at the end of Quo primum is basically the same as the saintly pontiff's decree Quod a nobis, promulgating the Roman Breviary, yet the Breviary was tinkered with for centuries (just like the Missal), and finally radically reshaped by St. Pius X in Divino Afflatu - a decree with the same boilerplate attached.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: OSB Melitensis on April 13, 2015, 01:19:16 PM
Quote from: Xavier on April 13, 2015, 09:19:27 AM
A solid case can be made that Pope St. Pius V's decree is irreformable. But it is enough to show that many Cardinals close to Pope Paul VI after a study concluded that the true Mass was never banned, as if that was possible. It was a massive deception, wrought by a chosen few in high posts in the Church, including Bugnini, whose desire to pretend the Mass was abrogated was turned down.

"The commission judged the conditions for the 1984 indult too restrictive and proposed their relaxation. These conclusions served as functional guidelines for the Commission Ecclesia Dei, but they were never promulgated. In this context, it should be noted that the Holy See does recognize the right of the priest to celebrate the traditional Mass; this is borne out by the fact that whenever priests are unjustly suspended for celebrating the Old Mass against the will of their bishops, the Roman Curia always nullifies the penalty whenever the cases are appealed. It is the present jurisprudence of the Church that, upon appeal, any suspension that an Ordinary attempts to inflict on a priest for celebrating the Old Mass against the will of the bishop is automatically nullified."

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7729

And this is from the Remnant a few years ago, "And it was none other than Bugnini who revealed in his posthumously published autobiography that when he attempted to obtain a definitive declaration from the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts that Paul VI had abrogated and forbidden the traditional Latin Mass merely by announcing the publication of his own Missal in the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969), he was rebuffed with a reply from the Secretariat of State that such a declaration would be seen as "casting odium on the liturgical Tradition."9 Even the further "Notification" of October 28, 1974, another Bugnini document, did not declare abrogation of the traditional Mass, and thus, as Bugnini put it, "did not suffice to do away with the difficulties."10  Less than a year later, Bugnini was sacked and his congregation dissolved, almost immediately after Paul VI was given a dossier purportedly documenting Bugnini's Masonic affiliations, as Bugnini himself disclosed."

So, the beginning of the end of the revolution is the admission that Pope St. Pius V's decree remains valid and that all priests without the slightest "scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully" may offer the true Mass, that no one can be made to offer Mass "otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force" so that no one is obliged to offer any Mass other than that of St. Pius V, not only priests, but even bishops and Cardinals. Conservative and semi-traditional priests should take note and have the courage, as SSPX and other traditional priests have done, to make the principled decision to offer the true Mass exclusively without any scruple, knowing any attempted censure will be unjust and invalid.

Dr. Eric de Saventhem, FIUV's first President, was instrumental in convincing Pope John Paul II in 1986 to convoke a special Commission of Cardinals (mentioned in the quote, namely: Ratzinger, Mayer, Oddi, Stickler, Casaroli, Gantin, Innocenti, Palazzini and Tomko). An interesting interview that he held with Archbishop Lefebvre follows:

http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-historical-interview-from-first-fiuv.html (http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-historical-interview-from-first-fiuv.html)

And, Bugnini, famous for how he played with words ... and worse:

http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2011/09/archbishop-annibale-bugnini-on-novus.html (http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2011/09/archbishop-annibale-bugnini-on-novus.html)
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Jayne on April 13, 2015, 02:05:26 PM
Quote from: OSB Melitensis on April 13, 2015, 01:19:16 PM
Dr. Eric de Saventhem, FIUV's first President, was instrumental in convincing Pope John Paul II in 1986 to convoke a special Commission of Cardinals (mentioned in the quote, namely: Ratzinger, Mayer, Oddi, Stickler, Casaroli, Gantin, Innocenti, Palazzini and Tomko). An interesting interview that he held with Archbishop Lefebvre follows:

http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-historical-interview-from-first-fiuv.html (http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-historical-interview-from-first-fiuv.html)

Thanks for this.  It was fascinating. I really liked this comment of ABL: "I accept everything that, in the Council and its reforms, is in full agreement with Tradition."  This is such a good way to express the position that I want to use it myself when I have the opportunity.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Kaesekopf on April 13, 2015, 02:15:37 PM
Quote from: Jayne on April 13, 2015, 02:05:26 PM
Quote from: OSB Melitensis on April 13, 2015, 01:19:16 PM
Dr. Eric de Saventhem, FIUV's first President, was instrumental in convincing Pope John Paul II in 1986 to convoke a special Commission of Cardinals (mentioned in the quote, namely: Ratzinger, Mayer, Oddi, Stickler, Casaroli, Gantin, Innocenti, Palazzini and Tomko). An interesting interview that he held with Archbishop Lefebvre follows:

http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-historical-interview-from-first-fiuv.html (http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-historical-interview-from-first-fiuv.html)

Thanks for this.  It was fascinating. I really liked this comment of ABL: "I accept everything that, in the Council and its reforms, is in full agreement with Tradition."  This is such a good way to express the position that I want to use it myself when I have the opportunity.

Isn't that what +Fellay says nowadays and gets roasted over?
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Jayne on April 13, 2015, 02:19:02 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on April 13, 2015, 02:15:37 PM
Quote from: Jayne on April 13, 2015, 02:05:26 PM
Thanks for this.  It was fascinating. I really liked this comment of ABL: "I accept everything that, in the Council and its reforms, is in full agreement with Tradition."  This is such a good way to express the position that I want to use it myself when I have the opportunity.

Isn't that what +Fellay says nowadays and gets roasted over?

I have the impression that some people have made up their minds to be displeased with Bishop Fellay, no matter what.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Prayerful on April 13, 2015, 02:24:45 PM
Pope Benedict should have considered a career in stand up comedy now that he is Pope Emeritus. His talents are wasted.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Jayne on April 13, 2015, 03:00:57 PM
Quote from: Prayerful on April 13, 2015, 02:24:45 PM
Pope Benedict should have considered a career in stand up comedy now that he is Pope Emeritus. His talents are wasted.

I don't think he was being funny or disregarding the suffering of people caused by the de facto abrogation of the TLM.  He was refuting people like Bugnini who claimed that it was abrogated in order to justify suppressing it.  This was Pope Benedict's acknowledgement that Bugnini et al. were wrong.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Baldrick on April 13, 2015, 05:49:52 PM
Depends on what is meant by the TLM, doesn't it? 

I mean if you say the "Latin Mass, Extraordinary Form" etc. then perhaps that's true. 

But if we're talking about the Mass (or any Mass) that pre-dates the 1962 Missal, if it was never abrogated then why is does one have to go to a Sede Parish to find it? 
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Jayne on April 13, 2015, 07:13:05 PM
Here is an article http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2013/07/04/holy-tridentine-mass-was-never-juridically-abrogated/ (http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2013/07/04/holy-tridentine-mass-was-never-juridically-abrogated/) that positively views the statement that the TLM was never abrogated. It is a good thing that Pope Benedict said it.
QuoteWhy?  Because it will give us traditional catholics rights that God has given to us to have the Tridentine Mass which authorities of the church have un-lawfully taken away.  We will no longer be the begging dog for crumbs but children of God treated with respect when it comes to our God given right to have the Holy Tridentine Mass once again.

The article also cites one by Christopher Ferrara that has a similar perspective: http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-0630-ferrara-neo-catholic-fanaticism.htm (http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-0630-ferrara-neo-catholic-fanaticism.htm) This is the sort of reaction to this topic that I expect from trads and I found all the negative comments in this thread a bit odd.

Anyhow, Fr. Carota gives lots of historical detail useful for understanding the issue.  I especially liked this quote from pre-papacy Cardinal Ratzinger:
QuoteFor fostering a true consciousness in liturgical matters, it is also important that the proscription against the form of liturgy in valid use up to 1970 should be lifted. Anyone who nowadays advocates the continuing existence of this liturgy or takes part in it is treated like a leper; all tolerance ends here. There has never been anything like this in history; in doing this we are despising and proscribing the Church's whole past. How can one trust her present if things are that way? I must say, quite openly, that I don't understand why so many of my episcopal brethren have to a great extent submitted to this rule of intolerance, which for no apparent reason is opposed to making the necessary inner reconciliations within the Church. (Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World: A Conversation with Peter Seewald, Ignatius Press, 2002, p. 416)."
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: OSB Melitensis on April 14, 2015, 12:58:44 AM
Quote from: Jayne on April 13, 2015, 02:05:26 PM
Quote from: OSB Melitensis on April 13, 2015, 01:19:16 PM
Dr. Eric de Saventhem, FIUV's first President, was instrumental in convincing Pope John Paul II in 1986 to convoke a special Commission of Cardinals (mentioned in the quote, namely: Ratzinger, Mayer, Oddi, Stickler, Casaroli, Gantin, Innocenti, Palazzini and Tomko). An interesting interview that he held with Archbishop Lefebvre follows:

http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-historical-interview-from-first-fiuv.html (http://pro-tridentina-malta.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-historical-interview-from-first-fiuv.html)

Thanks for this.  It was fascinating. I really liked this comment of ABL: "I accept everything that, in the Council and its reforms, is in full agreement with Tradition."  This is such a good way to express the position that I want to use it myself when I have the opportunity.

You're welcome  :)
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: OSB Melitensis on April 14, 2015, 01:05:21 AM
Quote from: Prayerful on April 13, 2015, 02:24:45 PM
Pope Benedict should have considered a career in stand up comedy now that he is Pope Emeritus. His talents are wasted.

In fairness to Benedict XVI, this is what Bishop Williamson had to say:

http://godwinxuereb.blogspot.com/2014/10/cardinal-ratzinger-on-his-conscience.html (http://godwinxuereb.blogspot.com/2014/10/cardinal-ratzinger-on-his-conscience.html)
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: VeraeFidei on April 14, 2015, 07:21:45 PM
Quote from: aquinas138 on April 13, 2015, 12:27:18 PM
Quote from: Xavier on April 13, 2015, 09:19:27 AM
A solid case can be made that Pope St. Pius V's decree is irreformable.

This is not really true. The solemn language at the end of Quo primum is boilerplate basically saying that the decree doesn't have an expiration date; a pope cannot bind a successor with respect to ecclesiastical law, since each pope holds supreme power in this regard. Furthermore, the solemn language at the end of Quo primum is basically the same as the saintly pontiff's decree Quod a nobis, promulgating the Roman Breviary, yet the Breviary was tinkered with for centuries (just like the Missal), and finally radically reshaped by St. Pius X in Divino Afflatu - a decree with the same boilerplate attached.
This. Anyone who defends the "Mass of All Times" as synonymous with the 1962 Rite and would reign down hell fire onto Paul VI for daring to violate Pius V's sacrosanct Bull better have the same hell fire ready for Pope Saint Pius X, who dared to violate Pius V's sacrosanct language of his promulgation of the Tridentine Breviary in 1568. Otherwise, to be nice: Can It.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Mattock on April 15, 2015, 03:42:21 PM
Quote from: aquinas138 on April 13, 2015, 12:27:18 PM
Quote from: Xavier on April 13, 2015, 09:19:27 AM
A solid case can be made that Pope St. Pius V's decree is irreformable.

This is not really true. The solemn language at the end of Quo primum is boilerplate basically saying that the decree doesn't have an expiration date; a pope cannot bind a successor with respect to ecclesiastical law, since each pope holds supreme power in this regard. Furthermore, the solemn language at the end of Quo primum is basically the same as the saintly pontiff's decree Quod a nobis, promulgating the Roman Breviary, yet the Breviary was tinkered with for centuries (just like the Missal), and finally radically reshaped by St. Pius X in Divino Afflatu - a decree with the same boilerplate attached.

But the Breviary isn't a sacrament. Quo Primum has never been abrogated and the boilerplate, as you put it, on it covers matters pertaining to the Faith. Matters of faith and morals are irreformable once solemnly defined by a pope. The Breviary is actually, strictly speaking, a discipline. Little rubrics of the Mass can change and have changed. But the Mass qua Mass? Not even by the Pope. The Faith is not the Pope's private sandbox. I should also point out that all the previous popes to change the Missal in the least way felt bound by Quo Primum. Look up some talks by the late Father Hesse; he covers this very clearly.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: VeraeFidei on April 15, 2015, 10:20:43 PM
Quote from: Mattock on April 15, 2015, 03:42:21 PM
Quote from: aquinas138 on April 13, 2015, 12:27:18 PM
Quote from: Xavier on April 13, 2015, 09:19:27 AM
A solid case can be made that Pope St. Pius V's decree is irreformable.

This is not really true. The solemn language at the end of Quo primum is boilerplate basically saying that the decree doesn't have an expiration date; a pope cannot bind a successor with respect to ecclesiastical law, since each pope holds supreme power in this regard. Furthermore, the solemn language at the end of Quo primum is basically the same as the saintly pontiff's decree Quod a nobis, promulgating the Roman Breviary, yet the Breviary was tinkered with for centuries (just like the Missal), and finally radically reshaped by St. Pius X in Divino Afflatu - a decree with the same boilerplate attached.

But the Breviary isn't a sacrament. Quo Primum has never been abrogated and the boilerplate, as you put it, on it covers matters pertaining to the Faith. Matters of faith and morals are irreformable once solemnly defined by a pope. The Breviary is actually, strictly speaking, a discipline. Little rubrics of the Mass can change and have changed. But the Mass qua Mass? Not even my the Pope. The Faith is not the Pope's private sandbox. I should also point out that all the previous popes to change the Missal in the least way felt bound by Quo Primum. Look up some talks by the late Father Hesse; he covers this very clearly.
Good heavens, if this is not a disastrously flawed understanding of the public prayer of the Church, I do not know what would be. Also, I don't think Pius XII felt all that bound by Quo Primum when he demolished the Traditional Rites of the holiest days of the year and thus some of the most ancient and venerable Rites of Rome. Where in the hell is your condemnation of him?
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Mattock on April 15, 2015, 10:43:53 PM
Pius XII erred when he made those changes. What particular statement is so disastrous? What a pope can do and what a pope should do might well be different things. The faithful should not enable these errors by their silence.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: aquinas138 on April 16, 2015, 05:07:43 AM
Quote from: Mattock on April 15, 2015, 03:42:21 PM
Quote from: aquinas138 on April 13, 2015, 12:27:18 PM
Quote from: Xavier on April 13, 2015, 09:19:27 AM
A solid case can be made that Pope St. Pius V's decree is irreformable.

This is not really true. The solemn language at the end of Quo primum is boilerplate basically saying that the decree doesn't have an expiration date; a pope cannot bind a successor with respect to ecclesiastical law, since each pope holds supreme power in this regard. Furthermore, the solemn language at the end of Quo primum is basically the same as the saintly pontiff's decree Quod a nobis, promulgating the Roman Breviary, yet the Breviary was tinkered with for centuries (just like the Missal), and finally radically reshaped by St. Pius X in Divino Afflatu - a decree with the same boilerplate attached.

But the Breviary isn't a sacrament. Quo Primum has never been abrogated and the boilerplate, as you put it, on it covers matters pertaining to the Faith. Matters of faith and morals are irreformable once solemnly defined by a pope. The Breviary is actually, strictly speaking, a discipline. Little rubrics of the Mass can change and have changed. But the Mass qua Mass? Not even by the Pope. The Faith is not the Pope's private sandbox. I should also point out that all the previous popes to change the Missal in the least way felt bound by Quo Primum. Look up some talks by the late Father Hesse; he covers this very clearly.

It is arguable that the Mass qua Mass has really changed if we are reducing it down to the barest level of "sacrament vs. not-sacrament" - in that case each and every part of the Mass apart from the words of Institution is, strictly speaking, a discipline. The NO retains the words of Institution (Mysterium Fidei, of course, being displaced); thus the form of the sacrament remains, and assuming valid matter and intent, the sacrament remains.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Mattock on April 16, 2015, 01:50:02 PM
Quote from: aquinas138 on April 16, 2015, 05:07:43 AM
Quote from: Mattock on April 15, 2015, 03:42:21 PM
Quote from: aquinas138 on April 13, 2015, 12:27:18 PM
Quote from: Xavier on April 13, 2015, 09:19:27 AM
A solid case can be made that Pope St. Pius V's decree is irreformable.

This is not really true. The solemn language at the end of Quo primum is boilerplate basically saying that the decree doesn't have an expiration date; a pope cannot bind a successor with respect to ecclesiastical law, since each pope holds supreme power in this regard. Furthermore, the solemn language at the end of Quo primum is basically the same as the saintly pontiff's decree Quod a nobis, promulgating the Roman Breviary, yet the Breviary was tinkered with for centuries (just like the Missal), and finally radically reshaped by St. Pius X in Divino Afflatu - a decree with the same boilerplate attached.

But the Breviary isn't a sacrament. Quo Primum has never been abrogated and the boilerplate, as you put it, on it covers matters pertaining to the Faith. Matters of faith and morals are irreformable once solemnly defined by a pope. The Breviary is actually, strictly speaking, a discipline. Little rubrics of the Mass can change and have changed. But the Mass qua Mass? Not even by the Pope. The Faith is not the Pope's private sandbox. I should also point out that all the previous popes to change the Missal in the least way felt bound by Quo Primum. Look up some talks by the late Father Hesse; he covers this very clearly.

It is arguable that the Mass qua Mass has really changed if we are reducing it down to the barest level of "sacrament vs. not-sacrament" - in that case each and every part of the Mass apart from the words of Institution is, strictly speaking, a discipline. The NO retains the words of Institution (Mysterium Fidei, of course, being displaced); thus the form of the sacrament remains, and assuming valid matter and intent, the sacrament remains.

Yes, the sacrament remains in the NO Missal, but the threshold of what the Church's indefectibility can bear is crossed somewhere before a change to the actual form and matter. One could imagine a "liturgy" that included invocations of Shiva and that placed Gandhi and Luther in the Canon. Such a liturgy could not be legally promulgated by the Pope even if it retained the proper words of institution. The measure for the orthodoxy of a liturgy used to be how traditional it was, not whether or not the minimal form to confect the sacrament was retained. But so here we are in the aftermath of the Pauline "reforms."

Take the so called Canon of Hippolytus -- the Second Eucharistic Prayer. This isn't really what Saint Hippolytus actually wrote. Anything from the already dubiously translated original that may have offended modern or Protestant ears, despite its clear orthodoxy and pious poetry, was excised to form the basic core of the otherwise freely fabricated Eucharistic Prayer II. (Why the Church should show preference to a Third Century schismatic's idle musings is beyond me anyway. I suppose what they really needed was a minimalistic Eucharist Prayer that could aid their apostate "ecumenical" work.)

And here we are just treating on the Latin Missal. How the Mass is actually said in the numberless approved translations of the New Order Missal (cringe) is an even more precarious land to trek. In most of the prominent Western languages the Words of Institution did indeed change -- though they did not apparently verge off into a genuine defect of form. That we even need to have these conversations would have terrified Catholic theologians and bishops of generations past.

I see the reforms of Paul VI and the Consilium like a man standing at a cliff overlooking an infinite chasm, peering over the edge as bits of rock break off around his feet falling down into the void. That abyss is what is prevented by the indefectibility of Christ's Church, and the Consilium merrily danced all over the edge. The Pauline Missal was a great example of tempting God.

But let's get back to the heart of this thread. If the TLM was never, in fact, abrogated -- which is now the teaching of the Church by way of the only man really with the power to rule authoritatively on the subject -- then Quo primum is still the law of the Church. If Paul VI wished to abrogate it, he would have to try to bring the Keys to bear on it. Instead he just ignored it. This also means that the persecution of Archbishop Lefebvre was entirely unjust and indeed one if the greatest travesties of justice in Vatican history. The center of that whole struggle was about whether or not the Society could use the Old Missal. If the current law was still Quo primum then, damn, just, wow. The Conciliar Vatican has been playing so fast and loose with Church law that some of the most central concerns of Catholicism are unaddressed and the Vatican will appear to remain silent on them for eternity. Why should we be surprised; the Modernist's took control of the Vatican sometime in the late Fifties or early Sixties.

We, as Catholics, are ordered, adjured by Christ and His apostles, to hold to the Faith as we received it. While the New Missal can perhaps be used from within a framework consonant with the Apostolic Faith, the spirit that is behind the very origin and orientation of that missal are not. Paul VI had to even defend its very orthodoxy as it was quite questionable. This autodemolition of the Roman Rite must be resisted. We are but laymen. At this point we must commend the restoration of the Church to God. Christ has not, and never will, abandon His Bride, just as Christ will never abandon any one of us. Even though it sure feels like it at times.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: VeraeFidei on April 17, 2015, 01:54:01 PM
Quote from: Mattock on April 15, 2015, 10:43:53 PM
Pius XII erred when he made those changes. What particular statement is so disastrous? What a pope can do and what a pope should do might well be different things. The faithful should not enable these errors by their silence.
If Pius XII did not violate Quo Primum by changing Holy Week, the calendar, so many rubrics and traditions about Feasts, suppressing so many Octaves, and so forth and so on, then by God, Quo Primum would be prima facie un-violateable.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Christopher McAvoy on April 20, 2015, 10:15:25 PM
Not only has the Tridentine "Roman Use" of the Roman Rite never been abrogated - neither has the Salisbury use of 16th c. England, which is why I hope someday it too may once again- along with the traditional dominican and carmelite uses that it closely resembles - be a normal part of our patrimony, especially in the english speaking world.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Bonaventure on April 20, 2015, 10:36:59 PM
Quote from: VeraeFidei on April 17, 2015, 01:54:01 PM
Quote from: Mattock on April 15, 2015, 10:43:53 PM
Pius XII erred when he made those changes. What particular statement is so disastrous? What a pope can do and what a pope should do might well be different things. The faithful should not enable these errors by their silence.
If Pius XII did not violate Quo Primum by changing Holy Week, the calendar, so many rubrics and traditions about Feasts, suppressing so many Octaves, and so forth and so on, then by God, Quo Primum would be prima facie un-violateable.


Matt, those changes are ill-timed, unwise, but not illicit.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Mattock on April 21, 2015, 12:43:54 AM
Quote from: Bonaventure on April 20, 2015, 10:36:59 PM
Quote from: VeraeFidei on April 17, 2015, 01:54:01 PM
Quote from: Mattock on April 15, 2015, 10:43:53 PM
Pius XII erred when he made those changes. What particular statement is so disastrous? What a pope can do and what a pope should do might well be different things. The faithful should not enable these errors by their silence.
If Pius XII did not violate Quo Primum by changing Holy Week, the calendar, so many rubrics and traditions about Feasts, suppressing so many Octaves, and so forth and so on, then by God, Quo Primum would be prima facie un-violateable.


Matt, those changes are ill-timed, unwise, but not illicit.
Fully agreed. My choice of the word "erred" was unclear. "Erred" morally but not legally. The Pauline Missal appears to be the beginning of the clear legal aberration. For the life of me, I am genuinely uncertain about the true legal status of the NOM. It's a complete novelty and was "promulgated" in a ambiguous fashion. I don't want to be obscurantist about legal matters, but I hate the way the VII popes simply imply things instead of ordering them. It creates these kind of controversies. :very pissed:
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: Prayerful on April 21, 2015, 03:34:25 AM
The Novus Ordo-ists have an invincible pride that makes it impossible for them to ever tolerate the Mass as anything other than a minority activity. Some day the Masonic NO service will be suppressed, but it will be a long time coming. The NO service was published in Latin, Pope Francis said it in Latin in Korea, I believe. TLM is ropey usage even if people know what it means.

In a marginal way the Mass was never suppressed as Pope Paul VI did provide indults, and gradually it did become accessible down to the present where it's mostly no more than a car journey away. That is something for which the holy Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre must be thanked.
Title: Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
Post by: VeraeFidei on April 21, 2015, 02:55:15 PM
Quote from: Bonaventure on April 20, 2015, 10:36:59 PM
Quote from: VeraeFidei on April 17, 2015, 01:54:01 PM
Quote from: Mattock on April 15, 2015, 10:43:53 PM
Pius XII erred when he made those changes. What particular statement is so disastrous? What a pope can do and what a pope should do might well be different things. The faithful should not enable these errors by their silence.
If Pius XII did not violate Quo Primum by changing Holy Week, the calendar, so many rubrics and traditions about Feasts, suppressing so many Octaves, and so forth and so on, then by God, Quo Primum would be prima facie un-violateable.


Matt, those changes are ill-timed, unwise, but not illicit.
How so? They were designed as part of a plan to begin to destroy the Roman liturgy, and that is not some conspiracy theory but the words of the men who compiled the Rites. It is based on a lie that is an utter fabrication (restoring the Rites to as they were in the time of Saints Wilfred & Bede is what the letter promulgating them says). They have no basis in Tradition, the changes; they are at odds with the nature, customs, and history of the Roman Rite. If they were not illicit then the meaning of illicit is pointless.