Can the Papacy bind itself, for example, like in the example of the Quiscumque in Quo Primum?
in what sense ? silence on an issue ?
In any sense.
A pope cannot bind a future pope on disciplinary issues. Infallible teaching (i.e. pertaining to faith or morals), by definition, cannot be contradicted.
Quote from: EliRotello on February 19, 2017, 11:52:21 AM
Can the Papacy bind itself, for example, like in the example of the Quiscumque in Quo Primum?
Pope Saint Pius V evidently thought so, or it would seem he thought so, at least on certain matters like the bloodless sacrifice of the Mass. Yet a Pope maybe introduce or suppress prayers and devotions. Fr Wathen in his Great Sacrilege (http://www.cathinfo.com/TheGreatSacrilegeCI.pdf) considered that the power of a Pope did not extend as far as suppressing the Mass, that
Quo Primum was binding. Fr also mentioned the rather interesting divergence between the Latin of
Missale Romanum which has more of a tone of offering something new to the faithful, and the English translation which had some more imperative language and a specific deadline.
Pius XII's encyclical
Mediator Dei addresses the question of papal authority over liturgy:
Quote49. From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow - keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact - to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.[47]
50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites. Here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times. Hence likewise it happens from time to time that certain devotions long since forgotten are revived and practiced anew. All these developments attest the abiding life of the immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ through these many centuries. They are the sacred language she uses, as the ages run their course, to profess to her divine Spouse her own faith along with that of the nations committed to her charge, and her own unfailing love. They furnish proof, besides, of the wisdom of the teaching method she employs to arouse and nourish constantly the "Christian instinct."
51. Several causes, really have been instrumental in the progress and development of the sacred liturgy during the long and glorious life of the Church.
52. Thus, for example, as Catholic doctrine on the Incarnate Word of God, the eucharistic sacrament and sacrifice, and Mary the Virgin Mother of God came to be determined with greater certitude and clarity, new ritual forms were introduced through which the acts of the liturgy proceeded to reproduce this brighter light issuing from the decrees of the teaching authority of the Church, and to reflect it, in a sense so that it might reach the minds and hearts of Christ's people more readily.
53. The subsequent advances in ecclesiastical discipline for the administering of the sacraments, that of penance for example; the institution and later suppression of the catechumenate; and again, the practice of eucharistic communion under a single species, adopted in the Latin Church; these developments were assuredly responsible in no little measure for the modification of the ancient ritual in the course of time, and for the gradual introduction of new rites considered more in accord with prevailing discipline in these matters.
54. Just as notable a contribution to this progressive transformation was made by devotional trends and practices not directly related to the sacred liturgy, which began to appear, by God's wonderful design, in later periods, and grew to be so popular. We may instance the spread and ever mounting ardor of devotion to the Blessed Eucharist, devotion to the most bitter passion of our Redeemer, devotion to the most Sacred Heart of Jesus, to the Virgin Mother of God and to her most chaste spouse.
55. Other manifestations of piety have also played their circumstantial part in this same liturgical development. Among them may be cited the public pilgrimages to the tombs of the martyrs prompted by motives of devotion, the special periods of fasting instituted for the same reason, and lastly, in this gracious city of Rome, the penitential recitation of the litanies during the "station" processions, in which even the Sovereign Pontiff frequently joined.
56. It is likewise easy to understand that the progress of the fine arts, those of architecture, painting and music above all, has exerted considerable influence on the choice and disposition of the various external features of the sacred liturgy.
57. The Church has further used her right of control over liturgical observance to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches. Thus it came about - during the 16th century, when usages and customs of this sort had become increasingly prevalent and exaggerated, and when private initiative in matters liturgical threatened to compromise the integrity of faith and devotion, to the great advantage of heretics and further spread of their errors - that in the year 1588, Our predecessor Sixtus V of immortal memory established the Sacred Congregation of Rites, charged with the defense of the legitimate rites of the Church and with the prohibition of any spurious innovation.[48] This body fulfills even today the official function of supervision and legislation with regard to all matters touching the sacred liturgy.[49]
58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei.html (http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei.html)
ETA: I question whether this is compatible with Fr. Wathen's opinions.
Quote from: Jayne on February 19, 2017, 04:24:57 PM
Pius XII's encyclical Mediator Dei addresses the question of papal authority over liturgy:
Quote49. From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow - keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact - to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.[47]
50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites. Here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times. Hence likewise it happens from time to time that certain devotions long since forgotten are revived and practiced anew. All these developments attest the abiding life of the immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ through these many centuries. They are the sacred language she uses, as the ages run their course, to profess to her divine Spouse her own faith along with that of the nations committed to her charge, and her own unfailing love. They furnish proof, besides, of the wisdom of the teaching method she employs to arouse and nourish constantly the "Christian instinct."
51. Several causes, really have been instrumental in the progress and development of the sacred liturgy during the long and glorious life of the Church.
52. Thus, for example, as Catholic doctrine on the Incarnate Word of God, the eucharistic sacrament and sacrifice, and Mary the Virgin Mother of God came to be determined with greater certitude and clarity, new ritual forms were introduced through which the acts of the liturgy proceeded to reproduce this brighter light issuing from the decrees of the teaching authority of the Church, and to reflect it, in a sense so that it might reach the minds and hearts of Christ's people more readily.
53. The subsequent advances in ecclesiastical discipline for the administering of the sacraments, that of penance for example; the institution and later suppression of the catechumenate; and again, the practice of eucharistic communion under a single species, adopted in the Latin Church; these developments were assuredly responsible in no little measure for the modification of the ancient ritual in the course of time, and for the gradual introduction of new rites considered more in accord with prevailing discipline in these matters.
54. Just as notable a contribution to this progressive transformation was made by devotional trends and practices not directly related to the sacred liturgy, which began to appear, by God's wonderful design, in later periods, and grew to be so popular. We may instance the spread and ever mounting ardor of devotion to the Blessed Eucharist, devotion to the most bitter passion of our Redeemer, devotion to the most Sacred Heart of Jesus, to the Virgin Mother of God and to her most chaste spouse.
55. Other manifestations of piety have also played their circumstantial part in this same liturgical development. Among them may be cited the public pilgrimages to the tombs of the martyrs prompted by motives of devotion, the special periods of fasting instituted for the same reason, and lastly, in this gracious city of Rome, the penitential recitation of the litanies during the "station" processions, in which even the Sovereign Pontiff frequently joined.
56. It is likewise easy to understand that the progress of the fine arts, those of architecture, painting and music above all, has exerted considerable influence on the choice and disposition of the various external features of the sacred liturgy.
57. The Church has further used her right of control over liturgical observance to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches. Thus it came about - during the 16th century, when usages and customs of this sort had become increasingly prevalent and exaggerated, and when private initiative in matters liturgical threatened to compromise the integrity of faith and devotion, to the great advantage of heretics and further spread of their errors - that in the year 1588, Our predecessor Sixtus V of immortal memory established the Sacred Congregation of Rites, charged with the defense of the legitimate rites of the Church and with the prohibition of any spurious innovation.[48] This body fulfills even today the official function of supervision and legislation with regard to all matters touching the sacred liturgy.[49]
58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei.html (http://w2.vatican.va/c+ontent/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei.html)
ETA: I question whether this is compatible with Fr. Wathen's opinions.
It seems to run contrary, and for all Fr Wathen's fine efforts for Tradition, Ven Pius XII had more standing, most particularly as this was an encyclical not a privately given allocutio or sermon, but I'll doublecheck what Fr wrote. Yet the New Mass seemed to frustrate some of the ends quoted. It is the very opposite of beautiful and was open to every sort of imprudent innovation,
contra 57 and more. The ICEL translation where
pro multis was falsely rendered as 'for all' on the basis of an unfounded pet theory regarding Hebrew, was almost worse than the New Mass (maybe the Latin typical edition or another translation) which +Lefebvre stated 'led to heresy.' It appeared in some parts to have arrived at that dark place. Will check. Although the Conciliar Popes rarely bound anyone infallibly, they seemed to point people towards error, at points. Not even an angel from heaven can direct a Catholic towards error.
Quote from: Jayne on February 19, 2017, 02:32:31 PM
A pope cannot bind a future pope on disciplinary issues. Infallible teaching (i.e. pertaining to faith or morals), by definition, cannot be contradicted.
Pope St. Pius X taught very clearly that the liturgy is not wholly a matter of discipline. He wrote in
Pascendi the following, "Now every society needs a directing authority to guide its members towards the common end, to foster prudently the elements of cohesion, which in a religious society are doctrine and worship. Hence the
triple authority in the Catholic Church,
disciplinary,
dogmatic,
liturgical." http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm
If the liturgy were wholly a matter of discipline, then St. Pius X would have written about the "double authority" in the Catholic Church, and not the "
triple authority."
Catholics are dogmatically bound to adhere to the received approved rites of the Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments (Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 13). John Salza wrote an excellent article on the implications of the Novus Ordo as a new rite of Mass which can be read on his website here http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Catholic%20Tradition/Feature%20-%20The%20Implications%20of%20the%20Novus%20Ordo%20as%20a%20New%20Rite%20of%20Mass.pdf
Fr. Gregory Hesse also did a great job explaining the binding force of Quo Primum. Fr. Hesse's talks on the subject have been put up on YouTube.
Quote from: Prayerful on February 19, 2017, 06:14:35 PM
It seems to run contrary, and for all Fr Wathen's fine efforts for Tradition, Ven Pius XII had more standing, most particularly as this was an encyclical not a privately given allocutio or sermon, but I'll doublecheck what Fr wrote. Yet the New Mass seemed to frustrate some of the ends quoted. It is the very opposite of beautiful and was open to every sort of imprudent innovation, contra 57 and more. The ICEL translation where pro multis was falsely rendered as 'for all' on the basis of an unfounded pet theory regarding Hebrew, was almost worse than the New Mass (maybe the Latin typical edition or another translation) which +Lefebvre stated 'led to heresy.' It appeared in some parts to have arrived at that dark place. Will check. Although the Conciliar Popes rarely bound anyone infallibly, they seemed to point people towards error, at points. Not even an angel from heaven can direct a Catholic towards error.
I think that
Mediator Dei shows that a pope does have authority to make changes to the Mass. So we can't say that there was a lack of authority to promulgate the Novus Ordo. However, that still leaves other serious problems with it, such as what you mention above.
Quote from: Counter Revolutionary on February 19, 2017, 06:14:52 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 19, 2017, 02:32:31 PM
A pope cannot bind a future pope on disciplinary issues. Infallible teaching (i.e. pertaining to faith or morals), by definition, cannot be contradicted.
Pope St. Pius X taught very clearly that the liturgy is not wholly a matter of discipline. He wrote in Pascendi the following, "Now every society needs a directing authority to guide its members towards the common end, to foster prudently the elements of cohesion, which in a religious society are doctrine and worship. Hence the triple authority in the Catholic Church, disciplinary, dogmatic, liturgical." http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm
If the liturgy were wholly a matter of discipline, then St. Pius X would have written about the "double authority" in the Catholic Church, and not the "triple authority."
That's right. Liturgy is not wholly a matter of discipline. I hope you did not misunderstand me to be saying that it was. The passage from
Mediator Dei supports this, in particular:
QuoteThe sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized.
That makes it pretty clear that there are some things about the Mass that can be changed. I think that one of the things that can not be changed is the words necessary for Transubstantiation. But I am not sure what else would be included in unchangeable divine elements.
As for the question of whether
Quo Primum is binding on future popes, it is clear from the text that it is not. It lists those upon whom it is binding:
QuoteWe specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.
Pius V is addressing everyone under his authority. It does not mention future popes because they are not under his authority. It is comparable to the section in
Mediator Dei that says:
QuoteIt follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters...
Both documents are saying that no clergy other than a pope can change the sacred liturgy.
The Dogmatic Council of Trent, Session VII, On the Sacraments, Canon 13:
"If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches, whomsoever, to other new ones, let him be anathema."
Fr. Gregory Hesse:
http://catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/documents.htm
QuoteThe word 'whomsoever' includes the Pope himself, who is the Prime Minister (pastor). Latin: per quem cumque Ecclesiarum Pastorum
"I receive and accept the rites of the Catholic Church which have been received and approved in the solemn administration of all the aforesaid sacraments" – Profession of Faith of Bl. Pius IX at Vatican I
Quote from: Counter Revolutionary on February 19, 2017, 08:45:44 PM
The Dogmatic Council of Trent, Session VII, On the Sacraments, Canon 13:
"If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches, whomsoever, to other new ones, let him be anathema."
Fr. Gregory Hesse:
http://catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/documents.htm
QuoteThe word 'whomsoever' includes the Pope himself, who is the Prime Minister (pastor). Latin: per quem cumque Ecclesiarum Pastorum
"I receive and accept the rites of the Catholic Church which have been received and approved in the solemn administration of all the aforesaid sacraments" – Profession of Faith of Bl. Pius IX at Vatican I
The quote claiming that "whomsoever" includes the Pope himself comes from someone's summary of a talk by Fr. Hesse. The author might not have correctly understood what he heard, so this is not necessarily Fr. Hesse's view. Even if Fr. Hesse actually did say this, I do not see how he could have been right.
Around the same time that Pius V issued
Quo Primum he also issued a Papal Bull regarding the Divine Office and Breviary,
Quod a Nobis, using similar language and forumulae. (I can't find a copy in English but here is a link to the Latin: https://books.google.ca/books?id=-cXYqusIEx8C&dq=breviarium+romanum&pg=PP9&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false (https://books.google.ca/books?id=-cXYqusIEx8C&dq=breviarium+romanum&pg=PP9&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false))
If the Bulls of Pius V were binding on subsequent popes, then Pope St. Pius X had no right to reform the Breviary in 1911.
ETA: I have seen people make the case that the Novus Ordo is a "received and approved" rite of the Church and therefore those who despise it (as many trads do) are disobeying Trent. So perhaps you want to be careful about using this passage.
ETAA: I found a Fr. Hesse video with his views on the subject here:
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8lh59FgURU[/yt]
He did believe that
Quo Primum was binding on later Popes. However he said things in this video that I cannot reconcile with
Mediator Dei and these points were foundational to his argument. I do not see how he could have been right.
Good Fr. Hesse, RIP. Very worthwhile listening; puts the mind at ease.
I'm thinking there are liturgical disciplines that are doctrinal that can't be changed, besides the words of consecration. As an extreme example, I'd think if you put the Mass of the catechumens ('liturgy of the word") after the Canon and communion, it would violate a divinely instituted structure of the Mass. Didn't Christ institute the Mass as having first a penitential rite, readings, a some kind of Eucharistic prayer, communion rite, etc? Not that He actually wrote the original prayers, but there is a fixed structure to the Mass that can't be messed with without violating doctrine.
So I would think a pope can bind a future pope to whatever in the Mass is the divine structure that is doctrine itself. Not sure that would exactly apply to the exact reforms of the prayers and rubrics of the Roman rite promulgated by Pius V. BUT, if the New Mass in anyway deviated in its structure from the divine structure of the Church's traditional rites, then I'd think Paul VI did in a way violate Quo Primum and all the popes.
Quote from: christulsa on February 19, 2017, 09:45:24 PMDidn't Christ institute the Mass as having first a penitential rite, readings, a some kind of Eucharistic prayer, communion rite, etc? Not that He actually wrote the original prayers, but there is a fixed structure to the Mass that can't be messed with without violating doctrine.
I have never heard of anything like this, but there is a lot I don't know. I would be interested if anyone has any information about this.
The New Mass deviated from the Catholic doctrine of the Mass, as it was designed to be a mere commemoration of the Last Supper as it described itself in article #7 of the original GIRM:http://sspx.org/en/ottaviani-intervention
QuoteLet us begin with the definition of the Mass given in n. 7 of the Institutio Generalis at the beginning of the second chapter of the Novus Ordo: De structura Missae:
The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.[4] Thus the promise of Christ, "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them," is eminently true of the local community in the Church" (Mt. 18, 20).
This no longer corresponds with the traditional definition of the Mass as the "Unbloody renewal of the bloody sacrifice of Mt. Calvary". In addition to the suppression of the majority of the prayers that clearly expressed the propitiatory end of the Mass, amounts to the same as its denial:
QuoteThe definition of the Mass is thus limited to that of a "supper," and this term is found constantly repeated (nos. 8, 48, 55d, 56). This "supper" is further characterized as an assembly presided over by the priest and held as a memorial of the Lord, recalling what He did on the first Maundy Thursday. None of this in the very least implies either the Real Presence, or the reality of the sacrifice, or the Sacramental function of the consecrating priest, or the intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independently of the people's presence.[5] It does not, in a word, imply any of the essential dogmatic values of the Mass which together provide its true definition. Here the deliberate omission of these dogmatic values amounts to their having been superseded and therefore, at least in practice, to their denial.[6]
In addition the words of consecration are now termed "recital" of the last supper, a doubt arises as to the virtual intention of the rite to effect the consecration of the species and imperils its validity:
QuoteThe narrative mode is now emphasized by the formula "narratio institutionis" (no. 55d) and repeated by the definition of the anamnesis, in which it is said that "The Church recalls the memory of Christ Himself" (no. 556).
In short: the theory put forward by the epiclesis, the modification of the words of Consecration and of the anamnesis, have the effect of modifying the modus significandi of the words of Consecration. The consecratory formulae are here pronounced by the priest as the constituents of a historical narrative and no longer enunciated as expressing the categorical and affirmative judgment uttered by Him in whose Person the priest acts: "Hoc est Corpus Meum" (not, "Hoc est Corpus Christi").[18]
Footnote 18: 18 The words of Consecration as inserted in the context or the Novus Ordo can be valid by virtue of the minister's intention. They could also not be valid because they are no longer so ex vi verborum, or, more precisely, by virtue of the modus signifcandi they had in the Mass up to the present time.
Will priests of the near future who have not received the traditional formation, and who rely on the Novus Ordo with the intention of "doing what the Church does" consecrate validly? One may be allowed to doubt it.
Quote from: Jayne on February 19, 2017, 10:07:03 PM
Quote from: christulsa on February 19, 2017, 09:45:24 PMDidn't Christ institute the Mass as having first a penitential rite, readings, a some kind of Eucharistic prayer, communion rite, etc? Not that He actually wrote the original prayers, but there is a fixed structure to the Mass that can't be messed with without violating doctrine.
I have never heard of anything like this, but there is a lot I don't know. I would be interested if anyone has any information about this.
I was just thinking out loud. It seems that since Christ instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice, He would have explicitly instituted more than the words of consecration as parts of its structure, but I may well be wrong. Perhaps He left it up entirely to the Apostles to decide the basic structure of the Mass that all traditional rites share. That or the basic structure is a matter of revelation--doctrine--simply revealed later to the Apostles by the Holy Ghost through the form of Sacred Tradition. Again, I'm just thinking out loud. My point being that maybe there is a certain structure to the Mass that is itself not just a matter of discipline but doctrine, handed down by the popes. And a pope is tightly bound to that structure when approving a new rite.
Quote from: Jayne on February 19, 2017, 09:24:41 PM
Quote from: Counter Revolutionary on February 19, 2017, 08:45:44 PM
The Dogmatic Council of Trent, Session VII, On the Sacraments, Canon 13:
"If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches, whomsoever, to other new ones, let him be anathema."
Fr. Gregory Hesse:
http://catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/documents.htm
QuoteThe word 'whomsoever' includes the Pope himself, who is the Prime Minister (pastor). Latin: per quem cumque Ecclesiarum Pastorum
"I receive and accept the rites of the Catholic Church which have been received and approved in the solemn administration of all the aforesaid sacraments" – Profession of Faith of Bl. Pius IX at Vatican I
The quote claiming that "whomsoever" includes the Pope himself comes from someone's summary of a talk by Fr. Hesse. The author might not have correctly understood what he heard, so this is not necessarily Fr. Hesse's view. Even if Fr. Hesse actually did say this, I do not see how he could have been right.
Around the same time that Pius V issued Quo Primum he also issued a Papal Bull regarding the Divine Office and Breviary, Quod a Nobis, using similar language and forumulae. (I can't find a copy in English but here is a link to the Latin: https://books.google.ca/books?id=-cXYqusIEx8C&dq=breviarium+romanum&pg=PP9&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false (https://books.google.ca/books?id=-cXYqusIEx8C&dq=breviarium+romanum&pg=PP9&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false))
If the Bulls of Pius V were binding on subsequent popes, then Pope St. Pius X had no right to reform the Breviary in 1911.
ETA: I have seen people make the case that the Novus Ordo is a "received and approved" rite of the Church and therefore those who despise it (as many trads do) are disobeying Trent. So perhaps you want to be careful about using this passage.
ETAA: I found a Fr. Hesse video with his views on the subject here:
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8lh59FgURU[/yt]
He did believe that Quo Primum was binding on later Popes. However he said things in this video that I cannot reconcile with Mediator Dei and these points were foundational to his argument. I do not see how he could have been right.
Thank you for the breviary mention. What PX did to the office is in some ways similar to the 60s...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Quote from: Elizabeth on February 19, 2017, 09:25:09 PM
Good Fr. Hesse, RIP. Very worthwhile listening; puts the mind at ease.
I am not questioning that Fr. Hesse was a devout and learned man, but his opinions do not have greater authority than a papal encyclical. In the video that I found, his main argument for claiming that
Quo Primumwas binding on subsequent popes was not consistent with
Mediator Dei. He acknowledged the basic principle that I stated above, that popes cannot bind later popes in matters of discipline, only in teaching on faith and morals. Fr. Hesse then claimed that the Mass must be treated as a whole and that this whole is a matter of faith, i.e. something unchageable. But this premise is practically the opposite of what Pius XII said in his encyclical, that the Mass is made of both divine and human elements and the latter are changeable. Perhaps someone who is familiar with Fr. Hesse's videos can point me to one in which he explains how to reconcile his views with
Mediator Dei.
Personally, I do not see how it is possible to both accept that encyclical and claim that
Quo Primum is binding on future popes. I am not alone in thinking this. Here is an excerpt from a Tradition in Action article (for all their faults, one cannot accuse them of being NO apologists):
QuoteYou affirmed that Mediator Dei contradicts Quo primum. We don't agree with this simplistic charge.
In theology and theodicy there is a definition of the powers of God that correctly affirms: God is omnipotent, that is, He can do whatever He wants that does not contradict His own nature. In other words, even the omnipotence of God has its own limits.
This applies to the pontifical powers of teaching and jurisdiction. These papal powers enable a legitimate Pope, within certain limits, to do whatever he wants that does not contradict established Catholic doctrine.
Pius XII wrote that "the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification (n. 58)."
What we should conclude from this text is not that St. Pius V was contradicted by Pius XII, but that St. Pius V did not intend to include future Popes under his norms when he wrote Quo primum. St. Pius V did not have the power to legislate over future Popes; otherwise he would be declaring those Popes inferior to him.
St. Pius V also wrote the Bull Quod a nobis fixing the Breviary and the Divine Office, and at the end of it he issued penalties analogous to those in the Quo primum directed to anyone who would dare to change those norms. Notwithstanding, St. Pius X changed them without any problem. This means, once again, that St. Pius V did not include the future Popes under his condemnations.
There is no contradiction in the picture; St. Pius V knew that he could not do something that goes beyond his power.
The next paragraph of Mediator Dei confirms this interpretation when it reaffirms that the Pope's power is limited only by the orthodoxy of doctrine – "provided only that the integrity of her [the Church's] doctrine be safeguarded" (n. 59).
Therefore, the interpretation of the cited texts of Mediator Dei harmonizes perfectly with the past of the Church.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/E032_QuoPrimum.htm (http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/E032_QuoPrimum.htm)
Quote from: Michael Wilson on February 19, 2017, 10:41:42 PM
The New Mass deviated from the Catholic doctrine of the Mass, as it was designed to be a mere commemoration of the Last Supper as it described itself in article #7 of the original GIRM...
This is a sound line of argumentation against the new Mass. If one can establish that the Novus Ordo changed doctrine, then Paul VI exceeded his authority by promulgating it. Not only can we deduce that doctrine is included in
Mediator Dei's divine elements of the Mass not subject to change, but that encyclical explicitly mentions doctrine as something that may not be changed when changing liturgy.
One can also make a case that the NO has a shift in theological emphasis, rather than changing doctrine. As I understand it, this would be within a pope's authority. I don't want to get into examining which of these positions is correct at this time because it would lead us away from the question of the OP.
That question was framed in general terms
QuoteCan the Papacy bind itself, for example, like in the example of the Quiscumque in Quo Primum?
Even if we do establish that the Novus Ordo exceeded a pope's authority to make changes to the Mass, it does not show that
Quo Primum is binding on subsequent popes. In theory, a pope could promulgate a new Mass that did not change doctrine (which is actually what Vatican II said ought to happen) even if Paul VI's Mass can be shown to have changed doctrine.
Quote from: christulsa on February 19, 2017, 11:28:55 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 19, 2017, 10:07:03 PM
Quote from: christulsa on February 19, 2017, 09:45:24 PMDidn't Christ institute the Mass as having first a penitential rite, readings, a some kind of Eucharistic prayer, communion rite, etc? Not that He actually wrote the original prayers, but there is a fixed structure to the Mass that can't be messed with without violating doctrine.
I have never heard of anything like this, but there is a lot I don't know. I would be interested if anyone has any information about this.
I was just thinking out loud. It seems that since Christ instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice, He would have explicitly instituted more than the words of consecration as parts of its structure, but I may well be wrong. Perhaps He left it up entirely to the Apostles to decide the basic structure of the Mass that all traditional rites share. That or the basic structure is a matter of revelation--doctrine--simply revealed later to the Apostles by the Holy Ghost through the form of Sacred Tradition. Again, I'm just thinking out loud. My point being that maybe there is a certain structure to the Mass that is itself not just a matter of discipline but doctrine, handed down by the popes. And a pope is tightly bound to that structure when approving a new rite.
I do not see how the structure of the Mass can be a matter of doctrine. Anything that I have read about it suggests that Christ instituted the Eucharist itself, not the structure of Mass. After all, another name for "words of consecration" is "words of institution".
I do think that it would be imprudent for a pope to drastically change the structure of the Mass, but I see no reason to think that we should consider that structure to be one of the unchangeable divine elements of the Mass.
The Mass is a prayer, and prayers can be changed, no?
Quote from: EliRotello on February 20, 2017, 09:07:22 AM
The Mass is a prayer, and prayers can be changed, no?
It depends on the prayer. Even a pope couldn't change the Our Father or the Words of Consecration. Nor does anyone have a right to change a prayer in a way that contradicts Catholic doctrine. So there isn't an absolute right to change prayers, although there would be a lot of circumstances in which it would be acceptable.
Interesting...those are great points Jayne. They seem to make a lot of sense ("it depends on the prayer"). And all the elements that could be changed in the Mass, it seems that it could be much of the content, so long as the essential elements remain the same?
Quote from: EliRotello on February 20, 2017, 10:20:17 AM
Interesting...those are great points Jayne. They seem to make a lot of sense ("it depends on the prayer"). And all the elements that could be changed in the Mass, it seems that it could be much of the content, so long as the essential elements remain the same?
It seems that a pope has authority to change some aspects of the Mass as long as the substance is left alone. But, just because a pope has the authority to do it, doesn't mean it is a good idea.
Even if we conclusively proved that none of the changes introduced by the Novus Ordo changed doctrine or anything else essential to the Mass, we would still be left with some very serious problems with it.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on February 19, 2017, 10:41:42 PM
The New Mass deviated from the Catholic doctrine of the Mass, as it was designed to be a mere commemoration of the Last Supper as it described itself in article #7 of the original GIRM:http://sspx.org/en/ottaviani-intervention
QuoteLet us begin with the definition of the Mass given in n. 7 of the Institutio Generalis at the beginning of the second chapter of the Novus Ordo: De structura Missae:
The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.[4] Thus the promise of Christ, "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them," is eminently true of the local community in the Church" (Mt. 18, 20).
This no longer corresponds with the traditional definition of the Mass as the "Unbloody renewal of the bloody sacrifice of Mt. Calvary". In addition to the suppression of the majority of the prayers that clearly expressed the propitiatory end of the Mass, amounts to the same as its denial:
QuoteThe definition of the Mass is thus limited to that of a "supper," and this term is found constantly repeated (nos. 8, 48, 55d, 56). This "supper" is further characterized as an assembly presided over by the priest and held as a memorial of the Lord, recalling what He did on the first Maundy Thursday. None of this in the very least implies either the Real Presence, or the reality of the sacrifice, or the Sacramental function of the consecrating priest, or the intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independently of the people's presence.[5] It does not, in a word, imply any of the essential dogmatic values of the Mass which together provide its true definition. Here the deliberate omission of these dogmatic values amounts to their having been superseded and therefore, at least in practice, to their denial.[6]
In addition the words of consecration are now termed "recital" of the last supper, a doubt arises as to the virtual intention of the rite to effect the consecration of the species and imperils its validity:
QuoteThe narrative mode is now emphasized by the formula "narratio institutionis" (no. 55d) and repeated by the definition of the anamnesis, in which it is said that "The Church recalls the memory of Christ Himself" (no. 556).
In short: the theory put forward by the epiclesis, the modification of the words of Consecration and of the anamnesis, have the effect of modifying the modus significandi of the words of Consecration. The consecratory formulae are here pronounced by the priest as the constituents of a historical narrative and no longer enunciated as expressing the categorical and affirmative judgment uttered by Him in whose Person the priest acts: "Hoc est Corpus Meum" (not, "Hoc est Corpus Christi").[18]
Footnote 18: 18 The words of Consecration as inserted in the context or the Novus Ordo can be valid by virtue of the minister's intention. They could also not be valid because they are no longer so ex vi verborum, or, more precisely, by virtue of the modus signifcandi they had in the Mass up to the present time.
Will priests of the near future who have not received the traditional formation, and who rely on the Novus Ordo with the intention of "doing what the Church does" consecrate validly? One may be allowed to doubt it.
The
Intervention or
Critique, based on a title to a different translation which appeared in
Triumph Magazine, did have some results, in that the piece of the General Instruction on the Roman Missal was heavily rewritten, and some changes were made to the sorely deficient text of the Mass, but the
editio typica of, say, 1975, while better, still had, in the ICEL text approved by various Bishop's Conferences, grevious mistranslations like
pro multis as 'for all' or
Domine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum as 'Lord, I am not worthy I should receive you' remained.
Some of these translations, like the former, can be suspected as having heterodox thinking behind them, while the latter, the words of the Centurion, was a result of the now discredited 'dynamic equivalence' translation. Now, some Jesuits (I wonder if the scene in 'Silence' where the Jesuit has to profane an image of Our Lord has its origins in Jesuit initiation rites, well no, but why does Jesuit beside a name of a priest relate to some attack on the Faith?) close to the Pope have been quoted as wanting to disinter the rotted corpse of 'dynamic equivalence' because it somehow sounds better.
Quote from: Jayne on February 19, 2017, 06:27:47 PM
Quote from: Prayerful on February 19, 2017, 06:14:35 PM
It seems to run contrary, and for all Fr Wathen's fine efforts for Tradition, Ven Pius XII had more standing, most particularly as this was an encyclical not a privately given allocutio or sermon, but I'll doublecheck what Fr wrote. Yet the New Mass seemed to frustrate some of the ends quoted. It is the very opposite of beautiful and was open to every sort of imprudent innovation, contra 57 and more. The ICEL translation where pro multis was falsely rendered as 'for all' on the basis of an unfounded pet theory regarding Hebrew, was almost worse than the New Mass (maybe the Latin typical edition or another translation) which +Lefebvre stated 'led to heresy.' It appeared in some parts to have arrived at that dark place. Will check. Although the Conciliar Popes rarely bound anyone infallibly, they seemed to point people towards error, at points. Not even an angel from heaven can direct a Catholic towards error.
I think that Mediator Dei shows that a pope does have authority to make changes to the Mass. So we can't say that there was a lack of authority to promulgate the Novus Ordo. However, that still leaves other serious problems with it, such as what you mention above.
Consider the very purpose of Quo Primum. Quo Primum is the law of the Church, established by pope st. Pius V, whose very purpose was that of protecting Her Liturgy, forever.
Fr. Wathen said that we cannot say that even popes are not bound by the law of Pius V, because if we say that (the law of) Quo Primum is not binding even to popes, then we must admit that the Church has no way of protecting Her own Liturgy.
Snip from an Fr. Wathen interview:
Question: ....Fr., there's an old legal principle which says; "he who makes the law can change the law", would this also apply in the church? In other words, we had pope Paul VI making a change, did he not have a right to make this change and must not we, as Catholics, follow whatever change he authorizes?
Fr. Wathen:I do not agree that he who makes the law may always abrogate it, especially if he who makes the law is doing nothing else but enunciating and particularizing a tradition.
When pope Pius V established the Mass, he was merely canonizing a tradition. He was fixing something and making it irrevocable and unchangeable after centuries of development. Pope Pius V, once he made this law, had no right to change it, simply because, that is an error. The pope's business is not to make and then to change, the pope's business is to preserve, to formulate, in order that there be a preservation of all that was established, even by the Apostles.
There was a period during the 60s in which changed began to be made in the traditional latin mass. We know now that these changes were conditional. Which is to say that they had the purpose of conditioning people for a situation which the liturgy would always be subject to change. The changes were of various sorts, the purpose however was not so much the changes themselves, but to educate the people to a totally new idea, an anti-traditional idea, that the liturgy henceforth would be subject to indefinite change - which is to say not only will the external ritual be patient of an infinite variety of changes, but the doctrine also, the beliefs which the ritual expresses will also be under constant revolution........
So much is the color of the rhetoric. The Church does and did protect her Liturgy. The Catholic Church can not promulgate evil in her Liturgy. That remains. What needs to be changed is the subjective view that a Pope could has or did change liturgical elements that could be harmful. The language of Quo Primum is written so that Quiscumque whomsoever besides the Pope can not change, with the understanding, that is with the understanding mind you, that a Pope could not harm through a change. This is a Catholic opinion, that takes into account the changes, their harm or lack thereof, and the history of what passed, which was a Pope, with an Ordinary Form, and an extraordinary Form. One that was written, and one that was the same.
Quote from: EliRotello on February 20, 2017, 04:27:21 PM
So much is the color of the rhetoric. The Church does and did protect her Liturgy. The Catholic Church can not promulgate evil in her Liturgy. That remains.
Aside from Quo Primum, by what means does and did the Church have to protect her liturgy?
Quote from: EliRotello on February 20, 2017, 04:27:21 PM
What needs to be changed is the subjective view that a Pope could has or did change liturgical elements that could be harmful.
There is no subjective view involved, it is an historical fact, therefore an indisputable reality that Pope Paul VI did indeed change liturgical elements that have proven to be harmful. Per Quo Primum, what pope Paul VI did was against the law. He had to break the law of Pius V in order to do what he did - which makes what he did, illegal. What he did was against, not for, the law of Pius V, therefore the law was meant to bind everyone, including all future popes.
But right there...you say the word, "he had to 'break'" the law. The Pope can not "break" the law.
Quote from: Stubborn on February 20, 2017, 04:03:17 PM
Consider the very purpose of Quo Primum. Quo Primum is the law of the Church, established by pope st. Pius V, whose very purpose was that of protecting Her Liturgy, forever.
Fr. Wathen said that we cannot say that even popes are not bound by the law of Pius V, because if we say that (the law of) Quo Primum is not binding even to popes, then we must admit that the Church has no way of protecting Her own Liturgy.
The Church has a way to protect her liturgy. It is the job of the reigning pope. Pius V protected it in his time and entrusted it to his successors to protect in theirs. It was not the job of Pius V to protect the liturgy from future popes. Popes do not work on the assumption that their successors will be evil/incompetent. Popes do not have authority over their successors.
We are in a time in which we have grave concerns about the way that recent popes have protected the liturgy. But that does not change the fact that it has been their duty to do so.
Quote from: Stubborn on February 20, 2017, 05:13:32 PM
There is no subjective view involved, it is an historical fact, therefore an indisputable reality that Pope Paul VI did indeed change liturgical elements that have proven to be harmful. Per Quo Primum, what pope Paul VI did was against the law. He had to break the law of Pius V in order to do what he did - which makes what he did, illegal. What he did was against, not for, the law of Pius V, therefore the law was meant to bind everyone, including all future popes.
Are you prepared to make the case that Pope St. Pius X broke the law of Pius V (in
Quod a Nobis - of equal force to
Quo Primum) when he reformed the Breviary? Those changes were arguably greater than those to the Mass. There are plenty of people who can argue it was harmful. If Pius V could bind future popes, then Pius X is just as guilty as Paul VI.
Quote from: EliRotello on February 20, 2017, 05:20:35 PM
But right there...you say the word, "he had to 'break'" the law. The Pope can not "break" the law.
The pope did break the law.
Quote from: Jayne on February 20, 2017, 06:06:30 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on February 20, 2017, 04:03:17 PM
Consider the very purpose of Quo Primum. Quo Primum is the law of the Church, established by pope st. Pius V, whose very purpose was that of protecting Her Liturgy, forever.
Fr. Wathen said that we cannot say that even popes are not bound by the law of Pius V, because if we say that (the law of) Quo Primum is not binding even to popes, then we must admit that the Church has no way of protecting Her own Liturgy.
The Church has a way to protect her liturgy. It is the job of the reigning pope. Pius V protected it in his time and entrusted it to his successors to protect in theirs. It was not the job of Pius V to protect the liturgy from future popes. Popes do not work on the assumption that their successors will be evil/incompetent. Popes do not have authority over their successors.
We are in a time in which we have grave concerns about the way that recent popes have protected the liturgy. But that does not change the fact that it has been their duty to do so.
Pope Pius V clearly made the TLM which he codified, the law.
"Furthermore, by these presents [this law], 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..."He also made it a law that all other forms of the Mass were to be abolished - excepting those, however, "if more than two hundred years' standing". The new "mass" of pope Paul VI was not around for 200 years before the TLM, therefore the new "mass is itself, unlawful - per Quo Primum.
You say "The Church has a way to protect her liturgy. It is the job of the reigning pope." I agree, but pope Paul VI broke the law, he did not protect the liturgy, which liturgy was protected by the same law as was used to protect the liturgy by all the popes from Pius V till the time of the new "mass" of Paul VI - do you agree?
We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us..."This command of his does not exclude anyone, not even popes. He orders them all, in virtue of holy obedience to the law, to celebrate only his Mass, that's the Mass he is speaking about specifically.
You cannot possibly believe that pope Paul VI protected the liturgy.
Quote from: Jayne on February 20, 2017, 06:14:09 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on February 20, 2017, 05:13:32 PM
There is no subjective view involved, it is an historical fact, therefore an indisputable reality that Pope Paul VI did indeed change liturgical elements that have proven to be harmful. Per Quo Primum, what pope Paul VI did was against the law. He had to break the law of Pius V in order to do what he did - which makes what he did, illegal. What he did was against, not for, the law of Pius V, therefore the law was meant to bind everyone, including all future popes.
Are you prepared to make the case that Pope St. Pius X broke the law of Pius V (in Quod a Nobis - of equal force to Quo Primum) when he reformed the Breviary? Those changes were arguably greater than those to the Mass. There are plenty of people who can argue it was harmful. If Pius V could bind future popes, then Pius X is just as guilty as Paul VI.
There is nothing in Quo Primum that prohibits popes from making incidental changes that popes deem an improvement. But the new "mass" is not only not an incidental change, it's a flaming disaster of beyond epic proportions whose introduction was to meant to be used as a tool to destroy the faith, not an improvement to the Missal of Pius V.
The Pope can not destroy the Faith. It is an impossibility.
Quote from: Stubborn on February 20, 2017, 07:31:55 PM
Pope Pius V clearly made the TLM which he codified, the law. "Furthermore, by these presents [this law], 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..."
He also made it a law that all other forms of the Mass were to be abolished - excepting those, however, "if more than two hundred years' standing". The new "mass" of pope Paul VI was not around for 200 years before the TLM, therefore the new "mass is itself, unlawful - per Quo Primum.
You say "The Church has a way to protect her liturgy. It is the job of the reigning pope." I agree, but pope Paul VI broke the law, he did not protect the liturgy, which liturgy was protected by the same law as was used to protect the liturgy by all the popes from Pius V till the time of the new "mass" of Paul VI - do you agree?
We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us..."
This command of his does not exclude anyone, not even popes. He orders them all, in virtue of holy obedience to the law, to celebrate only his Mass, that's the Mass he is speaking about specifically.
Pius V used the same sort of language in
Quod a Nobis. If one claims that Paul VI broke the law, then so did Pius X when he made a new Breviary. If one is going to be consistent, either both did something wrong or neither.
Even if this did not make it clear, we have the explicit words of Pius XII in
Mediator Dei saying that the pope has the authority to change the Mass. The only way to reconcile this document with
Quo Primum is to understand that QP is not binding on future popes.
If you insist that QP was binding on future popes, the implication is that St. Pius X is a lawbreaker and the Church has issued contradictory documents. How can you take a position that leads to such conclusions?
Quote from: Stubborn on February 20, 2017, 07:31:55 PM
You cannot possibly believe that pope Paul VI protected the liturgy.
I believe that it was his duty to protect the liturgy and he appears to have failed. (Although there is a theory that the creation of the NO prevented a slow process of tampering with the TLM and ended up preserving it.)
I'm not saying that Paul VI ought to have promulgated the new Mass. I believe it has serious problems. We can say that he misused his authority to create and change liturgy. But we cannot say that he did not have that authority. And we can't say that he was bound by
Quo Primum.
Quote from: Stubborn on February 20, 2017, 07:46:36 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 20, 2017, 06:14:09 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on February 20, 2017, 05:13:32 PM
There is no subjective view involved, it is an historical fact, therefore an indisputable reality that Pope Paul VI did indeed change liturgical elements that have proven to be harmful. Per Quo Primum, what pope Paul VI did was against the law. He had to break the law of Pius V in order to do what he did - which makes what he did, illegal. What he did was against, not for, the law of Pius V, therefore the law was meant to bind everyone, including all future popes.
Are you prepared to make the case that Pope St. Pius X broke the law of Pius V (in Quod a Nobis - of equal force to Quo Primum) when he reformed the Breviary? Those changes were arguably greater than those to the Mass. There are plenty of people who can argue it was harmful. If Pius V could bind future popes, then Pius X is just as guilty as Paul VI.
There is nothing in Quo Primum that prohibits popes from making incidental changes that popes deem an improvement. But the new "mass" is not only not an incidental change, it's a flaming disaster of beyond epic proportions whose introduction was to meant to be used as a tool to destroy the faith, not an improvement to the Missal of Pius V.
If one takes Quo Primum as binding on future popes, they are prohibited from making any changes at all. There is nothing in it about incidental changes being allowed.
The badness of the new Mass has nothing to do whether or not Quo Primum is binding on future popes. It would not be binding if Paul VI had promulgated a Mass that was an improvement on the TLM. It would not be binding if he promulgated a Mass ten times worse than the Novus Ordo.
Quo Primum is not binding on future popes because Pius V did not have the authority to bind them and he knew this and did not intend to bind them.
You did not address my point about St. Pius X. Are you claiming he is a law breaker?
QuoteWe specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us..."
Doesn't the "We" part underscore all of the Popes? and as far as I am concerned Paul VI didn't abrogate the old mass, meaning he didn't change the mass. He approved a new missal.
Quote from: EliRotello on February 20, 2017, 07:56:08 PM
The Pope can not destroy the Faith. It is an impossibility.
I agree absolutely.
I align with Jayne's position on this issue. The Pope is bound only by the Faith itself; his authority is supreme in disciplinary and liturgical matters. He is not bound by the disciplinary and liturgical decisions of his predecessors; thus he cannot bind his successors, else he would be superior to them.
Furthermore, "in perpetuity" does not necessarily mean "forever"; legally, it often means "of unspecified duration," i.e., it continues in force until competent authority decides otherwise. Another example from Church history is Clement XIV's suppression of the Jesuits; in Dominus ac Redemptor Noster of 1771, he says that his decree "should for ever and to all eternity be valid, permanent, and efficacious, have and obtain their full force and effect, and be inviolably observed by all and every whom they do or may concern, now or hereafter, in any manner whatever." The fact that the Jesuits were restored 41 years later shows that even though a pope says "forever," he can't really mean "forever-forever" with respect to his successors.
Quote from: Jayne on February 20, 2017, 08:19:30 PM
If one takes Quo Primum as binding on future popes, they are prohibited from making any changes at all. There is nothing in it about incidental changes being allowed.
The badness of the new Mass has nothing to do whether or not Quo Primum is binding on future popes. It would not be binding if Paul VI had promulgated a Mass that was an improvement on the TLM. It would not be binding if he promulgated a Mass ten times worse than the Novus Ordo.
Quo Primum is not binding on future popes because Pius V did not have the authority to bind them and he knew this and did not intend to bind them.
You did not address my point about St. Pius X. Are you claiming he is a law breaker?
No, I am not claiming pope st. Pius X was a law breaker, and you are injecting another subject unnecessarily. I say unnecessarily because Quo Primum stands entirely on it's own.
While I admit the matter of incorporating 'incidental changes' might seem contrary to the law to some, popes do have the authority to lawfully make changes they deem appropriate - for example, adding the name of St. Joseph to the canon. PJXXIII did not delete the whole canon and all the other names and replace the whole canon and etc. - rather, he exercised his authority for the betterment of the Mass of Pius V and the Universal Church, in the process was conditioning the masses to peacefully accept future changes.
Was what he did unlawful? No. Did he have the authority to do it? Yes. But to make such comparatively trivial changes with the complete replacement of the Roma Rite of Mass with an entirely New Rite with new doctrines and new beliefs and etc. ad nausem, is not even being honest.
A few Snips from an interview with Fr. Wathen on this subject, not sure of the date, but it was some time after 1984.....
Question: As far as there are three main parts of the Mass, am I right? There's the liceity, the morality and the validity. Would you explain each of these and give a little explanation of each of these in their different areas.
Fr.When you use the word liceity you're referring to the question of whether the new mass is legal.
When you speak of validity, you are discussing whether the consecration of the mass is valid and true, whether there is truly transubstantiation.
When you discuss the matter of morality, you are questioning whether it's a sin either to offer the new mass or to attend it.
I hasten to say that if the new mass is against the law, then it is immoral, and if there is a question of validity in the consecration, then it is immoral for anyone to use it.
Question: You believe it's actually a sin, a mortal sin to use the new mass, is that not right?
Fr.That's right. We believe that because the new mass is clearly against the law which governs the liturgy of the Roman Rite, that there is no legality to it - and we think that to violate the law with regard to the True Mass there is a moral violation, we believe that is a grievous violation, and therefore a sacrilegious violation of the True Mass. It is most important for people, when considering the new mass, always to bear in mind that the Traditional Latin Mass, which is to be found in the Missale Romanum of Pope Pius V, that, that is the standard whereby they judge any other Rite in the Roman Rite.
Question: But the people say that the people make the contention that pope Paul VI had the right so therefore we must accept it.
Fr.That of course is a central question. We deny that he had such a right. That exactly is the point. We have every reason to question whether the pope had the authority to introduce a brand new mass, introduce a new Rite of the liturgy of the Western Church. We believe that when one reads Quo Primum of St. Pius V, he can see clearly that it is altogether forbidden for his successors, any of his successors to go contrary to this law.
Here is a key question, whether a successor can override pope Pius V with regard to the establishment of the Rite of the Mass. It's a key question.
It was never considered that the pope could go contrary to this ruling because Quo Primum was issued to protect the Mass. It was as strong of legislation as the pope could possibly impose. If we say that his successor is not bound by this legislation, we have to say that the Church has no way of protecting it's own liturgy. There is no doctrine that says that a pope cannot make a mistake, there's no such doctrine.
Question: He allowed for incidental and minor changes to be made, but obviously he could probably never imagine....
Fr.That goes without saying, incidental changes could be made. Quo Primum states that only the pope could make such changes. The idea that anyone including the pope, could make a substantive change in the Mass, is so obvious that it is not stated.
Question: The Council of Trent Canon 6 says "if anyone says the Mass contains errors, therefore should be abrogated let them be anathema". Would something like that hold any weight pertaining to what pope Paul VI did? In a way he was saying that it did contain errors therefore should be abrogated did he not?
Fr.I would not say that his changing the Rite of the Mass was a suggestion that there was fault in the old Mass, that canon simply states that the doctrine expressed by the prayers and the ritual of the traditional Mass are thoroughly Catholic, that everyone may have confidence that there is no doctrinal error expressed by this Rite. The matter of the new mass must be considered first of all why the new mass was introduced. Was it introduced because it was suggested there was some deficiency in the old mass, was it introduced for less cogent reasons? It was never suggested that there was some deficiency, it was suggested that there was room for improvement.
......no sufficient reason was ever given, and no one has a sufficient reason. The only reason they have is that one pope may override the rules and the laws of another. This is an error.
Question: Now people will say Father, that it could be changed because this is simply a matter of discipline, that the pope could change it because it's not a matter of strictly faith and morals he could not make an ex cathedra statement to define the Mass, therefore the pope has the justification to establish a new rite – that's what people are saying and that's why your wrong father.
Fr. People have been given the idea that whatever the pope has the authority to do he may morally do, we deny both that the pope has the authority to introduce a new mass and we insist that the introduction of a totally new Rite with a questionable theology, and that is putting it mildly, the introduction of a new Rite with a questionable theology is not only unlawful, that is, it goes clearly contrary to the established law, but it is immoral, independent of the law of which the pope is bound.
People have the idea that the pope, because he is the head of the Church, has limitless authority. This is altogether wrong. He is not at all limitless in what he may do, he is strictly bound to what he must do and he is bound to adhere to what has been established. The role and the duty of the pope not to deviate from what has been established, but to make sure that all his subjects don't deviate from it.
Quote from: martin88nyc on February 20, 2017, 11:33:37 PM
QuoteWe specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us..."
Doesn't the "We" part underscore all of the Popes? and as far as I am concerned Paul VI didn't abrogate the old mass, meaning he didn't change the mass. He approved a new missal.
As far as everyone is concerned Paul VI did not abrogate the old Mass. This was made official when stated by Benedict XVI in
Summorum Pontificum.
Quote from: Stubborn on February 21, 2017, 05:43:18 AM
Quote from: Jayne on February 20, 2017, 08:19:30 PM
If one takes Quo Primum as binding on future popes, they are prohibited from making any changes at all. There is nothing in it about incidental changes being allowed.
The badness of the new Mass has nothing to do whether or not Quo Primum is binding on future popes. It would not be binding if Paul VI had promulgated a Mass that was an improvement on the TLM. It would not be binding if he promulgated a Mass ten times worse than the Novus Ordo.
Quo Primum is not binding on future popes because Pius V did not have the authority to bind them and he knew this and did not intend to bind them.
You did not address my point about St. Pius X. Are you claiming he is a law breaker?
No, I am not claiming pope st. Pius X was a law breaker, and you are injecting another subject unnecessarily. I say unnecessarily because Quo Primum stands entirely on it's own.
Quo Primum does not stand on its own. In order to understand the meaning of various expressions in it, we need to look at how they are normally used in papal documents. Reading
Quo Primum in isolation leaves one to guess about these terms and leads to misunderstandings.
Quod a Nobis sheds the most light on
Quo Primum because they were Papal Bulls issued by the same pope, to implement the same council (Trent), at around the same time. They used the same expressions to indicate their force. One concerned the Breviary, the other the Missal. It is not possible to claim that one was binding on subsequent popes and the other was not. And if they were both binding, then St. Pius X was a law breaker.
Quote from: Stubborn on February 21, 2017, 05:43:18 AM
While I admit the matter of incorporating 'incidental changes' might seem contrary to the law to some, popes do have the authority to lawfully make changes they deem appropriate - for example, adding the name of St. Joseph to the canon. PJXXIII did not delete the whole canon and all the other names and replace the whole canon and etc. - rather, he exercised his authority for the betterment of the Mass of Pius V and the Universal Church, in the process was conditioning the masses to peacefully accept future changes.
Was what he did unlawful? No. Did he have the authority to do it? Yes. But to make such comparatively trivial changes with the complete replacement of the Roma Rite of Mass with an entirely New Rite with new doctrines and new beliefs and etc. ad nausem, is not even being honest.
Quo Primum does not allow for any changes, trivial or not. If it is binding on popes, then no changes of any kind should have been made - no small good changes, no big bad changes.
Quote from: Stubborn on February 21, 2017, 05:49:48 AM
A few Snips from an interview with Fr. Wathen on this subject, not sure of the date, but it was some time after 1984.....
Fr. Wathen is not here to explain how to reconcile his opinions with what Pius XII wrote in
Mediator Dei so we have to try it on our own. Compare
Quote from: Fr.WathenWe deny that he had such a right. That exactly is the point. We have every reason to question whether the pope had the authority to introduce a brand new mass, introduce a new Rite of the liturgy of the Western Church. We believe that when one reads Quo Primum of St. Pius V, he can see clearly that it is altogether forbidden for his successors, any of his successors to go contrary to this law.
Quote from: Pius XII58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.
If there is no way that both of these statements can be true, we must accept the papal encyclical over the opinion of a priest, no matter how respected. Personally I can't see how to reconcile them. Can you?
But it is also my understanding that "new rites" does't mean a whole new mass. They didn't see it that way. Barely anyone back then would've taken it as an excuse for creating a new mass. This is what I think. :shrug:
Quote from: Jayne on February 21, 2017, 09:02:36 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on February 21, 2017, 05:43:18 AM
Quote from: Jayne on February 20, 2017, 08:19:30 PM
If one takes Quo Primum as binding on future popes, they are prohibited from making any changes at all. There is nothing in it about incidental changes being allowed.
The badness of the new Mass has nothing to do whether or not Quo Primum is binding on future popes. It would not be binding if Paul VI had promulgated a Mass that was an improvement on the TLM. It would not be binding if he promulgated a Mass ten times worse than the Novus Ordo.
Quo Primum is not binding on future popes because Pius V did not have the authority to bind them and he knew this and did not intend to bind them.
You did not address my point about St. Pius X. Are you claiming he is a law breaker?
No, I am not claiming pope st. Pius X was a law breaker, and you are injecting another subject unnecessarily. I say unnecessarily because Quo Primum stands entirely on it's own.
Quo Primum does not stand on its own. In order to understand the meaning of various expressions in it, we need to look at how they are normally used in papal documents. Reading Quo Primum in isolation leaves one to guess about these terms and leads to misunderstandings.
Quod a Nobis sheds the most light on Quo Primum because they were Papal Bulls issued by the same pope, to implement the same council (Trent), at around the same time. They used the same expressions to indicate their force. One concerned the Breviary, the other the Missal. It is not possible to claim that one was binding on subsequent popes and the other was not. And if they were both binding, then St. Pius X was a law breaker.
Yes, Quo Primum does stand on it's own. Quo Primum clearly is legislation established for the purpose of protecting the liturgy. It decrees "This Rite to be used...." - it does not say "This Rite to be used unless another pope chooses to trash it all to heck and replace it with the prot NO because after all, popes do have that authority".
You should not need Quod a Nobis or anything else to understand this.
Quote from: Jayne on February 21, 2017, 09:02:36 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on February 21, 2017, 05:43:18 AM
While I admit the matter of incorporating 'incidental changes' might seem contrary to the law to some, popes do have the authority to lawfully make changes they deem appropriate - for example, adding the name of St. Joseph to the canon. PJXXIII did not delete the whole canon and all the other names and replace the whole canon and etc. - rather, he exercised his authority for the betterment of the Mass of Pius V and the Universal Church, in the process was conditioning the masses to peacefully accept future changes.
Was what he did unlawful? No. Did he have the authority to do it? Yes. But to make such comparatively trivial changes with the complete replacement of the Roma Rite of Mass with an entirely New Rite with new doctrines and new beliefs and etc. ad nausem, is not even being honest.
Quo Primum does not allow for any changes, trivial or not. If it is binding on popes, then no changes of any kind should have been made - no small good changes, no big bad changes.
No, you are scrutinizing the mind of the pope and you are presuming to do this without reading what is written.
If you read what he wrote, you will see that he is telling "all of the churches referred to above" - "nothing must be added" or omitted or changed within the missal he just published. The reason he is telling them specifically this, is because he is commanding them to stop saying the Mass and missal they've been used to saying and using, and to now use his missal - unless the mass they've been saying has been the practice of at least 200 years. That is all he is saying about that. You are not placing the emphasis in the right place, but when you do, you will understand that he is speaking to a specific group here.
All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.
We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this MissalHe then goes onto bind the Church to this law......
Furthermore, by these presents [this law], 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 notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years' standing. Got it?
Quote from: martin88nyc on February 21, 2017, 09:48:13 AM
But it is also my understanding that "new rites" does't mean a whole new mass. They didn't see it that way. Barely anyone back then would've taken it as an excuse for creating a new mass. This is what I think. :shrug:
Why would the phrase "new rites" exclude the rite of Mass? There is nothing in the context that implies that.
Mediator Dei was written in 1947 when the Liturgical Movement was well established. To a large extent, the encyclical was a response to the Liturgical Movement, to address unauthorized liturgical experimentation. The possibility of a new rite of Mass might not have been taken seriously by many, but the idea was out there.
Quote from: Stubborn on February 21, 2017, 09:52:54 AM
Quote from: Jayne
Quo Primum does not allow for any changes, trivial or not. If it is binding on popes, then no changes of any kind should have been made - no small good changes, no big bad changes.
No, you are scrutinizing the mind of the pope and you are presuming to do this without reading what is written.
I saw nothing in that big long quote that suggests that Quo Primum allows for trivial changes. Could you point out the specific words that say future popes can make trivial changes? It looks to me like I am the one taking it as written and you are the one reading something in that is not there. I do not see how
"nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure" means that trivial changes are allowed.
Quote from: Jayne on February 21, 2017, 10:13:34 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on February 21, 2017, 09:52:54 AM
Quote from: Jayne
Quo Primum does not allow for any changes, trivial or not. If it is binding on popes, then no changes of any kind should have been made - no small good changes, no big bad changes.
No, you are scrutinizing the mind of the pope and you are presuming to do this without reading what is written.
I saw nothing in that big long quote that suggests that Quo Primum allows for trivial changes. Could you point out the specific words that say future popes can make trivial changes? It looks to me like I am the one taking it as written and you are the one reading something in that is not there. I do not see how "nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure" means that trivial changes are allowed.
When he says that, he is speaking specifically to "All other of the churches referred to above", not to the universal Church.
Quote from: Jayne on February 21, 2017, 09:27:24 AM
If there is no way that both of these statements can be true, we must accept the papal encyclical over the opinion of a priest, no matter how respected. Personally I can't see how to reconcile them. Can you?
You are again missing the context or misapplying the jist of what PPXII is saying.
57. The Church has further used her right of control over liturgical observance to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches. ......
58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.Again, while the pontiff alone enjoys the right, PPXII said that this right, is to be used for a specific reason - namely,
"to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches". You would have PPXII give popes the right to do whatever they darn well please - even change the liturgy and create new rites so that *they* could be the ones to abuse the liturgy and promote dangerous and imprudent innovations.
Quote from: Stubborn on February 21, 2017, 10:15:37 AM
Quote from: Jayne on February 21, 2017, 10:13:34 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on February 21, 2017, 09:52:54 AM
Quote from: Jayne
Quo Primum does not allow for any changes, trivial or not. If it is binding on popes, then no changes of any kind should have been made - no small good changes, no big bad changes.
No, you are scrutinizing the mind of the pope and you are presuming to do this without reading what is written.
I saw nothing in that big long quote that suggests that Quo Primum allows for trivial changes. Could you point out the specific words that say future popes can make trivial changes? It looks to me like I am the one taking it as written and you are the one reading something in that is not there. I do not see how "nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure" means that trivial changes are allowed.
When he says that, he is speaking specifically to "All other of the churches referred to above", not to the universal Church.
In the section that you claim is addressed to the universal Church for all time he says "this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely." How does this mean that trivial changes are allowed? What words are giving you the idea that future popes are allowed to make trivial changes?
Quote from: Stubborn on February 21, 2017, 10:33:35 AM
Quote from: Jayne on February 21, 2017, 09:27:24 AM
If there is no way that both of these statements can be true, we must accept the papal encyclical over the opinion of a priest, no matter how respected. Personally I can't see how to reconcile them. Can you?
You are again missing the context or misapplying the jist of what PPXII is saying.
57. The Church has further used her right of control over liturgical observance to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches. ......
58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.
Again, while the pontiff alone enjoys the right, PPXII said that this right, is to be used for a specific reason - namely, "to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches".
You would have PPXII give popes the right to do whatever they darn well please - even change the liturgy and create new rites so that *they* could be the ones to abuse the liturgy and promote dangerous and imprudent innovations.
One could probably make a good case that Paul VI misused the right to create a new Mass and that he was not following the conditions given in
Mediator Dei. But even if one proved this conclusively, there would still be a contradiction between
Mediator Dei and your way of understanding
Quo Primum. If popes have the right to change the Mass as stated in MD then they have not been bound by QP. Your way of understanding QP cannot be correct if we accept MD.
Quote from: Jayne on February 21, 2017, 10:41:03 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on February 21, 2017, 10:15:37 AM
Quote from: Jayne on February 21, 2017, 10:13:34 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on February 21, 2017, 09:52:54 AM
Quote from: Jayne
Quo Primum does not allow for any changes, trivial or not. If it is binding on popes, then no changes of any kind should have been made - no small good changes, no big bad changes.
No, you are scrutinizing the mind of the pope and you are presuming to do this without reading what is written.
I saw nothing in that big long quote that suggests that Quo Primum allows for trivial changes. Could you point out the specific words that say future popes can make trivial changes? It looks to me like I am the one taking it as written and you are the one reading something in that is not there. I do not see how "nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure" means that trivial changes are allowed.
When he says that, he is speaking specifically to "All other of the churches referred to above", not to the universal Church.
In the section that you claim is addressed to the universal Church for all time he says "this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely." How does this mean that trivial changes are allowed? What words are giving you the idea that future popes are allowed to make trivial changes?
His instructions that he gives to the Church, states that in perpetuity,
"for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely" - this means what it says. It means no one is allowed to use any other missal. That's what it means. It does not say, therefore it does not mean, that popes are forbidden to make incidental changes. It simply doesn't.
Quote from: Jayne on February 21, 2017, 10:51:45 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on February 21, 2017, 10:33:35 AM
Quote from: Jayne on February 21, 2017, 09:27:24 AM
If there is no way that both of these statements can be true, we must accept the papal encyclical over the opinion of a priest, no matter how respected. Personally I can't see how to reconcile them. Can you?
You are again missing the context or misapplying the jist of what PPXII is saying.
57. The Church has further used her right of control over liturgical observance to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches. ......
58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.
Again, while the pontiff alone enjoys the right, PPXII said that this right, is to be used for a specific reason - namely, "to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches".
You would have PPXII give popes the right to do whatever they darn well please - even change the liturgy and create new rites so that *they* could be the ones to abuse the liturgy and promote dangerous and imprudent innovations.
One could probably make a good case that Paul VI misused the right to create a new Mass and that he was not following the conditions given in Mediator Dei. But even if one proved this conclusively, there would still be a contradiction between Mediator Dei and your way of understanding Quo Primum. If popes have the right to change the Mass as stated in MD then they have not been bound by QP. Your way of understanding QP cannot be correct if we accept MD.
You must first understand that when the new "mass" and Rite were being concocted, the crooks made many of the changes according to MD as if MD was their instruction manual in reverse. MD says it's wrong to use a table instead of an altar - the NO uses a table instead of an altar. MD says it's "neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device", the NO reduces many of their reasons for many of the changes to antiquity. MD says it's wrong to exclude black vestments, the NO excludes black vestments.
So when MD says only the pope has the right to make changes as long as he does so in order to protect the purity and sanctity of the liturgy and prevent abuses and innovations - what do you suppose the NO did? As we see, the pope used his authority to destroy whatever he could of the purity and sanctity of the liturgy and promote abuses and create innovations up the wazoo.
Quote from: Stubborn on February 21, 2017, 11:27:57 AM
Quote from: Jayne on February 21, 2017, 10:41:03 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on February 21, 2017, 10:15:37 AM
Quote from: Jayne on February 21, 2017, 10:13:34 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on February 21, 2017, 09:52:54 AM
Quote from: Jayne
Quo Primum does not allow for any changes, trivial or not. If it is binding on popes, then no changes of any kind should have been made - no small good changes, no big bad changes.
No, you are scrutinizing the mind of the pope and you are presuming to do this without reading what is written.
I saw nothing in that big long quote that suggests that Quo Primum allows for trivial changes. Could you point out the specific words that say future popes can make trivial changes? It looks to me like I am the one taking it as written and you are the one reading something in that is not there. I do not see how "nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure" means that trivial changes are allowed.
When he says that, he is speaking specifically to "All other of the churches referred to above", not to the universal Church.
In the section that you claim is addressed to the universal Church for all time he says "this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely." How does this mean that trivial changes are allowed? What words are giving you the idea that future popes are allowed to make trivial changes?
His instructions that he gives to the Church, states that in perpetuity, "for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely" - this means what it says. It means no one is allowed to use any other missal. That's what it means. It does not say, therefore it does not mean, that popes are forbidden to make incidental changes. It simply doesn't.
I checked the Latin word translated "absolutely" in the above. It is the word
omnino which can also be translated as "completely," "entirely," or "wholly." If the Missal is to be followed
omnino I do not see how that allows for any changes to it.
But this may all be moot, since I discovered something interesting when I checked the Latin. You used a poor translation. Here is the Latin for the part you say applies to the universal Church throughout time:
QuoteAtque ut hoc ipsum Missale in Missa decantanda, aut recitanda in quibusvis Ecclesiis absque ullo conscientiae scrupulo, aut aliquarum poenarum, sententiarum et censurarum incursu, posthac omnino sequantur, eoque libere et licite uti possint et valeant, auctoritate Apostoloca, tenore praesentium, etiam perpetuo concedimus et indulgemus.
Here is a better translation with the key difference bolded:
QuoteFurthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used.
It is using a subjunctive construction that means it is giving permission, not an order. This does not bind future popes to follow the Tridentine Mass at all.
Quote from: Stubborn on February 21, 2017, 11:38:01 AM
You must first understand that when the new "mass" and Rite were being concocted, the crooks made many of the changes according to MD as if MD was their instruction manual in reverse. MD says it's wrong to use a table instead of an altar - the NO uses a table instead of an altar. MD says it's "neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device", the NO reduces many of their reasons for many of the changes to antiquity. MD says it's wrong to exclude black vestments, the NO excludes black vestments.
So when MD says only the pope has the right to make changes as long as he does so in order to protect the purity and sanctity of the liturgy and prevent abuses and innovations - what do you suppose the NO did? As we see, the pope used his authority to destroy whatever he could of the purity and sanctity of the liturgy and promote abuses and create innovations up the wazoo.
No matter how true any of this may be, it has no bearing on the contradiction between MD and your understanding of QP.
I think I understand why you are so reluctant to concede that
Quo Primum is not binding on future popes. You have seen this position used in arguments to justify the Novus Ordo. People say, "Since QP was not binding, Pope Paul VI had a right to create a new Mass and we must accept it." But that is a flawed argument. It does not follow from acknowledging that QP is not binding that we must consider the Novus Ordo to be acceptable.
We have a right to our received and approved rites so whether Novus Ordo is legit or not we hold fast to our patrimony.
Quote from: Jayne on February 21, 2017, 12:47:13 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on February 21, 2017, 11:38:01 AM
You must first understand that when the new "mass" and Rite were being concocted, the crooks made many of the changes according to MD as if MD was their instruction manual in reverse. MD says it's wrong to use a table instead of an altar - the NO uses a table instead of an altar. MD says it's "neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device", the NO reduces many of their reasons for many of the changes to antiquity. MD says it's wrong to exclude black vestments, the NO excludes black vestments.
So when MD says only the pope has the right to make changes as long as he does so in order to protect the purity and sanctity of the liturgy and prevent abuses and innovations - what do you suppose the NO did? As we see, the pope used his authority to destroy whatever he could of the purity and sanctity of the liturgy and promote abuses and create innovations up the wazoo.
No matter how true any of this may be, it has no bearing on the contradiction between MD and your understanding of QP.
I think I understand why you are so reluctant to concede that Quo Primum is not binding on future popes. You have seen this position used in arguments to justify the Novus Ordo. People say, "Since QP was not binding, Pope Paul VI had a right to create a new Mass and we must accept it." But that is a flawed argument. It does not follow from acknowledging that QP is not binding that we must consider the Novus Ordo to be acceptable.
No Jayne, you are missing the entire point. The point being the pope, Pius V, made a law the whole Church is bound to obey, he made this law specifically for the purpose of protecting the liturgy. Protecting the liturgy, as you must know, entails many things, not just the words of the prayers in the missal, but also the rituals, the language and universality of the form, the liturgical colors and etc. etc. - i.e. so that it would be the exact same Mass being celebrated everywhere in the world always, in perpetuity. As is said in Quo Primum,
"that there be in the Church only one appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass". That's the reason that pope Pius V made the law.
But it is also clear that per Quo Primum, the missal of PPV is to be followed absolutely - whether you want to translate that to "may" be followed or "must" be followed is irrelevant, what matters is that *only* his missal is to be followed, that's what matters - that is the law he made. It just is. There is no getting around that as long as the world exists.
This is why only popes have the right and can legally make incidental changes to the missal of Pius V - there is nothing in Quo Primum suggesting otherwise.
But, that is not what Pope Paul VI did, he did not make incidental changes, he didn't even make a single change to the missal of Pius V, what he did was replace the missal completely with his own invention.
Per Quo Primum, this is contrary to the law; (
"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") and it is contrary to the law whether he had a right to replace it or not - so the argument ends on this fact, that PPVI made a new rite - the "New Order" - this is contrary to the law no matter how anyone looks at it.
Being contrary to the law makes the new mass illegal. PPVI cannot make it not illegal unless he abrogated the law - which he never did. This is the reason Fr. Wathen rightly said;
"We believe that because the new mass is clearly against the law which governs the liturgy of the Roman Rite, that there is no legality to it..." Certainly there can even be a case made that Pius V meant it was ok for popes to make incidental changes when he said;
"We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal" - what does he mean if not "incidental changes may be permitted as long as no one is forcing him to make the changes" - can this sentence be construed that popes may make incidental changes? I think so but for me, I've always understood that it goes without saying that incidental changes could indeed be made - but of course, only by popes. I don't think my understanding is wrong, if it is, no one has proven it to be wrong.
Quote from: Stubborn on February 21, 2017, 04:32:35 PM
No Jayne, you are missing the entire point. The point being the pope, Pius V, made a law the whole Church is bound to obey, he made this law specifically for the purpose of protecting the liturgy. Protecting the liturgy, as you must know, entails many things, not just the words of the prayers in the missal, but also the rituals, the language and universality of the form, the liturgical colors and etc. etc. - i.e. so that it would be the exact same Mass being celebrated everywhere in the world always, in perpetuity. As is said in Quo Primum, "that there be in the Church only one appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass". That's the reason that pope Pius V made the law.
Pius V did not say anything about protecting the liturgy. The reason that he gives for issuing
Quo Primum is near the beginning of the Bull:
QuoteWhereas amongst other decrees of the Holy Council of Trent We were charged with revision and re-issue of the sacred books, to wit the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary; and whereas We have with God's consent published a Catechism for the instruction of the faithful, and thoroughly revised the Breviary for the due performance of the Divine Office, We next, in order that Missal and Breviary might be in perfect harmony, as is right and proper (considering that it is altogether fitting that there should be in the Church only one appropriate manner of Psalmody and one sole rite of celebrating Mass), deemed it necessary to give Our immediate attention to what still remained to be done, namely the re-editing of the Missal with the least possible delay.
The reason given for the Missal is "order that Missal and Breviary might be in perfect harmony". He wants a Missal that matches the Breviary he has just promulgated in
Quod a Nobis. But "the appropriate manner for reciting the Psalms" was drastically changed by St. Pius X. So the reason for using the Tridentine Mass no longer existed at the time of Paul VI.
Quote from: Stubborn on February 21, 2017, 04:32:35 PM
But it is also clear that per Quo Primum, the missal of PPV is to be followed absolutely - whether you want to translate that to "may" be followed or "must" be followed is irrelevant, what matters is that *only* his missal is to be followed, that's what matters - that is the law he made. It just is. There is no getting around that as long as the world exists.
There is a huge difference between a document that says people are allowed to use a certain missal and one that says that people must use it. Your ideas about
Quo Primum appear to bear little relationship its words. You seem to have decided what you want it to mean and the words are irrelevant.
Quote from: Stubborn on February 21, 2017, 04:32:35 PM
But, that is not what Pope Paul VI did, he did not make incidental changes, he didn't even make a single change to the missal of Pius V, what he did was replace the missal completely with his own invention.
Per Quo Primum, this is contrary to the law; ("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") and it is contrary to the law whether he had a right to replace it or not - so the argument ends on this fact, that PPVI made a new rite - the "New Order" - this is contrary to the law no matter how anyone looks at it.
The "law" you cite above is mistranslated. Here is the correct translation with a bit more context: "We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used."
A statement that a missal may be used without penalty is not a law that this is the only missal that can be used. It is absurd to claim that this sentence bound all subsequent popes to forever use the Tridentine missal.
Quote from: Stubborn on February 21, 2017, 04:32:35 PM
Certainly there can even be a case made that Pius V meant it was ok for popes to make incidental changes when he said; "We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal" - what does he mean if not "incidental changes may be permitted as long as no one is forcing him to make the changes" - can this sentence be construed that popes may make incidental changes? I think so but for me, I've always understood that it goes without saying that incidental changes could indeed be made - but of course, only by popes. I don't think my understanding is wrong, if it is, no one has proven it to be wrong.
That is an odd way to understand those words. There is no reason at all to think it is about incidental changes. It almost certainly refers to the following paragraphs about printers and publishers. He is saying that it is wrong to force them to alter the approved missal.
Snip from the same interview as posted earlier in this thread. This picks back up where they're speaking about the matter of the new words of consecration aka "for all" vs "for many " and ends talking about the pope's authority re: the law.
Question: .... Now people look at this as if it is a minor change, but pope St. Pius V stated in De Defectibus that if anyone changes the words of consecration so as to change the meaning, he does not confect the sacrament. Now the thing is that people look at this change from "many" to "all" is if it's a minor change but that is not a minor change.
Fr. People are generally not invited to examine this matter at all. They are told that they simply must put all their trust in the priests, bishops and the pope. The matter is not presented to them so that they may know what is at issue here. But we have to insist that every individual is involved here, every Catholic is involved and should know that the form of consecration of the wine has been changed, and that it was changed without explanation, it was changed without any need, and the words of the new form most certainly do not mean the same thing that the old for stated. There can be no denying that the new form does not say exactly the same thing as the old form said.
As to whether this renders the consecration invalid, we cannot say definitively because individual Catholics, priests included, do not have the right to make those decisions, but we do have to say that something serious has happened and we do have a right to an explanation and we have every reason to question. We have a moral obligation to question. We must be satisfied that what has been done does not alter the Rite of the Mass - and it is impossible to examine the matter without having grave doubts.
If any who Catholic examines the matter does not have grave doubts, it is because he is not thinking straight, he is thinking as he is told to think.
We say that people must not participate, must not have anything to do with the new mass because it is a sacrilege. It is a sacrilege because it violates the standard which the Church established through pope St. Pius V. It is a deliberate effort to destroy that standard.
People must be convinced that the purpose of the new mass was to banish forever the traditional Latin Mass. They may or may not be surprised that they have evoked such a violent reaction to their efforts ever since the new mass appeared there has been resistance to it. They condemn our resistance and they hold the law at us. They tell us or they say to others about us that we are rebels that we are disobedient. We respond, no, they are disobedient. They are the ones who are going contrary to the law. They are the ones that have engineered something that had been forbidden.
Question: When you were ordained, the priests use to take two oaths, one against modernism and one for fidelity to the canons of the council or Trent, is that correct?
Fr. We are bound by our oath to adhere to the canons of all the councils. The profession of faith mentions the last two councils before the Second Vatican Council specifically – the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council. Priests, in the vowing to be loyal, to be faithful to those councils, indirectly is vowing fidelity to the Rite of the Mass because the Council of Trent called for the introduction, establishment and issuance of a new missal for the sake of perfect uniformity both of ritual and of doctrine. That is why the council made this legislation so that there would be a uniform Rite, so that all Catholic of the Roman Rite might know the true Catholic Mass, as opposed to anything contrary to it that they might witness or be given by some heretic.
Question: The true name would be the Roman Rite of the Mass, correct?
Fr. We would say, it is the Mass of the Roman Rite, there is only one. Pius V said that there could never be but one and he had the authority to impose this for all time.
If he did not have the authority to do so, even to the extent of binding all his successors, [then] this is to say that he, the pope, did not even know the limits of his own authority. This is to say that this pope attempted to do something which he had no authority to do.
And we say, well, then if he did not have that authority then his authority was limited.
We say that if his authority is limited, then all his successors' authority is limited also. And we say yes, the authority of the pope is limited, but it is not limited to establishing the liturgy of the Mass for all time. It is limited to where a successor cannot discard this Mass because of a whimsy or a deviation from Catholic belief - and there has to be a deviation from Catholic belief on the part of pope Paul VI who would introduce such a mass as what we have – the Novus Ordo Missae.........
Quote from: Jayne on February 21, 2017, 06:41:31 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on February 21, 2017, 04:32:35 PM
No Jayne, you are missing the entire point. The point being the pope, Pius V, made a law the whole Church is bound to obey, he made this law specifically for the purpose of protecting the liturgy. Protecting the liturgy, as you must know, entails many things, not just the words of the prayers in the missal, but also the rituals, the language and universality of the form, the liturgical colors and etc. etc. - i.e. so that it would be the exact same Mass being celebrated everywhere in the world always, in perpetuity. As is said in Quo Primum, "that there be in the Church only one appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass". That's the reason that pope Pius V made the law.
Pius V did not say anything about protecting the liturgy. The reason that he gives for issuing Quo Primum is near the beginning of the Bull:....
The reason given for the Missal is "order that Missal and Breviary might be in perfect harmony". He wants a Missal that matches the Breviary he has just promulgated in Quod a Nobis. But "the appropriate manner for reciting the Psalms" was drastically changed by St. Pius X. So the reason for using the Tridentine Mass no longer existed at the time of Paul VI.
You are talking yourself in circles and in the process, you have effectively negated every reason for his ever having fixed the Mass at all, let alone for all time.
Aside from the First Mark of the Church being One (of worship), among pope Pius V's reasons for making a uniform Rite, is so that all Catholics, wherever they may be, would know the true Catholic Mass when they see it. Inherent to this reason is that Catholics, in knowing the Mass when they see it, will know what it is not - that is, that it's not the Catholic Mass when they go somewhere and see a different service going on.
Quote from: Stubborn on February 22, 2017, 04:55:10 AM
Quote from: Jayne on February 21, 2017, 06:41:31 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on February 21, 2017, 04:32:35 PM
No Jayne, you are missing the entire point. The point being the pope, Pius V, made a law the whole Church is bound to obey, he made this law specifically for the purpose of protecting the liturgy. Protecting the liturgy, as you must know, entails many things, not just the words of the prayers in the missal, but also the rituals, the language and universality of the form, the liturgical colors and etc. etc. - i.e. so that it would be the exact same Mass being celebrated everywhere in the world always, in perpetuity. As is said in Quo Primum, "that there be in the Church only one appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass". That's the reason that pope Pius V made the law.
Pius V did not say anything about protecting the liturgy. The reason that he gives for issuing Quo Primum is near the beginning of the Bull:....
The reason given for the Missal is "order that Missal and Breviary might be in perfect harmony". He wants a Missal that matches the Breviary he has just promulgated in Quod a Nobis. But "the appropriate manner for reciting the Psalms" was drastically changed by St. Pius X. So the reason for using the Tridentine Mass no longer existed at the time of Paul VI.
You are talking yourself in circles and in the process, you have effectively negated every reason for his ever having fixed the Mass at all, let alone for all time.
Aside from the First Mark of the Church being One (of worship), among pope Pius V's reasons for making a uniform Rite, is so that all Catholics, wherever they may be, would know the true Catholic Mass when they see it. Inherent to this reason is that Catholics, in knowing the Mass when they see it, will know what it is not - that is, that it's not the Catholic Mass when they go somewhere and see a different service going on.
How do Eastern Catholics figure into this line of thinking, and how does the situation of their liturgies differ from the various pre-Tridentine Latin rites?
Quote from: aquinas138 on February 22, 2017, 05:39:02 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on February 22, 2017, 04:55:10 AM
Quote from: Jayne on February 21, 2017, 06:41:31 PM
Quote from: Stubborn on February 21, 2017, 04:32:35 PM
No Jayne, you are missing the entire point. The point being the pope, Pius V, made a law the whole Church is bound to obey, he made this law specifically for the purpose of protecting the liturgy. Protecting the liturgy, as you must know, entails many things, not just the words of the prayers in the missal, but also the rituals, the language and universality of the form, the liturgical colors and etc. etc. - i.e. so that it would be the exact same Mass being celebrated everywhere in the world always, in perpetuity. As is said in Quo Primum, "that there be in the Church only one appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass". That's the reason that pope Pius V made the law.
Pius V did not say anything about protecting the liturgy. The reason that he gives for issuing Quo Primum is near the beginning of the Bull:....
The reason given for the Missal is "order that Missal and Breviary might be in perfect harmony". He wants a Missal that matches the Breviary he has just promulgated in Quod a Nobis. But "the appropriate manner for reciting the Psalms" was drastically changed by St. Pius X. So the reason for using the Tridentine Mass no longer existed at the time of Paul VI.
You are talking yourself in circles and in the process, you have effectively negated every reason for his ever having fixed the Mass at all, let alone for all time.
Aside from the First Mark of the Church being One (of worship), among pope Pius V's reasons for making a uniform Rite, is so that all Catholics, wherever they may be, would know the true Catholic Mass when they see it. Inherent to this reason is that Catholics, in knowing the Mass when they see it, will know what it is not - that is, that it's not the Catholic Mass when they go somewhere and see a different service going on.
How do Eastern Catholics figure into this line of thinking, and how does the situation of their liturgies differ from the various pre-Tridentine Latin rites?
The legislation of Trent takes notes of older Rites in the West like that of Braga, Milan or Sarum, plus those of religious orders, over 200 years old. Little enough was said on 'Uniate' Churches except that there was a deliberate avoidance of condemnation of the EO position on additional marriages. Venice noted that a condemnation of the Greek position would harm the Republic in its efforts against the infidel. I see Trent as trying to ensure that a Latin, a European could be certain that he could be certain of hearing the True Mass in the Latin Rite offfered correctly. Italy had, and still has, the Italo-Albanese Eparchy, in southern Italy. Gregory XIII, of calendar fame, made provision late in the sixteenth century for training their priests and Greek Rite priests elsewhere. Trent said little enough about the Catholic Greek, Coptic, Melkite or Maronite Rites.
I am concerned about my ability to be kind and patient in this thread. I like and respect Stubborn, so I especially don't want to lose my temper with him. I think I'll just drop out of this debate now.
Here is a quote from Martin Mosebach's
The Heresy of Formlessness that I think we can all agree on:
Quote"Perhaps the greatest damage done by Pope Paul VI's reform of the Mass (and by the ongoing process that has outstripped it), the greatest spiritual deficit, is this: we are now positively obliged to talk about the liturgy. Even those who want to preserve the liturgy or pray in the spirit of the liturgy, and even those who make great sacrifices to remain faithful to it-all have lost something priceless, namely, the innocence that accepts it as something God-given, something that comes down to man as a gift from heaven. Those of us who are defenders of the great and sacred liturgy, the classical Roman liturgy, have all become-whether in a small way or a big way-liturgical experts. In order to counter the arguments of the reform, which was padded with technical, archaeological, and historical scholarship, we had to delve into questions of worship and liturgy-something that is utterly foreign to the religious man [i.e., the man whose religion is so natural to him as to be unintentional and reflexive].
We have let ourselves be led into a kind of scholastic and juridical way of considering the liturgy. What is absolutely indispensable for genuine liturgy? When are the celebrant's whims tolerable, and when do they become unacceptable? We have got used to accepting the liturgy on the basis of minimum requirements, whereas the criteria ought to be maximal. And finally, we have started to evaluate liturgy-a monstrous act! We sit in the pews and ask ourselves, was that Holy Mass, or wasn't it? I go to church to see God and come away like a theatre critic. And if, now and again, we have the privilege of celebrating a Holy Mass that allows us to forget, for a while, the huge historical and religious catastrophe that has profoundly damaged the bridge between man and God, we cannot forget all the efforts that had to be made so that this Mass could take place, how many letters had to be written, how many sacrifices made this Holy Sacrifice possible, so that (among other things) we could pray for a bishop who does not want our prayers and who would prefer not to have his name mentioned in the Canon.
What have we lost? The opportunity to lead a hidden religious life, days begun with a quiet Mass in a modest little neighborhood church; a life in which we learn, over decades, discreetly guided by priests, to mingle our own sacrifice with Christ's sacrifice; a Holy Mass in which we ponder our own sins and the graces given to us-and nothing else; rarely is this possible any more for a Catholic aware of liturgical tradition, once the liturgy's unquestioned status has been destroyed" [1 25-26].
Quote from: Jayne on February 23, 2017, 09:59:01 AM
Here is a quote from Martin Mosebach's The Heresy of Formlessness that I think we can all agree on:
Quote"Perhaps the greatest damage done by Pope Paul VI's reform of the Mass (and by the ongoing process that has outstripped it), the greatest spiritual deficit, is this: we are now positively obliged to talk about the liturgy. Even those who want to preserve the liturgy or pray in the spirit of the liturgy, and even those who make great sacrifices to remain faithful to it-all have lost something priceless, namely, the innocence that accepts it as something God-given, something that comes down to man as a gift from heaven. Those of us who are defenders of the great and sacred liturgy, the classical Roman liturgy, have all become-whether in a small way or a big way-liturgical experts. In order to counter the arguments of the reform, which was padded with technical, archaeological, and historical scholarship, we had to delve into questions of worship and liturgy-something that is utterly foreign to the religious man [i.e., the man whose religion is so natural to him as to be unintentional and reflexive].
We have let ourselves be led into a kind of scholastic and juridical way of considering the liturgy. What is absolutely indispensable for genuine liturgy? When are the celebrant's whims tolerable, and when do they become unacceptable? We have got used to accepting the liturgy on the basis of minimum requirements, whereas the criteria ought to be maximal. And finally, we have started to evaluate liturgy-a monstrous act! We sit in the pews and ask ourselves, was that Holy Mass, or wasn't it? I go to church to see God and come away like a theatre critic. And if, now and again, we have the privilege of celebrating a Holy Mass that allows us to forget, for a while, the huge historical and religious catastrophe that has profoundly damaged the bridge between man and God, we cannot forget all the efforts that had to be made so that this Mass could take place, how many letters had to be written, how many sacrifices made this Holy Sacrifice possible, so that (among other things) we could pray for a bishop who does not want our prayers and who would prefer not to have his name mentioned in the Canon.
What have we lost? The opportunity to lead a hidden religious life, days begun with a quiet Mass in a modest little neighborhood church; a life in which we learn, over decades, discreetly guided by priests, to mingle our own sacrifice with Christ's sacrifice; a Holy Mass in which we ponder our own sins and the graces given to us-and nothing else; rarely is this possible any more for a Catholic aware of liturgical tradition, once the liturgy's unquestioned status has been destroyed" [1 25-26].
Thanks for providing this excerpt which makes an excellent point. Yes, one way to kill a thing is simply to dissect it, even while saying how much you love it.
No matter how much you might say, "I love this cat, this is my favorite cat," once you've taken a scalpel to it in order to see how it works, the cat is dead. Or like taking a clock apart because you admire how well it works. What are the chances that it will ever work well again after you've tried to replace all the gears and wheels that you took to pieces?
Marriage counseling is nearly always a failure for the same reason. A relationship is a living thing, but once you've cut it all to shreds in order to see how well it's working, there's very little chance of it surviving the operation.
Once the Mass has become a Frankenstein's monster perpetually on the operating table with various pieces continually being removed and replaced, it ceases to be a living, organic reality. Even if you can succeed at injecting enough life to get it to step off the table, it will have no soul.
I think it was Robert Louis Stevenson who had a short story about an artist who was in love with a beautiful woman, but he wasn't satisfied just to love her, he wanted to figure out what made her beautiful, but in doing so he ended up killing her.
Jaynes done good work in this thread.
Also, to restrict the liturgy to JUST the missal is such a modern, terrible way to approach liturgy. Liturgy is both the Mass and the Office. This is the traditional way a Catholic lives his liturgical life.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaesekopf on February 23, 2017, 03:31:30 PM
Jaynes done good work in this thread.
Also, to restrict the liturgy to JUST the missal is such a modern, terrible way to approach liturgy. Liturgy is both the Mass and the Office. This is the traditional way a Catholic lives his liturgical life.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
The liturgy, most particularly in the New Mass lectionary, and the New Office share an approach of minimising the sinfulness of man. More of the Bible was superficially covered, but harsher readings and psalms were discarded on no better basis than running contrary to the sixties Cult of Man.
Yup.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaesekopf on February 23, 2017, 03:31:30 PM
Jaynes done good work in this thread.
Also, to restrict the liturgy to JUST the missal is such a modern, terrible way to approach liturgy. Liturgy is both the Mass and the Office. This is the traditional way a Catholic lives his liturgical life.
The topic of this thread is about Quo Primum. It is discussing whether this law is, or to what extent, binding on future popes.
It becomes a discussion as to why PPV made it a law that for the Roman Rite, there could only ever be, one missal, hence one Mass "until another pope decides on a whim, otherwise" is the common thinking. But that thinking, according to QP, is error - because according to QP, only Pope St. Pius V's missal is to be used in perpetuity.
Then Jayne brings up Quod a nobis (which I cannot find online), but trust it's language is as strong as QP just as she said. She brings up Pope St. Pius X's major revisions to the Roman Breviary which apparently did not effect the Sacrifice of the Mass of Pius V, but she mentions it because the force of the language is the same in each document.
Simply put, I do not see how there can be any comparison to what PPX did with what PPVI did. A few major differences that should immediately stand out between what PPX did to the Breviary and what PPVI did to the Mass, is that prior to publishing the revisions to the Breviary, PPX did what PPVI never did - he numerated reasons for the revisions *and* more importantly, he officially, explicitly abrogated Quod a nobis with his Apostolic Constitution, Divino Afflatu. With this abrogation, PPX made the whole thing licit. This clear, official abrogation from PPX is how we know the revisions to the Breviary were unquestionably legitimate. Being legitimate, they were not contrary to the law, therefore there can be no question - his revisions were not unlawful or illegal.
Quote from: Divino AfflatuSource (http://sanctaliturgia.blogspot.com/2005/11/divino-afflatu-english.html)
Therefore, by the authority of these letters, we first of all abolish the order of the psaltery as it is at present in the Roman breviary, and we absolutely forbid the use of it after the 1st day of January of the year 1913. From that day in all the churches of secular and regular clergy, in the monasteries, orders, congregations and institutes of religious, by all and several who by office or custom recite the canonical hours according to the Roman breviary issued by St. Pius V and revised by Clement VIII, Urban VIII and Leo XIII, we order the religious observance of the new arrangement of the psaltery in the form in which we have approved it and decreed its publication by the Vatican printing press. At the same time we proclaim the penalties prescribed in law against all who fail in their office of reciting the canonical hours everyday; all such are to know that they will not be satisfying this grave duty unless they use this our disposition of the psaltery.....
There was never just one missal though. Lol at the carmelites, Dominicans, look at the ambrosian, the mozarabic. Many rites in the western church, even many variations of the Roman rite.
I think it's funny that you define legitimate as "if the pope issues the right document". That sort of papal positivism is what led us to where we are! Liturgy is more than the bishop of rome!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Quote from: Stubborn on February 24, 2017, 08:33:24 AM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on February 23, 2017, 03:31:30 PM
Jaynes done good work in this thread.
Also, to restrict the liturgy to JUST the missal is such a modern, terrible way to approach liturgy. Liturgy is both the Mass and the Office. This is the traditional way a Catholic lives his liturgical life.
The topic of this thread is about Quo Primum. It is discussing whether this law is, or to what extent, binding on future popes.
It becomes a discussion as to why PPV made it a law that for the Roman Rite, there could only ever be, one missal, hence one Mass "until another pope decides on a whim, otherwise" is the common thinking. But that thinking, according to QP, is error - because according to QP, only Pope St. Pius V's missal is to be used in perpetuity.
Then Jayne brings up Quod a nobis (which I cannot find online), but trust it's language is as strong as QP just as she said. She brings up Pope St. Pius X's major revisions to the Roman Breviary which apparently did not effect the Sacrifice of the Mass of Pius V, but she mentions it because the force of the language is the same in each document.
Simply put, I do not see how there can be any comparison to what PPX did with what PPVI did. A few major differences that should immediately stand out between what PPX did to the Breviary and what PPVI did to the Mass, is that prior to publishing the revisions to the Breviary, PPX did what PPVI never did - he numerated reasons for the revisions *and* more importantly, he officially, explicitly abrogated Quod a nobis with his Apostolic Constitution, Divino Afflatu. With this abrogation, PPX made the whole thing licit. This clear, official abrogation from PPX is how we know the revisions to the Breviary were unquestionably legitimate. Being legitimate, they were not contrary to the law, therefore there can be no question - his revisions were not unlawful or illegal.
Quote from: Divino AfflatuSource (http://sanctaliturgia.blogspot.com/2005/11/divino-afflatu-english.html)
Therefore, by the authority of these letters, we first of all abolish the order of the psaltery as it is at present in the Roman breviary, and we absolutely forbid the use of it after the 1st day of January of the year 1913. From that day in all the churches of secular and regular clergy, in the monasteries, orders, congregations and institutes of religious, by all and several who by office or custom recite the canonical hours according to the Roman breviary issued by St. Pius V and revised by Clement VIII, Urban VIII and Leo XIII, we order the religious observance of the new arrangement of the psaltery in the form in which we have approved it and decreed its publication by the Vatican printing press. At the same time we proclaim the penalties prescribed in law against all who fail in their office of reciting the canonical hours everyday; all such are to know that they will not be satisfying this grave duty unless they use this our disposition of the psaltery.....
A poster at Catholic Answers asks the same question, looking for an online copy of Quod a nobis. She says after St. Pius V gave the breviary the "in perpetuity clause" with Quod a nobis he himself modified it a couple of years later, and then St. Pius X did the same 250 years later. And from your post Stubborn by quoting Divino Afflatu it was also revised by Clement VIII, Urban VIII and Leo XIII.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=577690
QuoteMy husband has attended a SSPX chapel for Mass for the past two years. I attend a very orthodox church that offers the Novus Ordo Mass. He and I recently came across information regarding Quod a Nobis (sometimes referred to as Quod a Vobis or Quod a Vobix), a papal bull written by St. Pius V in 1568. It is my understanding that Pius V modified the Roman Breviary at that time and gave the "in perpetuity clause" (just like at the end of Quo Primum in 1570 regarding the Mass). The breviary was subsequently modified first by St. Pius V himself a couple years later, then by St. Pius X around 250 years later. Does anyone know where we could obtain a copy of Quod a Nobis? I have searched the internet, and I can only find references to it, not the actual text.
Another poster replies to her with a link to Quod a Nobis in Latin.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=-cXYqusIEx8C&dq=breviarium+romanum&pg=PP9&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
The above post from CA gives me the impression that St. Pius V was giving the "in perpetuity clause" just to the Mass in Quo Primum. And not to the Mass and the Office.
Also the Catholic encyclopedia gives two different definitions for Liturgy, then goes on to describe the history of the Mass from apostolic times. Again I believe St. Pius V was using the second definitions below for the Liturgy in Quo Primum. Meaning just the Latin Rite Mass, and not the Office.
Liturgy
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09306a.htm
Quote...
We must now distinguish two senses in which the word was and is still commonly used. These two senses often lead to confusion.
On the one hand, liturgy often means the whole complex of official services, all the rites, ceremonies, prayers, and sacraments of the Church, as opposed to private devotions. In this sense we speak of the arrangement of all these services in certain set forms (including the canonical hours, administration of sacraments, etc.), used officially by any local church, as the liturgy of such a church — the Liturgy of Antioch, the Roman Liturgy, and so on. So liturgy means rite; we speak indifferently of the Byzantine Rite or the Byzantine Liturgy. In the same sense we distinguish the official services from others by calling them liturgical; those services are liturgical which are contained in any of the official books (see LITURGICAL BOOKS) of a rite. In the Roman Church, for instance, Compline is a liturgical service, the Rosary is not.
The other sense of the word liturgy, now the common one in all Eastern Churches, restricts it to the chief official service only — the Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist, which in our rite we call the Mass. This is now practically the only sense in which leitourgia is used in Greek, or in its derived forms (e.g., Arabic al-liturgiah) by any Eastern Christian. When a Greek speaks of the "Holy Liturgy" he means only the Eucharistic Service. For the sake of clearness it is perhaps better for us too to keep the word to this sense, at any rate in speaking of Eastern ecclesiastical matters; for instance, not to speak of the Byzantine canonical hours as liturgical services. Even in Western Rites the word "official" or "canonical" will do as well as "liturgical" in the general sense, so that we too may use Liturgy only for the Holy Eucharist.
It should be noted also that, whereas we may speak of our Mass quite correctly as the Liturgy, we should never use the word Mass for the Eucharistic Sacrifice in any Eastern rite. Mass (missa) is the name for that service in the Latin Rites only. It has never been used either in Latin or Greek for any Eastern rite. Their word, corresponding exactly to our Mass, is Liturgy. The Byzantine Liturgy is the service that corresponds to our Roman Mass; to call it the Byzantine (or, worse still, the Greek) Mass is as wrong as naming any other of their services after ours, as calling their Hesperinos Vespers, or their Orthros Lauds. When people go even as far as calling their books and vestments after ours, saying Missal when they mean Euchologion, alb when they mean sticharion, the confusion becomes hopeless.
...
I think the Office was just the traditional way of life for secular and regular clergy, in the monasteries, orders, congregations and institutes of religious; was it not? I don't think the Office was the traditional way of life for the ordinary Catholic through the ages, although some did it.
Yes, there was only one Roman Rite Missal, and of course those which were over 200 years old at the time of PPV's missal were permitted. We know this because that's what it says right in Quo Primum.
That is the law PPV made - even for popes. Popes need to follow protocol - especially when not doing so would cause worldwide scandal, as PPVI's new mass apparently on a whim, demonstrates.
One pope, PPV, made a law fixing the liturgy for the Roman Rite and explicitly decreed it to be in force forever. That is all there is to it. No one, not even another pope can contradict PPV and replace his missal - at least not according to the law - not ever, and if they do, they act contrary to the law of PPV. Obviously, PPX knew this, hence his Divino Afflatu.
It's not at all complicated. It's actually very basic.
Quote from: mikemac on February 24, 2017, 11:10:08 AM
I think the Office was just the traditional way of life for secular and regular clergy, in the monasteries, orders, congregations and institutes of religious; was it not? I don't think the Office was the traditional way of life for the ordinary Catholic through the ages, although some did it.
I remember a priest who was kicked out of his diocese brought it up, that was some 45 years ago so I don't know hardly anything about it, but PPX abrogated it, then published the version he made mandatory. He abrogated it because he had to because that's how that works.
It's not that the pope is bound to QP as if it is dogma - because that's not how that works. By all appearances, PPVI purposely did not abrogate QP for some reason. But certainly he had no reason to abrogate it because he had no real reason to replace it with the thing he replaced it with - and according to QP, what he did was contrary to the law. There simply is no getting around that fact no matter how much authority one chooses to bestow upon popes.
Quote from: mikemac on February 24, 2017, 11:10:08 AM
Another poster replies to her with a link to Quod a Nobis in Latin.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=-cXYqusIEx8C&dq=breviarium+romanum&pg=PP9&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
The above post from CA gives me the impression that St. Pius V was giving the "in perpetuity clause" just to the Mass in Quo Primum. And not to the Mass and the Office.
The "in perpetuity" phrase does occur in
Quod a Nobis. Here is the sentence in Latin:
QuoteStatuentes Breviarum ipsum nullo umquam tempore vel totum, vel ex parte mutandum, vel ei aliquid addendum, vel omnino detrahendum esse: ac quoscumque, qui Horas Canonicas ex more & ritu ipsius Romnae Ecclesiae, jure vel consuetudine dire, vel psallere debent, propositis poenis per Canonicas sanctiones constitutis in eos, qui Divinium Officium quotidie non dixerint, ad dicendum & psallendum posthac in perpetuum Horas ipsas diurnas & nocturnas, ex hujus Romani Breviarii praescripto & ratione omnino teneri neminemque ex iis, quibus hoc dicendi psallendique munus necessario impositum est, nisi hac sola formula satisfacere posse.
Here is my own rough (but better than Google Translate) translation:
QuoteThis Breviary is being established such that it must not ever at any time, either in whole or in part, be changed, or anything added to it, or anything at all taken away: and everyone who, by law or custom, ought to say or recite the Canonical Hours according to the rite and customs of the Roman Church, having established proposed penalties by canonical sanctions on those who do not say the Divine Office daily, is to be absolutely bound hereafter in perpetuity to the saying and reciting these daily and nightly Hours by the manner prescribed from this Roman Breviary and no one of these on whom this duty of saying and reciting Psalms is by necessity imposed is able to satisfy it unless by this formula alone.
ETA: This sentence is found in the linked site on the third page, about a dozen lines down.
Novus Ordo has been foisted upon us without prior abrogation of the former law/rite. It is a new creation and as should be regarded as such. We are bound to follow our received and approved rites. NO is only approved at most, no more than that, written up by a committee.
Quote from: martin88nyc on February 24, 2017, 01:08:56 PM
Novus Ordo has been foisted upon us without prior abrogation of the former law/rite. It is a new creation and as should be regarded as such. We are bound to follow our received and approved rites. NO is only approved at most, no more than that, written up by a committee.
So you are saying that the Ordinary Form in not received?
received means passed on, handed on. NO hasn't been handed down. You don't create Mass; it must be a product of organic growth. It takes centuries not weeks. And you don't write down Eucharistic prayers on a napkin in a cafe.
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2017, 01:04:39 PM
Quote from: mikemac on February 24, 2017, 11:10:08 AM
Another poster replies to her with a link to Quod a Nobis in Latin.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=-cXYqusIEx8C&dq=breviarium+romanum&pg=PP9&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
The above post from CA gives me the impression that St. Pius V was giving the "in perpetuity clause" just to the Mass in Quo Primum. And not to the Mass and the Office.
The "in perpetuity" phrase does occur in Quod a Nobis. Here is the sentence in Latin:
QuoteStatuentes Breviarum ipsum nullo umquam tempore vel totum, vel ex parte mutandum, vel ei aliquid addendum, vel omnino detrahendum esse: ac quoscumque, qui Horas Canonicas ex more & ritu ipsius Romnae Ecclesiae, jure vel consuetudine dire, vel psallere debent, propositis poenis per Canonicas sanctiones constitutis in eos, qui Divinium Officium quotidie non dixerint, ad dicendum & psallendum posthac in perpetuum Horas ipsas diurnas & nocturnas, ex hujus Romani Breviarii praescripto & ratione omnino teneri neminemque ex iis, quibus hoc dicendi psallendique munus necessario impositum est, nisi hac sola formula satisfacere posse.
Here is my own rough (but better than Google Translate) translation:
QuoteThis Breviary is being established such that it must not ever at any time, either in whole or in part, be changed, or anything added to it, or anything at all taken away: and everyone who, by law or custom, ought to say or recite the Canonical Hours according to the rite and customs of the Roman Church, having established proposed penalties by canonical sanctions on those who do not say the Divine Office daily, is to be absolutely bound hereafter in perpetuity to the saying and reciting these daily and nightly Hours by the manner prescribed from this Roman Breviary and no one of these on whom this duty of saying and reciting Psalms is by necessity imposed is able to satisfy it unless by this formula alone.
ETA: This sentence is found in the linked site on the third page, about a dozen lines down.
Yeah, so, Pius V added the "in perpetuity clause" to Quo Primum for the Latin Rite Mass. And Pius V also added a different "in perpetuity clause" to Quod a Nobis for the Divine Office. I don't even know why you are comparing them.
As stated Pius V modified Quod a Nobis a couple of years later, and Clement VIII, Urban VIII, Leo XIII and Pius X all revised the Divine Office. As we can see in Divino Afflatu Pius X abolish the previous first. Paul VI didn't abolish Quo Primum or the Latin Rite Mass when he introduced the NO.
I was going to suggest that there may be a difference between the authority of Quo Primum being a Papal Encyclical or Papal Bull, and the authority of Quod a Nobis or Divino Afflatu being Apostolic Constitutions, but it doesn't look like it according to this EWTN page.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur149.htm
But EWTN has been wrong before. It would be nice to know what the difference between a Papal Encyclical, a Papal Bull and an Apostolic Constitution is, and if there is any difference in the authority given between them. Both the Catholic encyclopedia and Wikipedia draws a distinction between all three, which I haven't read yet. Feel free to wade through these if you want.
Papal Encyclical
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclical
Papal Bull
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03052b.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_bull
Apostolic Constitutions
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01636a.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_constitution
Quote from: mikemac on February 24, 2017, 04:01:06 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2017, 01:04:39 PM
Here is my own rough (but better than Google Translate) translation:
QuoteThis Breviary is being established such that it must not ever at any time, either in whole or in part, be changed, or anything added to it, or anything at all taken away: and everyone who, by law or custom, ought to say or recite the Canonical Hours according to the rite and customs of the Roman Church, having established proposed penalties by canonical sanctions on those who do not say the Divine Office daily, is to be absolutely bound hereafter in perpetuity to the saying and reciting these daily and nightly Hours by the manner prescribed from this Roman Breviary and no one of these on whom this duty of saying and reciting Psalms is by necessity imposed is able to satisfy it unless by this formula alone.
ETA: This sentence is found in the linked site on the third page, about a dozen lines down.
Yeah, so, Pius V added the "in perpetuity clause" to Quo Primum for the Latin Rite Mass. And Pius V also added a different "in perpetuity clause" to Quod a Nobis for the Divine Office. I don't even know why you are comparing them.
They are so similar that looking at how
Quod a Nobis was understood helps us to understand
Quo Primum.Pope Pius V mentions the content of
Quod a Nobis at the beginning of
Quo Primum :
QuoteFor, besides other decrees of the sacred Council of Trent, there were stipulations for Us to revise and re-edit the sacred books: the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary. With the Catechism published for the instruction of the faithful, by God's help, and the Breviary thoroughly revised for the worthy praise of God, in order that the Missal and Breviary may be in perfect harmony, as fitting and proper - for its most becoming that there be in the Church only one appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass - We deemed it necessary to give our immediate attention to what still remained to be done, viz, the re-editing of the Missal as soon as possible.
As we can see, Pius V, himself, said that these documents are linked. Also, since they are written by the same pope, at around the same time, for related purposes, using the same sort of language, we can see that phrases like "in perpetuity" should be understood the same way. Either they are both binding on future popes, or they are both not.
Quote from: EliRotello on February 24, 2017, 01:59:33 PM
Quote from: martin88nyc on February 24, 2017, 01:08:56 PM
Novus Ordo has been foisted upon us without prior abrogation of the former law/rite. It is a new creation and as should be regarded as such. We are bound to follow our received and approved rites. NO is only approved at most, no more than that, written up by a committee.
So you are saying that the Ordinary Form in not received?
The Novus Ordo is not a "received and approved" rite. Even the heretic Ratzinger/Benedict XVI referred to the Novus Ordo as a "banal, on-the-spot production."
The dogmatic Council of Trent pronounces an anathema on anyone who does what Jayne has been doing in this thread, that is, on anyone who says that pastors can omit the "received and approved" rites customarily
used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments without mortal sin, or create new ones (Session 7, Canon 13). The new Breviary of St. Pius X did not create new rites "
customarily used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments"
The dogmatic Council of Trent said nothing about the creation of new breviaries. The dogmatic Council of Trent did define the necessity of adhering to the received and approved rites customarily used in the
solemn administration of the Sacraments.
Quote from: mikemac on February 24, 2017, 11:10:08 AMI think the Office was just the traditional way of life for secular and regular clergy, in the monasteries, orders, congregations and institutes of religious; was it not? I don't think the Office was the traditional way of life for the ordinary Catholic through the ages, although some did it.
It came to be that way, but the major hours of the Office developed in cathedral churches, not monasteries. Sunday Vespers was somewhat common in some places, particularly cathedrals and larger churches, but for the most part the office gradually disappeared from parish life in the Roman rite, replaced at first by the Little Office and eventually by the Rosary and other private devotions. This has something of a chicken-and-egg relationship to the Office ceasing to be a sung service and just being read privately by clerics. The Eastern Churches do not require their clergy to recited the entire Office daily (the Eastern offices are much longer than the Roman), but they have done a much better job, generally speaking, of preserving the Office in parish use, at least for Sundays and feasts.
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2017, 04:58:01 PM
As we can see, Pius V, himself, said that these documents are linked. Also, since they are written by the same pope, at around the same time, for related purposes, using the same sort of language, we can see that phrases like "in perpetuity" should be understood the same way. Either they are both binding on future popes, or they are both not.
No. I have read where Quo Primum is described as a Papal Encyclical or a Papal Bull. I have also read that both Quod a Nobis and Divino Afflatu are described as Apostolic Constitutions. Have you read about what the difference is between a Papal Encyclical, a Papal Bull and an Apostolic Constitution, and if there is a difference in authority between them? If not you have no right or knowledge to say what you are saying. I haven't had a chance to read them yet myself, but this may be why Paul VI did not abolish the Papal Bull Quo Primum and the Latin Rite Mass when he introduced the Novus Ordo, and why Pius X did abolish the preceding Apostolic Constitution when he introduced Divino Afflatu regarding the Divine Office. Jayne you should not pontificate on these matters unless you are sure of what you are talking about. I won't post again until after I have read them. I hope you do the same.
Quote from: mikemac on February 24, 2017, 08:10:52 PM
No. I have read where Quo Primum is described as a Papal Encyclical or a Papal Bull. I have also read that both Quod a Nobis and Divino Afflatu are described as Apostolic Constitutions. Have you read about what the difference is between a Papal Encyclical, a Papal Bull and an Apostolic Constitution, and if there is a difference in authority between them? If not you have no right or knowledge to say what you are saying. I haven't had a chance to read them yet myself, but this may be why Paul VI did not abolish the Papal Bull Quo Primum and the Latin Rite Mass when he introduced the Novus Ordo, and why Pius X did abolish the preceding Apostolic Constitution when he introduced Divino Afflatu regarding the Divine Office. Jayne you should not pontificate on these matters unless you are sure of what you are talking about. I won't post again until after I have read them. I hope you do the same.
Apostolic Constitution is a general name for an authoritative decree by a pope. In more recent centuries, these are divided into Papal Bulls and Papal Encyclicals, the distinction between them based on the intended scope. But that distinction was not in use at the time of Pius V. Whichever of these terms is used does not affect the level of authority. The level of authority is recognized from the language of the document itself.
Quo Primum and
Quod a Nobis have the same level of authority. I have most often seen them both called Papal Bulls.
No, you are just guessing again Jayne.
Okay here we go, a Papal Bull is more or less a seal that could be attached to "constitutions", "encyclicals", "decrees" or "decretals" showing that it came from the papal chancery.
Papal Bull
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03052b.htm
QuoteA bulla was originally a circular plate or boss of metal, so called from its resemblance in form to a bubble floating upon water (Latin bullire, to boil). In the course of time the term came to be applied to the leaden seals with which papal and royal documents were authenticated in the early Middle Ages, and by a further development, the name, from designating the seal, was eventually attached to the document itself. This did not happen before the thirteenth century and the name bull was only a popular term used almost promiscuously for all kinds of instruments which issued from the papal chancery.
...
In official language papal documents have at all times been called by various names, more or less descriptive of their character. For example, there are "constitutions," i.e., decisions addressed to all the faithful and determining some matter of faith or discipline; "encyclicals," which are letters sent to all the bishops of Christendom, or at least to all those in one particular country, and intended to guide them in their relations with their flocks; "decrees," pronouncements on points affecting the general welfare of the Church; "decretals" (epistolae decretales), which are papal replies to some particular difficulty submitted to the Holy See, but having the force of precedents to rule on all analogous cases. "Rescript," again, is a form applicable to almost any form of Apostolic letter which has been elicited by some previous appeal, while the nature of a "privilege" speaks for itself. But all these, down to the fifteenth century, seem to have been expedited by the papal chancery in the shape of bulls authenticated with leaden seals, and it is common enough to apply the term bull even to those very early papal letters of which we know little more than the substance, independently of the forms under which they were issued.
A Constitution is intended to serve as a manual of guidance for the clergy, and to some extent for the laity, that can be modified or changed.
Apostolic Constitutions
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01636a.htm
QuoteA fourth-century pseudo-Apostolic collection, in eight books, of independent, though closely related, treatises on Christian discipline, worship, and doctrine, intended to serve as a manual of guidance for the clergy, and to some extent for the laity.
...
The compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions made use of the greater part of this older treatise, but he adapted it to the needs of his day by some modifications and extensive interpolation. Liturgical evolution made necessary a considerable amplification of the formulæ of worship; changes in disciplinary practice called for a softening of some of the older laws; scriptural references and examples, intended to enforce the lessons inculcated by the Apostolic Constitutions, are more frequently used than in the parent Didascalia.
A Papal Encyclical may or may not be binding depending on the circumstances, and from the language used in the particular case by the Holy See.
Papal Encyclical
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm
Quote...
From the nature of the case encyclicals addressed to the bishops of the world are generally concerned with matters which affect the welfare of the Church at large. They condemn some prevalent form of error, point out dangers which threaten faith or morals, exhort the faithful to constancy, or prescribe remedies for evils foreseen or already existent. In form an encyclical at the present day begins thus — we may take the encyclical "Pascendi" on Modernism as a specimen: --
...
As for the binding force of these documents it is generally admitted that the mere fact that the pope should have given to any of his utterances the form of an encyclical does not necessarily constitute it an ex-cathedra pronouncement and invest it with infallible authority. The degree in which the infallible magisterium of the Holy See is committed must be judged from the circumstances, and from the language used in the particular case. In the early centuries the term encyclical was applied, not only to papal letters, but to certain letters emanating from bishops or archbishops and directed to their own flocks or to other bishops. Such letters addressed by a bishop to all his subjects in general are now commonly called pastorals. ...
There you have it Jayne.
The reason why Pius V, Clement VIII, Urban VIII, Leo XIII and Pius X either modified or abolished previous Apostolic Constitutions and wrote new ones regarding the Divine Office is because Apostolic Constitutions can be modified or changed.
The reason why Paul VI did not abolish the Papal Encyclical Quo Primum and the Latin Rite Mass when he introduced the Novus Ordo Mass is because a Papal Encyclical can be binding on the Church. I would have to say that Quo Primum is binding on the Church, otherwise Paul VI would have abolished it.
So all those bishops were clearly lying to the laity when they said that the Latin Rite Mass was abrogated. Well we've already known that.
Jayne if you do not believe what I have put in front of your eyes then refer back to Counter Revolutionary's last post.
End of story.
There is a specific work called
The Apostolic Constitutions. That is its name. There is also a term "apostolic constitution" that refers to papal decrees. If you check Wikipedia, you will see that there are two separate entries for these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_constitution)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Constitutions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Constitutions)
You have mixed them up and used the description of the book as the definition of the term. Here is the correct defintion:
QuoteAn apostolic constitution (Latin: constitutio apostolica) is the highest level of decree issued by the Pope. The use of the term constitution comes from Latin constitutio, which referred to any important law issued by the Roman emperor, and is retained in church documents because of the inheritance that the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church received from Roman law.
By their nature, apostolic constitutions are addressed to the public. Generic constitutions use the title apostolic constitution, and treat on solemn matters of the church, such as the promulgation of laws or definitive teachings. The forms dogmatic constitution and pastoral constitution are titles sometimes used to be more descriptive as to the document's purpose.
Apostolic constitutions are issued as papal bulls because of their solemn, public form.
Quod a Nobis and
Quo Primum are the same kind of document with the same level of authority. It does not matter if one uses the term "apostolic constitution" or "papal bull" for them.
Quote from: Counter Revolutionary on February 24, 2017, 06:45:15 PM
The dogmatic Council of Trent said nothing about the creation of new breviaries. The dogmatic Council of Trent did define the necessity of adhering to the received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments.
From the 25th Session of the Council of Trent
QuoteON THE INDEX OF BOOKS; ON THE CATECHISM, BREVIARY, AND MISSAL.
The sacred and holy Synod, in the second Session celebrated under our most holy lord, Pius IV., commissioned certain chosen Fathers to consider what ought to be done touching various censures, and books either suspected or pernicious, and to report thereon to the said holy Synod; hearing now that the finishing hand has been put to that labour by those Fathers, which, however, by reason of the variety and multitude of books cannot be distinctly and conveniently judged of by the holy Synod; It enjoins that whatsoever has been by them done shall be laid before the most holy Roman Pontiff, that it may be by his judgment and authority terminated and made public. And it commands that the same be done in regard of the Catechism, by the Fathers to whom that work was consigned, and as regards the missal and breviary.
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2017, 10:50:22 PM
Quote from: Counter Revolutionary on February 24, 2017, 06:45:15 PM
The dogmatic Council of Trent said nothing about the creation of new breviaries. The dogmatic Council of Trent did define the necessity of adhering to the received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments.
From the 25th Session of the Council of Trent
QuoteON THE INDEX OF BOOKS; ON THE CATECHISM, BREVIARY, AND MISSAL.
The sacred and holy Synod, in the second Session celebrated under our most holy lord, Pius IV., commissioned certain chosen Fathers to consider what ought to be done touching various censures, and books either suspected or pernicious, and to report thereon to the said holy Synod; hearing now that the finishing hand has been put to that labour by those Fathers, which, however, by reason of the variety and multitude of books cannot be distinctly and conveniently judged of by the holy Synod; It enjoins that whatsoever has been by them done shall be laid before the most holy Roman Pontiff, that it may be by his judgment and authority terminated and made public. And it commands that the same be done in regard of the Catechism, by the Fathers to whom that work was consigned, and as regards the missal and breviary.
Does what you quoted look like a dogmatic definition of a truth revealed by God, a formal object of Divine and Catholic faith?
Canon 13 of Session 7 on the necessity of adhering to the "received and approved" rites is a dogmatic definition, a truth revealed by God, and a formal object of Divine and Catholic faith. A heretic is a baptized person who refuses to believe an article of Divine and Catholic faith.
QuoteIf anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches, whomsoever, to other new ones, let him be anathema.
Quote from: Counter Revolutionary on February 25, 2017, 04:56:21 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2017, 10:50:22 PM
Quote from: Counter Revolutionary on February 24, 2017, 06:45:15 PM
The dogmatic Council of Trent said nothing about the creation of new breviaries. The dogmatic Council of Trent did define the necessity of adhering to the received and approved rites customarily used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments.
From the 25th Session of the Council of Trent
QuoteON THE INDEX OF BOOKS; ON THE CATECHISM, BREVIARY, AND MISSAL.
The sacred and holy Synod, in the second Session celebrated under our most holy lord, Pius IV., commissioned certain chosen Fathers to consider what ought to be done touching various censures, and books either suspected or pernicious, and to report thereon to the said holy Synod; hearing now that the finishing hand has been put to that labour by those Fathers, which, however, by reason of the variety and multitude of books cannot be distinctly and conveniently judged of by the holy Synod; It enjoins that whatsoever has been by them done shall be laid before the most holy Roman Pontiff, that it may be by his judgment and authority terminated and made public. And it commands that the same be done in regard of the Catechism, by the Fathers to whom that work was consigned, and as regards the missal and breviary.
Does what you quoted look like a dogmatic definition of a truth revealed by God, a formal object of Divine and Catholic faith?
Canon 13 of Session 7 on the necessity of adhering to the "received and approved" rites is a dogmatic definition, a truth revealed by God, and a formal object of Divine and Catholic faith. A heretic is a baptized person who refuses to believe an article of Divine and Catholic faith.
QuoteIf anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches, whomsoever, to other new ones, let him be anathema.
I accept this. However, my understanding of what this means appears to be drastically different than yours. Apparently you think that this proves that
Quo Primum is binding on subsequent popes. I really cannot follow your reasoning here.
Quote from: martin88nyc on February 24, 2017, 02:55:45 PM
received means passed on, handed on. NO hasn't been handed down. You don't create Mass; it must be a product of organic growth. It takes centuries not weeks. And you don't write down Eucharistic prayers on a napkin in a cafe.
Here is the usual definition of "received":
Quotereceived adjective
1. Generally approved or agreed upon:
accepted, conventional, orthodox, recognized, sanctioned.
2. Adhering to beliefs or practices approved by authority or tradition:
canonical, orthodox, sanctioned, time-honored.
So I have understood "received and approved rites" to mean the officially authorized rites. Do you have some reason to think that "received" should be understood with a non-standard meaning in this passage? I can think of no other context in which the word has the meaning "product of organic growth".
Quote from: Jayne on February 26, 2017, 05:20:01 PM
Quote from: martin88nyc on February 24, 2017, 02:55:45 PM
received means passed on, handed on. NO hasn't been handed down. You don't create Mass; it must be a product of organic growth. It takes centuries not weeks. And you don't write down Eucharistic prayers on a napkin in a cafe.
Here is the usual definition of "received":
Quotereceived adjective
1. Generally approved or agreed upon:
accepted, conventional, orthodox, recognized, sanctioned.
2. Adhering to beliefs or practices approved by authority or tradition:
canonical, orthodox, sanctioned, time-honored.
So I have understood "received and approved rites" to mean the officially authorized rites. Do you have some reason to think that "received" should be understood with a non-standard meaning in this passage? I can think of no other context in which the word has the meaning "product of organic growth".
you are right Jayne according to these definitions you provided but I had read an article in CFN and it explains it differently so I don't know anymore. Here is the article:
http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page66/salza_novus_ordo.html (http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page66/salza_novus_ordo.html)
QuoteThe Church has taught this divine truth throughout her history. For example, in the Papal Oath of Coronation, which originates at least as far back as Pope St. Agatho in 678 A.D. (and which was set aside by Paul VI), every Pope swore to change nothing of the "received tradition." Pope Pius IV's Tridentine Profession of Faith, which is binding on the souls of all Catholics, likewise expresses this principle by requiring adherence to the "received and approved rites of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of the sacraments."[2] The "received and approved rites of the Church" originate from the Spirit of Christ and the traditions of the apostles which have been handed down to us through the ages.
Because the "received and approved rites" are part of the Church's infallible expression of the unchanging Deposit of Faith, as inspired and nurtured by the Holy Ghost, they cannot be set aside or changed into new rites. This is why the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1545-1563) infallibly declared:
"If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema."[3]
In this context it is in accord with my understanding.
"From the time the Christian religion began to be spread, she has held unchangeable and taught uncorrupted throughout the world the doctrines which she has received once and for all from her patron and founder, St. Peter." - Pope Saint Nicholas the Great
Correct me if I am wrong. to be honest I am not sure exactly. A good canonist would definitely give us the right answer. :)
Quote from: martin88nyc on February 26, 2017, 07:30:37 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 26, 2017, 05:20:01 PM
Quote from: martin88nyc on February 24, 2017, 02:55:45 PM
received means passed on, handed on. NO hasn't been handed down. You don't create Mass; it must be a product of organic growth. It takes centuries not weeks. And you don't write down Eucharistic prayers on a napkin in a cafe.
Here is the usual definition of "received":
Quotereceived adjective
1. Generally approved or agreed upon:
accepted, conventional, orthodox, recognized, sanctioned.
2. Adhering to beliefs or practices approved by authority or tradition:
canonical, orthodox, sanctioned, time-honored.
So I have understood "received and approved rites" to mean the officially authorized rites. Do you have some reason to think that "received" should be understood with a non-standard meaning in this passage? I can think of no other context in which the word has the meaning "product of organic growth".
you are right Jayne according to these definitions you provided but I had read an article in CFN and it explains it differently so I don't know anymore. Here is the article:
http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page66/salza_novus_ordo.html (http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page66/salza_novus_ordo.html)
QuoteThe Church has taught this divine truth throughout her history. For example, in the Papal Oath of Coronation, which originates at least as far back as Pope St. Agatho in 678 A.D. (and which was set aside by Paul VI), every Pope swore to change nothing of the "received tradition." Pope Pius IV's Tridentine Profession of Faith, which is binding on the souls of all Catholics, likewise expresses this principle by requiring adherence to the "received and approved rites of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of the sacraments."[2] The "received and approved rites of the Church" originate from the Spirit of Christ and the traditions of the apostles which have been handed down to us through the ages.
Because the "received and approved rites" are part of the Church's infallible expression of the unchanging Deposit of Faith, as inspired and nurtured by the Holy Ghost, they cannot be set aside or changed into new rites. This is why the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1545-1563) infallibly declared:
"If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema."[3]
John Salza's article "The Novus Ordo Mass and Divine Law" that you linked to is truly excellent and should be read by all Catholics. Anyone who has doubts about the issue should say a prayer to the Holy Ghost asking for enlightenment and should read Mr. Salza's article.
Quote from: martin88nyc on February 26, 2017, 07:30:37 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 26, 2017, 05:20:01 PM
Quote from: martin88nyc on February 24, 2017, 02:55:45 PM
received means passed on, handed on. NO hasn't been handed down. You don't create Mass; it must be a product of organic growth. It takes centuries not weeks. And you don't write down Eucharistic prayers on a napkin in a cafe.
Here is the usual definition of "received":
Quotereceived adjective
1. Generally approved or agreed upon:
accepted, conventional, orthodox, recognized, sanctioned.
2. Adhering to beliefs or practices approved by authority or tradition:
canonical, orthodox, sanctioned, time-honored.
So I have understood "received and approved rites" to mean the officially authorized rites. Do you have some reason to think that "received" should be understood with a non-standard meaning in this passage? I can think of no other context in which the word has the meaning "product of organic growth".
you are right Jayne according to these definitions you provided but I had read an article in CFN and it explains it differently so I don't know anymore. Here is the article:
http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page66/salza_novus_ordo.html (http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page66/salza_novus_ordo.html)
QuoteThe Church has taught this divine truth throughout her history. For example, in the Papal Oath of Coronation, which originates at least as far back as Pope St. Agatho in 678 A.D. (and which was set aside by Paul VI), every Pope swore to change nothing of the ?received tradition.? Pope Pius IV?s Tridentine Profession of Faith, which is binding on the souls of all Catholics, likewise expresses this principle by requiring adherence to the ?received and approved rites of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of the sacraments.?[2] The ?received and approved rites of the Church? originate from the Spirit of Christ and the traditions of the apostles which have been handed down to us through the ages.
Because the ?received and approved rites? are part of the Church?s infallible expression of the unchanging Deposit of Faith, as inspired and nurtured by the Holy Ghost, they cannot be set aside or changed into new rites. This is why the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1545-1563) infallibly declared:
"If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema."[3]
I read the whole article and he seems to be conflating two different uses of the word "received". It a logical fallacy known as equivocation. He refers to Scripture passages in which St. Paul wrote of how he received divine unchangeable truths. That is the past tense of the verb "to receive". But the adjective "received" has the meaning given in the dictionary, as quoted above. It does not mean divine unchangeable truths because that is what St Paul received any more than it means a package full of jigsaw puzzles because that is what I received last week. Putting the word "received" in front of "rites" does not mean the rites are unchangeable.
If we were to accept Mr. Salza's interpretation of the word "received" in the Council of Trent, then it would be in conflict with
Mediator Dei and Pius XII would be a heretic. His article is based on flawed logic and its implications if true would be manifestly absurd.
Quote from: Counter Revolutionary on February 26, 2017, 07:56:13 PM
John Salza's article "The Novus Ordo Mass and Divine Law" that you linked to is truly excellent and should be read by all Catholics. Anyone who has doubts about the issue should say a prayer to the Holy Ghost asking for enlightenment and should read Mr. Salza's article.
It is a very bad article. It is illogical and possibly intellectually dishonest. But it is useful to have the link so people can see for themselves.
Quote from: Jayne on February 24, 2017, 10:39:09 PM
There is a specific work called The Apostolic Constitutions. That is its name. There is also a term "apostolic constitution" that refers to papal decrees. If you check Wikipedia, you will see that there are two separate entries for these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_constitution)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Constitutions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Constitutions)
You have mixed them up and used the description of the book as the definition of the term. Here is the correct defintion:
QuoteAn apostolic constitution (Latin: constitutio apostolica) is the highest level of decree issued by the Pope. The use of the term constitution comes from Latin constitutio, which referred to any important law issued by the Roman emperor, and is retained in church documents because of the inheritance that the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church received from Roman law.
By their nature, apostolic constitutions are addressed to the public. Generic constitutions use the title apostolic constitution, and treat on solemn matters of the church, such as the promulgation of laws or definitive teachings. The forms dogmatic constitution and pastoral constitution are titles sometimes used to be more descriptive as to the document's purpose.
Apostolic constitutions are issued as papal bulls because of their solemn, public form.
Quod a Nobis and Quo Primum are the same kind of document with the same level of authority. It does not matter if one uses the term "apostolic constitution" or "papal bull" for them.
You are right. I just looked at the Catholic encyclopedia for Apostolic constitution, without looking at Wikipedia. The Catholic encyclopedia calls it Papal Constitutions.
Papal Constitutions
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04321a.htm
Quote
Papal Constitutions are ordinations issued by the Roman pontiffs and binding those for whom they are issued, whether they be for all the faithful or for special classes or individuals.
...
It must not be supposed, however, that even in ecclesiastical usage the word constitution is restricted to papal ordinances; it is also employed for conciliar, synodal, and episcopal mandates, though more rarely in later times. The name canon is generally, though not exclusively, given to conciliar decrees (see ECCLESIASTICAL CANONS). Letters emanating from the pope, though all designated constitutions, receive more specific names according to their form and their subject matter. As to their form, pontifical constitutions may be either Bulls or Briefs. The former are used for the more important and permanent decrees and begin: Pius (or name of pope) Episcopus, Servus servorum Dei; the latter are headed by the name of the ruling pontiff: Pius PP. X. Pope Leo XIII (29 Dec., 1878) made some changes in the exterior form of papal Bulls (see BULLS AND BRIEFS). As to subject-matter, the term constitution, if used in a restricted sense, denotes some statute which the Vicar of Christ issues in solemn form either to the whole Christian world or to part of it, with the intention of permanently binding those to whom it is addressed. When the papal letters are addressed to the bishops of the entire Church they are denominated Encyclicals. This is the most usual form employed by the popes for treating questions of doctrine and discipline. When pontifical enactments take the form of responses they are called decretal epistles. If they be issued motu proprio (that is without a request having been made to the Holy See), they are called decreta, though this name has also a more general significance (see DECREES). Ordinances issued to individuals concerning matters of minor or transient importance are called Rescripts (see PAPAL RESCRIPTS).
...
The binding force of pontifical constitutions, even without the acceptance of the Church, is beyond question. The primacy of jurisdiction possessed by the successor of Peter comes immediately and directly from Christ. That this includes the power of making obligatory laws is evident. Moreover, that the popes have the intention of binding the faithful directly and immediately is plain from the mandatory form of their constitutions. Bishops, therefore, are not at liberty to accept or refuse papal enactments because, in their judgment, they are ill-suited to the times. Still less can the lower clergy or the civil power (see EXEQUATUR; PLACET) possess any authority to declare pontifical constitutions invalid or prevent their due promulgation. The Gallican opinions to the contrary are no longer tenable after the decrees of the Council of the Vatican (Sess. IV, ch. iii). If a papal constitution, published in Rome for the whole Church, were not formally promulgated in a particular region, the faithful would nevertheless be bound by it, if it concerned faith or morals. If it referred to matters of discipline only, its observance would not be urgent, not because of any defect in its binding force, but solely because in such circumstances the pope is presumed to have suspended the obligation for the time being. This leads to the question of the proper promulgation of papal laws (see LAW). The common teaching now is that promulgation in Rome makes them obligatory for the whole world. The method employed is to affix the decrees at the portals of St. Peter's, of St. John Lateran, of the Apostolic Chancery and in the Piazza de' Fiori.
Yeah the above lists them in the same order as the quote from the Papal Bull Catholic encyclopedia page (actually Bulls and Briefs page) in Reply #85, with "constitutions" coming first. And apparently a constitution can be called a bull if it is affixed with the seal and begins with "Pius (or name of pope) Episcopus, Servus servorum Dei". Yeah you are right again, Quo Primum and Quod a Nobis are both apostolic constitutions.
Quo Primum
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi05qp.htm
Quote
All other churches aforesaid are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be wholly and entirely rejected; and by this present Constitution, which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein.
Breviary
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02768b.htm
Quote
The Council of Trent, which effected reforms in so many directions, also took up the idea of revising the Breviary; a commission was appointed concerning whose deliberations we have not much information, but it began to make definite inquiries about the subject entrusted to it. The council separated before these preliminaries could be concluded; so it was decided to leave the task of editing a new Breviary in the pope's own hands. The commission appointed by the council was not dissolved, and continued its investigations. St. Pius V, at the beginning of his pontificate (1566), appointed new members to it and otherwise stimulated its activity, with the result that a Breviary appeared in 1568, prefaced by the famous Bull, "Quod a nobis". The commission had adopted wise and reasonable principles: not to invent a new Breviary and a new Liturgy; to stand by tradition; to keep all that was worth keeping, but at the same time to correct the multitude of errors which had crept into the Breviaries and to weigh just demands and complaints. Following these lines, they corrected the lessons, or legends, of the saints and revised the Calendar; and while respecting ancient liturgical formularies such as the collects, they introduced needful changes in certain details. More intimate accounts of this revision should be studied at length in the approved authorities on the history of the Breviary. Here it will be enough to give a short sketch of the chief points affecting this Breviary, as it is substantially the same as that used at this date. The celebrated Bull of approval, "Quod a nobis" (9 July, 1568), which prefaced it, explains the reasons which had weighed with Rome in putting forth an official text of public prayer, and gives an account of the labours which had been undertaken to ensure its correction; it withdrew the papal approbation from all Breviaries which could not show a prescriptive right of at least two centuries of existence. Any Church which had not such an ancient Breviary was bound to adopt that of Rome. The new Calendar was freed from a large number of feasts, so that the ferial Office was once more accorded a chance of occupying a less obscure position than of late it had. At the same time the real foundation of the Breviary — the Psalter — was respected, the principal alterations made being in the lessons. The legends of the saints were carefully revised, as also the homilies. The work was one not only of critical revision, but also of discriminating conservatism, and was received with general approval. The greater number of the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, England, and, generally, all the Catholic States, accepted this Breviary, saving only certain districts, as Milan and Toledo, where ancient Rites were retained.
The above page just calls Quod a nobis a Bull, but seeing it had to do with revising the Breviary the same way Divino Afflatu had to do with reforming the Breviary as seen below, Quod a nobis must also be an apostolic constitution seeing Divino Afflatu is described as an apostolic constitution.
The above Breviary page goes on to speak of the reforms or attempts of reforms of the Roman Breviary by Sixtus V, Clement VIII, Urban VIII, Benedict XIV, Pius IV, Pius VI, Pius IX and Leo XIII, then the Reform of the Roman Breviary page speaks of the reforms of the Roman Breviary by Pius X.
Reform of the Roman Breviary
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/16013a.htm
Quote
By the Apostolic Constitution "Divino Afflatu" of Pius X (1 November, 1911), a change was made in the psalter of the Roman Breviary. Instead of printing, together with the psalms, those portions of the Office which specially require rubrics, such as the invitatory, hymns for the seasons, blessings, absolutions, chapters, suffrages, dominical prayers, Benedictus, Magnificat, Te Deum, etc., these are now all in due order printed by themselves under the title Ordinary. The psalms, under the title Psaltery, are printed together, so arranged that the entire psalter may be chanted or recited each week, and so distributed, or, when too long, divided, that approximately there may be the same number of verses for each day's Office. This change has been made with a view to restoring the original use of the liturgy, which provided for the chant or recitation of the entire Psaltery each week. It became necessary by the fact that as the saints' days, with common or special Offices, grew more numerous, the ordinary Sunday and week-day or ferial Offices, and consequently certain of the psalms, were rarely recited. In making the change, occasion was taken to facilitate the reading of the Office by the separation of the Ordinary and Psaltery proper, but chiefly by allotting about the same number of verses for each day. It is only a first step in the revision of the entire Breviary, as agreed upon at the Vatican Council. It was proposed by a committee of liturgists appointed by Pius X, adopted by the Congregation of Rites, and sanctioned by the pope to go into effect on 1 January, 1913, in accordance with the new rubrics regulating thenceforth the reading of the Divine Office.
Quote from: Jayne on February 25, 2017, 05:50:20 PM
I accept this. However, my understanding of what this means appears to be drastically different than yours. Apparently you think that this proves that Quo Primum is binding on subsequent popes. I really cannot follow your reasoning here.
The above shows, like you said that Quo Primum and Quod a nobis, as well as Divino Afflatu are all apostolic constitutions and thus quoting the Papal Constitutions page above, "The binding force of pontifical constitutions, even without the acceptance of the Church, is beyond question. The primacy of jurisdiction possessed by the successor of Peter comes immediately and directly from Christ."
You said;
Quote from: Jayne on February 20, 2017, 06:14:09 PM
Are you prepared to make the case that Pope St. Pius X broke the law of Pius V (in Quod a Nobis - of equal force to Quo Primum) when he reformed the Breviary? Those changes were arguably greater than those to the Mass. There are plenty of people who can argue it was harmful. If Pius V could bind future popes, then Pius X is just as guilty as Paul VI.
You are not taking into account whether the apostolic constitution concerns faith or morals (ie Quo Primum regarding the Latin Rite Mass) which would make the faithful bound by it or whether the apostolic constitution refers to matters of discipline only (ie Quod a Nobis, Divino Afflatu and all the other apostolic constitutions that referred to matters of discipline of the rubrics of the Roman Breviary) which its observance would not be urgent. See the bolded and underlined parts of the quotes from the Papal Constitutions page above. Quo Primum and Quod a Nobis cannot be compared for this reason.
Also note the underlined part of the Breviary page above that says "Here it will be enough to give a short sketch of the chief points affecting this Breviary, as it is substantially the same as that used at this date." The author must have been talking about the apostolic constitution Divino Afflatu when he says "it is substantially the same as that used at this date" because Pius X published Divino Afflatu on November 1, 1911 while the Catholic encyclopedia was published later in 1917.
The Making of the Catholic Encyclopedia (1917)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/00001a.htm
See Fr. Hesse's video as he also talks about the difference between matters of faith and morals (ie the Latin Rite Mass) and matters of discipline (ie the rubrics of the Roman Breviary).
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8lh59FgURU[/yt]
So Jayne you can't say "If Pius V could bind future popes, then Pius X is just as guilty as Paul VI." Pius X is not guilty of anything because his reforms to the Roman Breviary, just like all the other popes before him had to do with matters of discipline. Pius V's Quo Primum is binding on the whole Church including future popes because it has to do with matters of faith and morals. Quo Primum is fairly explicit in saying that it binds the whole Church with "the force of law in perpetuity", as you can see in the quote from it below.
Jayne you say "Those changes were arguably greater than those to the Mass." But Paul VI cannot be declared guilty of changes to the Mass because he did not make changes, abolish or abrogate the Latin Rite Mass; most likely because of how Quo Primum reads below. The promulgation of the Novus Ordo Rite Mass is another story.
Quo Primum
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi05qp.htm
Quote
All other churches aforesaid are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be wholly and entirely rejected; and by this present Constitution, which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein.
We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator and all other persons of whatsoever ecclesiastical dignity, be they even Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church or possessed of any other rank or preeminence, and We order them by virtue of holy obedience to sing or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herein laid down by Us, and henceforward to discontinue and utterly discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, howsoever ancient, which they have been accustomed to follow, and not to presume in celebrating Mass to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.
Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used. Nor shall bishops, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious of whatsoever Order or by whatsoever title designated, be obliged to celebrate Mass otherwise than enjoined by Us. We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal and that this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall for ever remain valid and have the force of law, notwithstanding previous constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the usage of the churches aforesaid, established by very long and even immemorial prescription, saving only usage of more than 200 years.
Quote from: martin88nyc on February 26, 2017, 07:41:51 PM
In this context it is in accord with my understanding.
"From the time the Christian religion began to be spread, she has held unchangeable and taught uncorrupted throughout the world the doctrines which she has received once and for all from her patron and founder, St. Peter." - Pope Saint Nicholas the Great
Correct me if I am wrong. to be honest I am not sure exactly. A good canonist would definitely give us the right answer. :)
Just because we receive true doctrines through the Church, it does not mean that everything we receive is a true doctrine or that the adjective "received" has a different than usual meaning.
QuoteIf anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema.
This decree means that priests may not despise, omit or change the officially approved rites of the Church. They must say Mass as authorized by Rome. This is completely consistent with
Mediator Dei which says that only the pope has the authority to change or create new rites, while priests do not.
Quote from: mikemac on February 26, 2017, 08:36:27 PM
The above shows, like you said that Quo Primum and Quod a nobis, as well as Divino Afflatu are all apostolic constitutions and thus quoting the Papal Constitutions page above, "The binding force of pontifical constitutions, even without the acceptance of the Church, is beyond question. The primacy of jurisdiction possessed by the successor of Peter comes immediately and directly from Christ."
You said;
Quote from: Jayne on February 20, 2017, 06:14:09 PM
Are you prepared to make the case that Pope St. Pius X broke the law of Pius V (in Quod a Nobis - of equal force to Quo Primum) when he reformed the Breviary? Those changes were arguably greater than those to the Mass. There are plenty of people who can argue it was harmful. If Pius V could bind future popes, then Pius X is just as guilty as Paul VI.
You are not taking into account whether the apostolic constitution concerns faith or morals (ie Quo Primum regarding the Latin Rite Mass) which would make the faithful bound by it or whether the apostolic constitution refers to matters of discipline only (ie Quod a Nobis, Divino Afflatu and all the other apostolic constitutions that referred to matters of discipline of the rubrics of the Roman Breviary) which its observance would not be urgent. See the bolded and underlined parts of the quotes from the Papal Constitutions page above. Quo Primum and Quod a Nobis cannot be compared for this reason.
Quo Primum and
Quod a Nobis are both apostolic constitutions which concern liturgy, and therefore have the exact same level of authority. There is no reason to claim that one pertains to faith and moral while the other is disciplinary. Liturgy touches on the faith (lex orendi, lex credendi) and has unchangeable elements, but it can be changed, just as disciplinary matters can.
"The primacy of jurisdiction possessed by the successor of Peter comes immediately and directly from Christ." This is exactly why popes cannot bind future popes.
Quote from: mikemac on February 26, 2017, 08:36:27 PM
So Jayne you can't say "If Pius V could bind future popes, then Pius X is just as guilty as Paul VI." Pius X is not guilty of anything because his reforms to the Roman Breviary, just like all the other popes before him had to do with matters of discipline. Pius V's Quo Primum is binding on the whole Church including future popes because it has to do with matters of faith and morals. Quo Primum is fairly explicit in saying that it binds the whole Church with "the force of law in perpetuity", as you can see in the quote from it below.
Quod a Nobis also says it is in force "in perpetuity". That is not a phrase that makes decress binding on future popes. And if the Tridentine Missal were actually a matter of faith and morals, then Pius V would not have been able to authorize the various other missals that he included. In matters of faith and morals we do not say, "You can believe this, or this, or this." There is one single unchangeable truth. It is precisely because liturgy is primarily disciplinary that it is possible to authorize a variety of options.
Quote from: Jayne on February 26, 2017, 08:43:15 PM
This is completely consistent with Mediator Dei which says that only the pope has the authority to change or create new rites, while priests do not.
Would you please point out in Mediator Dei where it states that "only the pope has the authority to change or create new rites"?
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei.html
Quote from: Jayne on February 26, 2017, 09:11:15 PM
"The primacy of jurisdiction possessed by the successor of Peter comes immediately and directly from Christ." This is exactly why popes cannot bind future popes.
Good post Jayne.
Superiors can only bind inferiors. The Popes Have Universal Jurisdiction so no one can bind them to anything.
Quote from: mikemac on February 26, 2017, 09:21:02 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 26, 2017, 08:43:15 PM
This is completely consistent with Mediator Dei which says that only the pope has the authority to change or create new rites, while priests do not.
Would you please point out in Mediator Dei where it states that "only the pope has the authority to change or create new rites"?
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei.html
Quote58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.
This is very enlightening and Mr. Salza may be wrong after all or perhaps he was just trying to make his point legit. Surely we need a canonist to join our ranks.
Quote from: St.Justin on February 26, 2017, 09:23:36 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 26, 2017, 09:11:15 PM
"The primacy of jurisdiction possessed by the successor of Peter comes immediately and directly from Christ." This is exactly why popes cannot bind future popes.
Good post Jayne.
Superiors can only bind inferiors. The Popes Have Universal Jurisdiction so no one can bind them to anything.
Popes are just as bound by right and wrong as the rest of us - no? As such, popes are bound to the laws of previous popes just the same as the rest of us - no? If a pope creates a rite which is certainly contrary to a previous law, then the pope broke that law - no?
The only way to not break the law, is for the pope to first abrogate the that law - he can do that because he has that authority over that law.
But per the law, the new rite simply cannot be both the law and contrary to the law at the same time, not even a pope can make it so - this is simply common sense.
It is really not complicated at all, actually, it's very basic. It only becomes complicated when people grant popes an authority that popes do not possess, an authority permitting popes to break the existing law as if it never existed in the first place.
The fact is - the law did and still does exist because no pope has ever abrogated it. Ignoring it, which all the conciliar popes have done, is not abrogating it. Breaking it, which all the conciliar popes have done, is not abrogating it. Replacing the law with a contrary new rite is not abrogating it, rather, it is obviously going contrary to the law, therefore it is breaking the law.
Fr. Wathen puts it like this:
"We believe that because the new mass is clearly against the law which governs the liturgy of the Roman Rite, that there is no legality to it..." though not positively, he goes on to conclude
"...I hasten to say that if the new mass is against the law, then it is immoral, and if there is a question of validity in the consecration, then it is immoral for anyone to use it."So the question is, what is it that does not make sense here?
Quote from: Jayne on February 26, 2017, 09:47:57 PM
Quote from: mikemac on February 26, 2017, 09:21:02 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 26, 2017, 08:43:15 PM
This is completely consistent with Mediator Dei which says that only the pope has the authority to change or create new rites, while priests do not.
Would you please point out in Mediator Dei where it states that "only the pope has the authority to change or create new rites"?
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei.html
Quote58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.
Thank Heavens for Jayne. After seven pages she finally drops the bomb shell. We have nothing to complain about now. Us country bumpkins might as well just all go home. Might as well shut down this forum. Nothing to see here anymore.
Oh, but wait.
In the very next paragraph Pope Pius XII condemns the "use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice".
Quote59. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days - which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation - to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.
The above paragraph also verifies what Martin said here.
Quote from: martin88nyc on February 24, 2017, 02:55:45 PM
received means passed on, handed on. NO hasn't been handed down. You don't create Mass; it must be a product of organic growth. It takes centuries not weeks. And you don't write down Eucharistic prayers on a napkin in a cafe.
Also see;
Mediator Dei
An Encyclical Condemning Pope Paul VI's Liturgical "Reform"
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2001_March/Mediator_Dei.htm
And see the Ottaviani Intervention;
LETTER ON NOVUS ORDO MISSAE
Cardinal Ottaviani
https://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/reformof.htm
Quote from: martin88nyc on February 26, 2017, 11:04:38 PM
This is very enlightening and Mr. Salza may be wrong after all or perhaps he was just trying to make his point legit. Surely we need a canonist to join our ranks.
A canonist would be more helpful for questions of Canon Law. This discussion seems more within the scope of theology. However, the problem with Mr. Salza's article does not need specialized knowledge to see, just careful reading.
Most English speakers can tell that "received" is being used differently in the following sentences.
I received a package of jigsaw puzzles in the mail last week.
The standard accent for British English is called Received Pronunciation.
We can all see that is wrong to conflate these meanings or these sentences. My package did not contain British English. Nor do these sentences mean that we can say that British English is puzzling. (It might be, but that would be another thread. :) ) But this is the sort of argument that Mr. Salza made in his article.
Quote from: Stubborn on February 27, 2017, 05:54:24 AM
Quote from: St.Justin on February 26, 2017, 09:23:36 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 26, 2017, 09:11:15 PM
"The primacy of jurisdiction possessed by the successor of Peter comes immediately and directly from Christ." This is exactly why popes cannot bind future popes.
Good post Jayne.
Superiors can only bind inferiors. The Popes Have Universal Jurisdiction so no one can bind them to anything.
Popes are just as bound by right and wrong as the rest of us - no? As such, popes are bound to the laws of previous popes just the same as the rest of us - no? If a pope creates a rite which is certainly contrary to a previous law, then the pope broke that law - no?
The only way to not break the law, is for the pope to first abrogate the that law - he can do that because he has that authority over that law.
But per the law, the new rite simply cannot be both the law and contrary to the law at the same time, not even a pope can make it so - this is simply common sense.
It is really not complicated at all, actually, it's very basic. It only becomes complicated when people grant popes an authority that popes do not possess, an authority permitting popes to break the existing law as if it never existed in the first place.
The fact is - the law did and still does exist because no pope has ever abrogated it. Ignoring it, which all the conciliar popes have done, is not abrogating it. Breaking it, which all the conciliar popes have done, is not abrogating it. Replacing the law with a contrary new rite is not abrogating it, rather, it is obviously going contrary to the law, therefore it is breaking the law.
Fr. Wathen puts it like this: "We believe that because the new mass is clearly against the law which governs the liturgy of the Roman Rite, that there is no legality to it..." though not positively, he goes on to conclude "...I hasten to say that if the new mass is against the law, then it is immoral, and if there is a question of validity in the consecration, then it is immoral for anyone to use it."
So the question is, what is it that does not make sense here?
In matters faith and morals, it makes sense to talk about matters being right and wrong and remaining so for all time. These are Divine laws. So, in effect, a pope's infallible pronuouncements on faith and morals are binding on future popes. It's not, however, because he has authority over future popes, but because of the nature of these truths.
But liturgy is not a timeless truth. There have been many legitimate forms of the Mass throughout time, some existing simultaneously. The Mass touches on timeless truths, but has changeable human elements. In that respect, it is disciplinary and is not something that a pope can bind on future popes.
You are the one who is trying to grant popes an authority that popes do not possess. Popes do not have authority over future popes. They are equals. Divine laws have authority over popes. Liturgical disciplines are demonstrably not Divine laws because they have changed over time.
There are many things wrong with the Novus Ordo, but there are no grounds for claiming that Paul Vi broke a law, either from
Quo Primum or the Council of Trent. He had the authority to create a new liturgy.
Quote from: mikemac on February 27, 2017, 06:58:37 AM
Thank Heavens for Jayne. After seven pages she finally drops the bomb shell. We have nothing to complain about now. Us country bumpkins might as well just all go home. Might as well shut down this forum. Nothing to see here anymore.
Oh, but wait.
In the very next paragraph Pope Pius XII condemns the "use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice".
Quote59. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days - which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation - to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.
I mentioned
Mediator Dei much earlier in the thread, more than once. I also mentioned the historical context, that it was a response to the Liturgical Movement. This movement not only involved speculating about liturgical changes, but unauthorized introduction of these changes by priests.
Thus, in section 58, we see a clear statement that priests may not do this, that only the pope has the authority to change liturgy. In section 59, Pius XII reiterates that the Mass is changeable and then goes on to give examples of the sort of unauthorized changes being made by priests. Pius XII is not saying that these practices are intrinsically wrong, nor was he condemning them, but making the point that they are major changes. He is showing that the priests are introducing changes "not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well" to show just how much they are exceeding their authority. One of the examples is a practice which is clearly not wrong in itself and has been done by many popes -transferring feast days to other dates.
Quote from: Jayne on February 27, 2017, 09:10:38 AM
Quote from: mikemac on February 27, 2017, 06:58:37 AM
Thank Heavens for Jayne. After seven pages she finally drops the bomb shell. We have nothing to complain about now. Us country bumpkins might as well just all go home. Might as well shut down this forum. Nothing to see here anymore.
Oh, but wait.
In the very next paragraph Pope Pius XII condemns the "use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice".
Quote59. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days - which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation - to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.
I mentioned Mediator Dei much earlier in the thread, more than once. I also mentioned the historical context, that it was a response to the Liturgical Movement. This movement not only involved speculating about liturgical changes, but unauthorized introduction of these changes by priests.
Thus, in section 58, we see a clear statement that priests may not do this, that only the pope has the authority to change liturgy. In section 59, Pius XII reiterates that the Mass is changeable and then goes on to give examples of the sort of unauthorized changes being made by priests. Pius XII is not saying that these practices are intrinsically wrong, nor was he condemning them, but making the point that they are major changes. He is showing that the priests are introducing changes "not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well" to show just how much they are exceeding their authority. One of the examples is a practice which is clearly not wrong in itself and has been done by many popes -transferring feast days to other dates.
So are you saying that Pope Pius XII is not condemning the "use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice" in paragraph 59?
Quote from: mikemac on February 27, 2017, 10:03:01 AM
So are you saying that Pope Pius XII is not condemning the "use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice" in paragraph 59?
He is not condemning it as wrong in itself, but reproving those doing it without authorization.
You can see that he is not saying that transferring feast days to other dates is intrinsically wrong, can't you? There is nothing in the text to indicate that using the vernacular is any worse than this. The problem he is writing about is that people who do not have authority are doing these things.
We can, of course, think of reasons why use of the vernacular is a bad thing. I would not be surprised if Pius XII would have agreed with us. But that is not the point he is making in section 59 of
Mediator Dei.
:toth:
Jayne you have opened my eyes a little bit not to "blindly" believe in everything I read in traditional newspapers and periodicals. I am not saying that you are right or wrong because we are not theologians and cannot have final say in anything. However you made some significant points in this thread and I am very pleased with your insights and study of the topic.
In 59 Pope Pius XII is calling the Church and the Latin Rite Mass a living organism, just like what Martin said.
"It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well."
I think you are reading whatever you want into it Jayne.
If the Latin Rite Mass does not have to do with matters of faith and morals then I don't know what does. You know, what ever happened to lex orandi, lex credendi, the law of praying is the law of believing.
And again;
Also see;
Mediator Dei
An Encyclical Condemning Pope Paul VI's Liturgical "Reform"
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2001_March/Mediator_Dei.htm
And see the Ottaviani Intervention;
LETTER ON NOVUS ORDO MISSAE
Cardinal Ottaviani
https://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/reformof.htm
Quote from: martin88nyc on February 27, 2017, 11:19:36 AM
:toth:
Jayne you have opened my eyes a little bit not to "blindly" believe in everything I read in traditional newspapers and periodicals. I am not saying that you are right or wrong because we are not theologians and cannot have final say in anything. However you made some significant points in this thread and I am very pleased with your insights and study of the topic.
Ironically enough, I do have a theology degree. I received a Master of Divinity in 2001. Unfortunately, my classes were so tainted by modernism that, after discovering traditional Catholicism, I realized that I needed to relearn almost everything. So it is very helpful for me to have people here who are so willing to examine what I write for errors. I cannot totally trust myself to be free of modernist influence, so I am grateful that I am forced to defend my positions. If everyone just automatically accepted what I write, I wouldn't be able to post.
Quote from: Jayne on February 27, 2017, 11:38:48 AM
Quote from: martin88nyc on February 27, 2017, 11:19:36 AM
:toth:
Jayne you have opened my eyes a little bit not to "blindly" believe in everything I read in traditional newspapers and periodicals. I am not saying that you are right or wrong because we are not theologians and cannot have final say in anything. However you made some significant points in this thread and I am very pleased with your insights and study of the topic.
Ironically enough, I do have a theology degree. I received a Master of Divinity in 2001. Unfortunately, my classes were so tainted by modernism that, after discovering traditional Catholicism, I realized that I needed to relearn almost everything. So it is very helpful for me to have people here who are so willing to examine what I write for errors. I cannot totally trust myself to be free of modernist influence, so I am grateful that I am forced to defend my positions. If everyone just automatically accepted what I write, I wouldn't be able to post.
:) irony haha
Quote from: mikemac on February 27, 2017, 11:31:46 AM
In 59 Pope Pius XII is calling the Church and the Latin Rite Mass a living organism, just like what Martin said.
"It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well."
I think you are reading whatever you want into it Jayne.
If the Latin Rite Mass does not have to do with matters of faith and morals then I don't know what does. You know, what ever happened to lex orandi, lex credendi, the law of praying is the law of believing.
The part about the Church being a living organism is a reference to the ability and need for liturgy to change. This is one of main themes of
Mediator Dei.
Yes, the Mass is related to matters of faith and morals, but it has changeable human elements too. This is explicitly stated in the encyclical:
Quote50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites. Here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times. Hence likewise it happens from time to time that certain devotions long since forgotten are revived and practiced anew. All these developments attest the abiding life of the immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ through these many centuries. They are the sacred language she uses, as the ages run their course, to profess to her divine Spouse her own faith along with that of the nations committed to her charge, and her own unfailing love. They furnish proof, besides, of the wisdom of the teaching method she employs to arouse and nourish constantly the "Christian instinct."
I think we can understand it better when we read the entire document as a whole, rather than just looking at small passages. Certain ideas are are stated over and over again in different ways. The Mass is changeable. Only the Church, in particular the pope, has the authority to make these changes. Liturgy "experts" may only offer suggestions but do not have authority. The theme of authority is repeatedly mentioned. That makes sense when we consider that the document is a response to the excesses of the Litugical Movement.
Quote from: Jayne on February 27, 2017, 08:37:00 AM
Quote from: Stubborn on February 27, 2017, 05:54:24 AM
Quote from: St.Justin on February 26, 2017, 09:23:36 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 26, 2017, 09:11:15 PM
"The primacy of jurisdiction possessed by the successor of Peter comes immediately and directly from Christ." This is exactly why popes cannot bind future popes.
Good post Jayne.
Superiors can only bind inferiors. The Popes Have Universal Jurisdiction so no one can bind them to anything.
Popes are just as bound by right and wrong as the rest of us - no? As such, popes are bound to the laws of previous popes just the same as the rest of us - no? If a pope creates a rite which is certainly contrary to a previous law, then the pope broke that law - no?
The only way to not break the law, is for the pope to first abrogate the that law - he can do that because he has that authority over that law.
But per the law, the new rite simply cannot be both the law and contrary to the law at the same time, not even a pope can make it so - this is simply common sense.
It is really not complicated at all, actually, it's very basic. It only becomes complicated when people grant popes an authority that popes do not possess, an authority permitting popes to break the existing law as if it never existed in the first place.
The fact is - the law did and still does exist because no pope has ever abrogated it. Ignoring it, which all the conciliar popes have done, is not abrogating it. Breaking it, which all the conciliar popes have done, is not abrogating it. Replacing the law with a contrary new rite is not abrogating it, rather, it is obviously going contrary to the law, therefore it is breaking the law.
Fr. Wathen puts it like this: "We believe that because the new mass is clearly against the law which governs the liturgy of the Roman Rite, that there is no legality to it..." though not positively, he goes on to conclude "...I hasten to say that if the new mass is against the law, then it is immoral, and if there is a question of validity in the consecration, then it is immoral for anyone to use it."
So the question is, what is it that does not make sense here?
In matters faith and morals, it makes sense to talk about matters being right and wrong and remaining so for all time. These are Divine laws. So, in effect, a pope's infallible pronuouncements on faith and morals are binding on future popes. It's not, however, because he has authority over future popes, but because of the nature of these truths.
But liturgy is not a timeless truth. There have been many legitimate forms of the Mass throughout time, some existing simultaneously. The Mass touches on timeless truths, but has changeable human elements. In that respect, it is disciplinary and is not something that a pope can bind on future popes.
This is double talking. Right and wrong are not limited to faith and morals nor dogmas and infallible decrees or Divine Laws. The Church has laws She established, whoever goes contrary to those laws breaks those laws - this is an indisputable fact. It is also an indisputable fact that there is only one way for anyone to break a law, and that is to go contrary to it. Breaking some of the Church laws is a mortal sin because the Church said it is a mortal sin to go contrary to some of Her laws. Quo Primum censures those who go contrary to the law by saying whosoever does such a thing, "will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."
The question is not about whether the Liturgy is a timeless truth or not - who cares about that here, it has nothing to do with this discussion. And no, since Quo Primum, there have not been "many legitimate forms of the Mass", not unless they existed 200 years prior to Quo Primum - since that time, there has only been one Mass of the Roman Rite.
Where do you come up with this stuff? Which popes created these "many legitimate forms of the Mass throughout time"? You quote Mediator Dei decrying that "the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites", so which pope(s) created these legitimate forms of Mass you reference and where are these legitimate forms of the Mass' "Quo Primum's"? Or are you not actually saying that these "legitimate forms of the Mass" just evolved from other legitimate forms and as such, had no need of any law to protect their legitimacy? This is the scrambled up thinking that only leads to the NO being legitimate - the law be damned!
Quote from: Jayne on February 27, 2017, 08:37:00 AM
You are the one who is trying to grant popes an authority that popes do not possess. Popes do not have authority over future popes. They are equals. Divine laws have authority over popes. Liturgical disciplines are demonstrably not Divine laws because they have changed over time.
There are many things wrong with the Novus Ordo, but there are no grounds for claiming that Paul Vi broke a law, either from Quo Primum or the Council of Trent. He had the authority to create a new liturgy.
We are not talking about papal infallibility, we are not talking about popes having any authority over other popes. For the purpose of this thread, none of that matters. All that matters is that when one pope makes a law that the entire Roman Rite is bound to under pain of mortal sin, then all the future popes are bound to it as well - while popes are above the law in that they may change the law, their being pope does not unbind them to the law by virtue of their being a pope.
Any more than popes are not bound to fast and abstain on days of fast and abstinence or not go to Mass on Sundays and Holy Days - The Church said that to do such things are a mortal sin - they are a mortal sin because they are contrary to the law - even for popes. It has nothing to do with popes binding popes, or popes having the right to make new laws.
The existing law is Quo Primum. It is still the existing law because it has never been abrogated - this is an indisputable fact. The new rite of pope Paul VI is contrary to that law - this is also an indisputable fact. According to you - so what? no pope can bind another. The pope has the right to create a rite contrary to the law because popes can't bind popes. You honestly see nothing wrong with this logic? Honestly?
A Pope can introduce new prayers and suppress old ones. This means for the Mass that new propers, collects, orations and prefaces (Gallican prefaces were authorised for France for instance, and can be optionally used elsewhere) can be written, for an addition of a Saint to the calendar, and the reverse where a Feast is removed, or perhaps downgraded to a commemoration. Pope Paul did not even use dogmatic language in Missale Romanum - the deadlines and imperative tone came in English translation, but was in a way factual as the Mass was suppressed for most. Paul VI or his advisors must have had Quo Primum in mind. This same evasion of calling V2 pastoral allowed some very ambiguous texts to be preached and proclaimed. I just think it extraordinary that a New Mass written by an agency headed by a Freemason, advised by six Protestant ministers, is something a Pope could do. Lutherans in the US and English speaking countries use the text of the New Mass in their services with little alteration.
Prayerful stated:
QuoteI just think it extraordinary that a New Mass written by an agency headed by a Freemason, advised by six Protestant ministers, is something a Pope could do. Lutherans in the US and English speaking countries use the text of the New Mass in their services with little alteration.
Msgr. Lefebvre also thought it extraordinary, he said so publicly.
Quote from: Stubborn on February 27, 2017, 01:39:32 PM
The existing law is Quo Primum. It is still the existing law because it has never been abrogated - this is an indisputable fact. The new rite of pope Paul VI is contrary to that law - this is also an indisputable fact. According to you - so what? no pope can bind another. The pope has the right to create a rite contrary to the law because popes can't bind popes. You honestly see nothing wrong with this logic? Honestly?
Sorry, Stubborn. I had intended not to engage with you any more in this thread. I responded to your post because it appeared around the same time as mikemac's and I thought they were both by him. I was paying attention to the content of the posts, but not enough to the authors apparently.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on February 27, 2017, 02:58:22 PM
Prayerful stated: QuoteI just think it extraordinary that a New Mass written by an agency headed by a Freemason, advised by six Protestant ministers, is something a Pope could do. Lutherans in the US and English speaking countries use the text of the New Mass in their services with little alteration.
Msgr. Lefebvre also thought it extraordinary, he said so publicly.
One could make a case against the Novus Ordo on the grounds that it changed doctrine. A pope does not have the authority to do that, so one could claim this was illicit. I don't think that I personally would make that argument, but it is a much stronger approach than trying to claim that
Quo Primo means the NO is illicit.
Quote from: Jayne on February 27, 2017, 12:30:31 PM
The part about the Church being a living organism is a reference to the ability and need for liturgy to change. This is one of main themes of Mediator Dei.
Yes, the Mass is related to matters of faith and morals, but it has changeable human elements too.
No, the part in Mediator Dei paragraph 59 about the Church and the Latin Rite Mass (he does refer to "the sacred liturgy" too in case you missed it) being a living organism is in reference to how it "grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances" over the centuries. Man it almost seems like you are trying to say that Pope Pius XII was preparing the Church for the NO, which is false. He was warning the Church about the innovators.
An example of a changeable human element would be when the name of St. Joseph was inserted into the Eucharistic Prayer in 1962 (matter of discipline). You are very subtle Jayne. Like you said a couple of pages back, it sounds like you are again trying to say that Paul VI changed, abolished or abrogated the Latin Rite Mass when he introduced the NO Mass. But he wouldn't dare because he was bound by Quo Primum (matter of faith and morals).
In Mediator Dei paragraph 58 when Pius XII says "It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification" he must be talking about introducing and approving new rites for an Order (example Carmelite Rite or Dominican Rite), like the new Order we have around here, the Servants of the Holy Name of Jesus, who have received approval from the Pope.
How is the Canon a changeable human element? It had been fixed since Gregory the Great, and remained untouched and unblemished until J23.
(Pius XII was no liturgical trad, by the way...)
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Quote from: Jayne on February 27, 2017, 03:11:04 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on February 27, 2017, 02:58:22 PM
Prayerful stated: QuoteI just think it extraordinary that a New Mass written by an agency headed by a Freemason, advised by six Protestant ministers, is something a Pope could do. Lutherans in the US and English speaking countries use the text of the New Mass in their services with little alteration.
Msgr. Lefebvre also thought it extraordinary, he said so publicly.
One could make a case against the Novus Ordo on the grounds that it changed doctrine. A pope does not have the authority to do that, so one could claim this was illicit. I don't think that I personally would make that argument, but it is a much stronger approach than trying to claim that Quo Primo means the NO is illicit.
Let's use a very obvious example. Many of the translations famously translated
pro multis as 'for all.' A spurious theory was profferred by
Concilium that the Jews of old had no distinction, that 'many' meant 'all'. This was presumably some sort of way to spread the Rahnerite 'anonymous Christian' or universal salvation error, which gained notable support at that point. Fr Rahner SJ was by then editing Denzinger, and so evidence against this hyper Baptism of Desire could vanish down the memory hole. The original General Instruction was notably focussed towards community and memorial. Cardinal Ottaviani's study did bring about a revised General Instruction, but saying 'he will come again' after the Consecration still strongly suggests the NOM is meant as a memorial, not the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary, which the Mass is meant to be. Eucharistic Prayers other than 1 (ie the Roman Canon but how can it be Canon with five or more EPs?) seem to have a memorial mode of expression to them. +Lefebvre and +de Castro Mayer noted how it led to heresy, even the words in the New Mass are not clearly heretical themselves.
Quote from: mikemac on February 27, 2017, 03:47:46 PM
An example of a changeable human element would be when the name of St. Joseph was inserted into the Eucharistic Prayer in 1962 (matter of discipline). You are very subtle Jayne. Like you said a couple of pages back, it sounds like you are again trying to say that Paul VI changed, abolished or abrogated the Latin Rite Mass when he introduced the NO Mass. But he wouldn't dare because he was bound by Quo Primum (matter of faith and morals).
It is very clear that the Tridentine Mass was not abrogated, since that was explicitly stated by Pope Benedict XVI. I am not sure why you think I would want to claim something that is patently false, especially when I have already posted that it was not abrogated. Paul VI was not bound by Quo Primum which is not a matter of faith and morals. I suspect the reason the TLM was not abrogated was an act of Divine Providence.
Quote from: mikemac on February 27, 2017, 03:47:46 PM
In Mediator Dei paragraph 58 when Pius XII says "It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification" he must be talking about introducing and approving new rites for an Order (example Carmelite Rite or Dominican Rite), like the new Order we have around here, the Servants of the Holy Name of Jesus, who have received approval from the Pope.
There is nothing in what he wrote there which excludes approving a new rite of Mass for the entire Church. You are reading something into the text. But, even if we took it as having the meaning you want to give it, it shows that popes are not bound by
Quo Primo which only allowed rites for Orders that had existed for over 200 years.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on February 27, 2017, 03:57:04 PM
How is the Canon a changeable human element? It had been fixed since Gregory the Great, and remained untouched and unblemished until J23.
Was it actually changed or just made optional?
Quote from: Jayne on February 27, 2017, 04:11:19 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on February 27, 2017, 03:57:04 PM
How is the Canon a changeable human element? It had been fixed since Gregory the Great, and remained untouched and unblemished until J23.
Was it actually changed or just made optional?
Looks like a direct change , but I dont latin.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/11/john-xxiii-50-years-ago-st-joseph-added-to-the-roman-canon
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Quote from: Prayerful on February 27, 2017, 03:57:41 PM
Let's use a very obvious example. Many of the translations famously translated pro multis as 'for all.' A spurious theory was profferred by Concilium that the Jews of old had no distinction, that 'many' meant 'all'. This was presumably some sort of way to spread the Rahnerite 'anonymous Christian' or universal salvation error, which gained notable support at that point. Fr Rahner SJ was by then editing Denzinger, and so evidence against this hyper Baptism of Desire could vanish down the memory hole.
This just shows that the translation was illicit, (and I agree that it was) but not an actual problem with NO itself. The "official" version of the NO is the Latin edition.
Quote from: Prayerful on February 27, 2017, 03:57:41 PM
The original General Instruction was notably focussed towards community and memorial. Cardinal Ottaviani's study did bring about a revised General Instruction, but saying 'he will come again' after the Consecration still strongly suggests the NOM is meant as a memorial, not the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary, which the Mass is meant to be. Eucharistic Prayers other than 1 (ie the Roman Canon but how can it be Canon with five or more EPs?) seem to have a memorial mode of expression to them. +Lefebvre and +de Castro Mayer noted how it led to heresy, even the words in the New Mass are not clearly heretical themselves.
I don't think the NO potential to foster heresy (which I agree is a legitimate point) is strong enough evidence to make a case that it changed doctrine. I think we need clearly heretical words in the Mass to make the claim that Paul VI created an illicit Mass.
Quote from: Jayne on February 27, 2017, 04:21:36 PM
Quote from: Prayerful on February 27, 2017, 03:57:41 PM
Let's use a very obvious example. Many of the translations famously translated pro multis as 'for all.' A spurious theory was profferred by Concilium that the Jews of old had no distinction, that 'many' meant 'all'. This was presumably some sort of way to spread the Rahnerite 'anonymous Christian' or universal salvation error, which gained notable support at that point. Fr Rahner SJ was by then editing Denzinger, and so evidence against this hyper Baptism of Desire could vanish down the memory hole.
This just shows that the translation was illicit, (and I agree that it was) but not an actual problem with NO itself. The "official" version of the NO is the Latin edition.
Quote from: Prayerful on February 27, 2017, 03:57:41 PM
The original General Instruction was notably focussed towards community and memorial. Cardinal Ottaviani's study did bring about a revised General Instruction, but saying 'he will come again' after the Consecration still strongly suggests the NOM is meant as a memorial, not the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary, which the Mass is meant to be. Eucharistic Prayers other than 1 (ie the Roman Canon but how can it be Canon with five or more EPs?) seem to have a memorial mode of expression to them. +Lefebvre and +de Castro Mayer noted how it led to heresy, even the words in the New Mass are not clearly heretical themselves.
I don't think the NO potential to foster heresy (which I agree is a legitimate point) is strong enough evidence to make a case that it changed doctrine. I think we need clearly heretical words in the Mass to make the claim that Paul VI created an illicit Mass.
The translation was the daily reality. First
Missale Romanum in translation had both deadline and obligation. This was how
Missale Romanum operated. Barring some socially well connected or old priests, refusing to say the NOM meant a very hard life for a priest. Secondly the tendentious 'dynamic equivalence' English translation overseen by ICEL was representative of how the
Missale was heard by most people worldwide. The Polish translation was apparently quite faithful. Anyhow saying 'Christ has died, Christ has Risen, Christ will come again' after the Consecration suggests the preceding liturgy is a memorial. The meaning of Mass as unbloody sacrifice of Calvary seems to be occluded.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on February 27, 2017, 04:17:01 PM
Quote from: Jayne on February 27, 2017, 04:11:19 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on February 27, 2017, 03:57:04 PM
How is the Canon a changeable human element? It had been fixed since Gregory the Great, and remained untouched and unblemished until J23.
Was it actually changed or just made optional?
Looks like a direct change , but I dont latin.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/11/john-xxiii-50-years-ago-st-joseph-added-to-the-roman-canon
This seems like an example of the correct way for liturgy to change. There seems to have been a lot of thought, over a long time, put into whether the change properly reflected Catholic doctrine. The doctrines are the unchangeable, but in most cases, the words are changeable. (The Words of Consecration are an obvious exception.)
Mediator Dei actually mentions development of devotions as a good reason to change liturgy:
Quote54. Just as notable a contribution to this progressive transformation was made by devotional trends and practices not directly related to the sacred liturgy, which began to appear, by God's wonderful design, in later periods, and grew to be so popular. We may instance the spread and ever mounting ardor of devotion to the Blessed Eucharist, devotion to the most bitter passion of our Redeemer, devotion to the most Sacred Heart of Jesus, to the Virgin Mother of God and to her most chaste spouse.
Lol trads defending changing the canon?
Literally unthinkable by any previous generation.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
I like St. Joseph a lot. It is hard for me to get upset about him being added to the Canon.
Quote from: Jayne on February 27, 2017, 05:00:58 PM
I like St. Joseph a lot. It is hard for me to get upset about him being added to the Canon.
I like a lot of saints but I'm not jostling to upturn a 1400 year constancy over my whims and desires.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Right. Liturgy cannot be alternated on a whim. Paul VI reasons for creating the New Rite are unbelievable and hard to take seriously.
Quote from: Jayne on February 27, 2017, 05:00:58 PM
I like St. Joseph a lot. It is hard for me to get upset about him being added to the Canon.
Dom Prosper Guéranger specifically mentioned how St Joseph is not in the Canon in his work 'The Holy Mass.' First the Church confined itself to the Apostles and martyrs alone, and later when the time came to fix the Canon, a liturgical prayer 'fixed and consecrated by Christian antiquity,' 'Holy Church recoiled from rehandling and making modifications, even of smaller details.' If the Canon could be adjusted to suit a devotion mood or mode, anything could happen, and so it proved.
I know this topic is old, but it is interesting. I think the point Stubborn was trying to make is that future popes could have lawfully abrogated Quo Primum and substituted their own liturgical law. However, he was saying that this was not what Paul VI did. Instead Stubborm was saying that Paul VI created a new rite without first abrogating Quo Primum, which he says forbids establishing new rites. Therefore, according to Stubborn, Paul VI broke the law of a previous pope that Paul VI had the power to abrogate but Paul VI did not abrogate. I wish Jayne had responded to this point as it was the key point Stubborn was trying to get across. She stopped responding to his posts at the precise point he made his argument clear. I think the two were talking past each other.
I have my own thoughts and questions on the matter, but will refrain from expressing them in the hopes that either Jayne or Stubborn, if they are still around, will comment. If someone reads this and can contact either of them, please do so. Thank you.
Jane banned herself from the forum. But Stubb is still here.
Quote from: Chris Jackson on August 09, 2019, 02:22:02 PM
I know this topic is old, but it is interesting. I think the point Stubborn was trying to make is that future popes could have lawfully abrogated Quo Primum and substituted their own liturgical law. However, he was saying that this was not what Paul VI did. Instead Stubborm was saying that Paul VI created a new rite without first abrogating Quo Primum, which he says forbids establishing new rites. Therefore, according to Stubborn, Paul VI broke the law of a previous pope that Paul VI had the power to abrogate but Paul VI did not abrogate. I wish Jayne had responded to this point as it was the key point Stubborn was trying to get across. She stopped responding to his posts at the precise point he made his argument clear. I think the two were talking past each other.
I have my own thoughts and questions on the matter, but will refrain from expressing them in the hopes that either Jayne or Stubborn, if they are still around, will comment. If someone reads this and can contact either of them, please do so. Thank you.
There is a much stronger argument that can and has been made against the liciety of the new rite that makes Stubborn's argument hardly worthy of mention (no offense intended to Stubborn, whom I deeply respect).
Per a dogmatic definition made at Vatican I, we must believe as an article of faith that it is possible to know how God wants to be worshipped through divine revelation:
QuoteIf anyone says that it is impossible, or not expedient, that human beings should be taught by means of divine revelation about God and the worship that should be shown him: let him be anathema. Vatican I, Third Session, Canon II on Revelation
Pope Leo XIII more than reiterated this truth when he wrote, "...for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will."
We know from the above statements that liturgy is not entirely a matter of mere Church discipline, for divine revelation correlates with dogma. Popes have the authority to change disciplines imposed by other popes, but no pope has the authority to change dogma, which is immutable by nature. It just so happens that one dogma defined at Trent explicitly forbids the creation of new rites for use in the solemn administration of the sacraments:
QuoteIf any one shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be changed to other new ones by any pastor of the churches, whomsoever, let him be anathema. Session VII, Canon XIII on the Sacraments
Before the creation of the Novus Ordo, every single rite of Mass, Eastern and Roman, could be shown to be a development of an apostolic rite. They were all rites
received from the apostles. No one could point to any of those rites and give a specific date as to when it was created, because all of the rites were of ancient origin. This is not the case with the Novus Ordo. The new rite was not
received from anyone. It was a banal fabrication, an on-the-spot product. We know exactly when it was created and we know that no pastor, whomsoever, had the authority to create it. We know this because God Himself has revealed what rites are acceptable to Him (the received and approved ones) and which rites aren't (any new ones).
The thing that most folks do not seem to understand is that Pope St. Pius V did not invent a new rite, PPVI did that - which is clearly against the law of Quo Primum. It seems this should be crystal clear, but if not, all anyone needs to do is to read Quo Primum.
If one studies the liturgy of PPV, they will find that liturgy he codified, or organized into one Missal that he called the Missale Romanum was not a made up liturgy or an entirely "new rite", rather, it is comprised of the traditional prayers which were prayed at Mass since the Church's earliest times, some of these prayers date back to, and are directly from the Apostles.
People need to think of this subject the way it is. What is the way it is? It's like this:
Up until Trent, there was no actual or established Bible. Trent is the Council that decided out of all the possible books, the ones they decided on are the only ones that belong in the Bible - and said: "This is the Bible".
Pope Pius V did the same thing, only instead of the books that comprise the Bible, he did it with the prayers comprising the Liturgy, then said: "This is the Mass."
But for the sake of unity in worship, belief, and in order to protect this liturgy forever, he even went a step further and put into place a separate law, Quo Primum, that made it a law of the Church that his liturgy, the liturgy he put in the Missale Romanum, is that Mass is to be the only Mass of the Roman Rite - forever.
Now, can a pope use his supreme, albeit non-infallible authority, to make an entirely new Bible full of books, which btw, largely contradicts the Bible of Trent, impose it's use, and at the same time take steps to eliminate the real Bible from existence? Yes, he certainly can, there is nothing to stop him, nothing at all - but because doing so is clearly against the established law, pope or not, it was illegal for him to do what he did - and as such, the people had every right and even the duty, and should have wholly rejected it.
It works the same with the new mass of PPVI. There was nothing to stop him from inventing a new rite with a new mass, complete with a new, unedifying (to say the least) liturgy, new formulas within it and new doctrines and new, new, new, etc. ad nausem. There's a law against doing that. If all the people would simply have followed the (new) Trads in their wholesale rejection of the new "mass", the devil would have had to concoct some other crisis because the NO would have never even gotten off the ground.
At any rate, that is the way it is. A pope cannot legitimately invent and impose a new mass upon us, any more than he can legitimately invent and impose a new Bible upon us. If people would look at it this way, they would be much closer to comparing apples to apples instead of whatever the thinking is they use to in an attempt to justify the new "mass" - that's just the way it is as I see it.