Why can't trads get along?

[Gardener]

Non Nobis stated:

This argument doesn't end with an isolated consideration of the two forms - it goes on to the question as to whether the new form is in fact so close to (or derived from) other old valid (Eastern) forms that it too must be valid.

That would have been a very strong argument; but the problem is that the new form is an almost exact duplicate of the Maronite form for the enthronement of an Archbishop.  It is not used to Consecrate bishops.  The Dominican's of Avrille in their original article,  tasked Dr. Cooramaswami for having made a blunder in publishing an erroneous version of the Maronite Consecratory form.  But it was the Dominicans that were mistaken.  The members of Rore Scientifica interviewed a Maronite doctor of Canon law and asked him if the form cited by the Dominicans had ever been used to Consecrated bishops, and he responded in the negative.

This leads to a question: does validity of a form have respect to its Rite?

[Michael Wilson]

Gardener stated:

This leads to a question: does validity of a form have respect to its Rite?

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking here, but I will respond to what I think you are asking:
If a Latin Rite priest offers the Mass in the Byzantine Rite, or a Byzantine Priest offers Mass in the Latin Rite, both are valid; the same is true, if a Byzantine rite of ordination is used to ordain priests that will offer the Latin Mass and again vice versa is also considered valid.  There are many historic rites in the Church that are considered valid.  Some of the schismatics have tampered with their rites and rendered them invalid, as is the case with the Nestorians using the Anaphora of Addai and Mari; as it lacks the form of the sacrament. 

[Gardener]

Gardener stated:

This leads to a question: does validity of a form have respect to its Rite?

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking here, but I will respond to what I think you are asking:
If a Latin Rite priest offers the Mass in the Byzantine Rite, or a Byzantine Priest offers Mass in the Latin Rite, both are valid; the same is true, if a Byzantine rite of ordination is used to ordain priests that will offer the Latin Mass and again vice versa is also considered valid.  There are many historic rites in the Church that are considered valid.  Some of the schismatics have tampered with their rites and rendered them invalid, as is the case with the Nestorians using the Anaphora of Addai and Mari; as it lacks the form of the sacrament.

What about a Latin Rite priest using the X (any other valid Rite) Form in the Latin Rite?

[VeraeFidei]

Gardener stated:

This leads to a question: does validity of a form have respect to its Rite?

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking here, but I will respond to what I think you are asking:
If a Latin Rite priest offers the Mass in the Byzantine Rite, or a Byzantine Priest offers Mass in the Latin Rite, both are valid; the same is true, if a Byzantine rite of ordination is used to ordain priests that will offer the Latin Mass and again vice versa is also considered valid.  There are many historic rites in the Church that are considered valid.  Some of the schismatics have tampered with their rites and rendered them invalid, as is the case with the Nestorians using the Anaphora of Addai and Mari; as it lacks the form of the sacrament.

What about a Latin Rite priest using the X (any other valid Rite) Form in the Latin Rite?

Now that is a fascinating question. I wonder if any canonists or theologians have touched upon it.

[Michael Wilson]

Gardener stated:

This leads to a question: does validity of a form have respect to its Rite?

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking here, but I will respond to what I think you are asking:
If a Latin Rite priest offers the Mass in the Byzantine Rite, or a Byzantine Priest offers Mass in the Latin Rite, both are valid; the same is true, if a Byzantine rite of ordination is used to ordain priests that will offer the Latin Mass and again vice versa is also considered valid.  There are many historic rites in the Church that are considered valid.  Some of the schismatics have tampered with their rites and rendered them invalid, as is the case with the Nestorians using the Anaphora of Addai and Mari; as it lacks the form of the sacrament.

What about a Latin Rite priest using the X (any other valid Rite) Form in the Latin Rite?

I'll take a guess and say that it would probably be valid but illicit; comparable to a Latin rite priest consecrating leavened bread. I also would ask, why was the change made? For example, the deliberate suppression of the "Mysterium Fidei" in the Latin Rite form of the consecration of the wine, certainly raises a question as to the intentions which motivated this suppression; especially with the addition of the public acclamation of "Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again" right after the consecration; it appears to negate or at least obscure the fact that after the consecration, Christ is truly present on the altar. Pope Leo in Apostolicae Curae made the following observation about the changes in the Anglican rite of orders:

..if the rite [in this case, of the Mass and Holy Eucharist] be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament."

Fr. Cekada in his book: "The Work of Human Hands" does a very thorough job of documenting the unorthodox ideas of the authors of the N.O.M. And the substantial changes introduced into the new rite that reveal its anti-Catholic spirit.

[Stranger]

Tradical quotes Hunter as proof of the doctrine that the unanimous acceptance of a Pope Elect by the Bishops creates a dogmatic fact, i.e. makes the legitimacy of his election infallibly true. For this he only quotes Hunter, as Billot and others merely speak of the universal and pacifical acceptance of the whole Universal Church, not merely the bishops.

So let's take a closer look at what Hunter is saying:

First, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope ; for if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208) ; if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise (St. Matt, xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible.

1. "if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope",
- Far from impossible, this situation already happened during the Western Schism, and the uncertainty lasted for 40 years. Therefore, it is entirely possible that it could be happening now.

2. "but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops"
- this presupposes that there is a Pope, but what happened during every period of sede vacante, or, what happened during the four decades of the Western Schism? Did the bishops of the world (the Teaching Church) temporarily lose the ability to teach? To say such a thing would not only be ridiculous but also at least an error because it would mean that the Constitution of the Church has changed from the one divinely instituted by Christ, which is impossible.

3. "if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise would be falsified, which is impossible"
- But during the Western Schism the uncertainty was not resolved for 40 years, and yet obviously the Teaching Church still exercised the power of teaching, and Christ's promise did not fail. So a similar situation is possible today as well. What is certain is that one day it will be resolved.

...but it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined.

This presupposes the existence of a true Pope, who is the head mentioned above, so that if the entire body of bishops were to adhere to an antipope while a true pope was alive they would be separated from their head. But if we are in a period of vacancy then there is no pope and no head of the body of bishops, so if the body of bishops were to unknowingly recognize an antipope they would merely make an error of fact and would not be separated from their head, since they would not have a head during that period.

If we consider all of this, then we can see that the doctrine expressed in Cum ex Apostolatus - that the election of a heretic would be invalid even if accepted by every single cardinal, agrees perfectly with the dogmatic fact that the pacific and universal adherence of the whole Church (not merely the bishops) to a Pontiff makes his election infallibly legitimate, because the adherence of merely the cardinals or the bishops is not the same as the universal adherence of the whole Church.

Therefore, Tradical's basis for disproving sedevacantism is not correct.

Sorry Stranger, but your reasoning is flawed at the root as you have committed the same logical error at John Daly and John Lane.

First, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope

This is what establishes the dogmatic fact.  The secondary portion are reasons why it is so.

It is important to note that it is not just Hunter but Billot, Ott St. Alphone de Ligouri who are all in complete agreement on the doctrine.  The difference is in the rational for supporting the existence of the dogmatic fact.

That you believe there is no uncertainty does not logically invalidate the principle as noted.

Recourse to the Western Schism is also mistaken because of this statement

]if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up,

This demonstrates that there must be a way to ascertain who is the valid Vicar of Christ.  This demonstrates that the unanimous recognition by the Bishops establishes this fact removing any doubt.

It is important to read the whole and not discard elements that do not coincide with one's beliefs.

Last point, we must accept the teaching of the Church as the Church understands them. 

Your assertions are counter to the explicit sense of the text, and the referenced theological texts.

P^3

I have demonstrated my case. On the other hand, you have obviously decided to limit yourself to little more than assertions.

The dogmatic fact which many theologians teach is that the whole Church cannot accept a false pope. As far as I know (and you have not proven otherwise), only Hunter argues that the universal adherence of the bishops also creates another dogmatic fact. However, I was not disputing him per se, I simply demonstrated that this particular teaching of his can only be applied if a true pope exists, and not if there is a sede vacante. You have not successfully disproved this, nor can you, because it would mean that the Teaching Church can not teach during a sede vacante and that it did not teach throughout the 40 years of the Western Schism, during which the uncertainty of who the real pope was remained unresolved.

Finally, the teaching of one theologian is not the teaching of the Church, nor is it binding. I know you like it because it fits with your theory, but if you build a theory without a solid foundation that theory is like a house of cards.
You would need to find many other eminent theologians who argue the same as Hunter, and who disprove the qualifications I made (which I believe Hunter would probably accept because they are corroborated by historical examples), in order to make it a sententia communis.
Unless you can prove, theologically, why the universal acceptance of the bishops (while at the same time the condition of the universal acceptance of the whole Church is not fulfilled) must create a dogmatic fact, such a doctrine affirmed by a single theologian, as far as I know, would seem to remain but an opinion - sententia probabilis.

[tradical]

@stranger,

The doctrine is not merely the opinion of one theologian as it is published in a theological textbook with a reliable imprimatur.  In other words, your  assertion is a red herring.

Even so, whether the acceptance is by the bishops (Church Teaching) or the combined Bishops and the Church Learning is irrelevant as both groups have accepted that each successive Pope.

If you were to ask the moral majority of Catholics after each election who was the reigning Vicar of Christ, you would find the following after each election:

John 23
Paul 6
John Paul 1
John Paul 2
Benedict 16
Francis

It is that simple.

[Stranger]

@stranger,

The doctrine is not merely the opinion of one theologian as it is published in a theological textbook with a reliable imprimatur.  In other words, your  assertion is a red herring.

Even so, whether the acceptance is by the bishops (Church Teaching) or the combined Bishops and the Church Learning is irrelevant as both groups have accepted that each successive Pope.

If you were to ask the moral majority of Catholics after each election who was the reigning Vicar of Christ, you would find the following after each election:

John 23
Paul 6
John Paul 1
John Paul 2
Benedict 16
Francis

It is that simple.

Many theological textbooks receive an imprimatur, that doesn't make them infallible. For example, I personally know of a theological textbook with an imprimatur from the late 19th century which contains at least one doctrine contrary to Catholic teaching.
As I said, without proof your theory is just an opinion. Quoting a short passage from a single theologian, who does not explore the matter in depth, is not a solution.

The dogmatic fact is created when the papal claimant receives "universal and pacific acceptance" from the whole Church. Now, most Traditional Catholics refuse pacific acceptance to the Conciliar pontiffs (their acceptance is in name only, while in substance they reject their authority, they reject them as the rule of Faith, many even openly call them heretics), and Sedevacantists refuse them any acceptance at all.

So, the Conciliar pontiffs obviously do not have universal and pacific acceptance, even if we count only the SVs as rejecting their authority, but there is also a strong case for counting other Traditionalists since they share with Francis neither unity of faith (he does not profess the Catholic Faith, but the modernist religion, and they refuse and condemn his religion), nor unity of sacraments or communion (he does not use Catholic but modernist rites, and they condemn those rites), and there is no real unity of government because Traditional Catholics do not submit to Francis, nor is it possible for them to be truly subject to him without endangering their Faith.

[LouisIX]

I can name many things from the 20th century which contain error and yet have an imprimatur, but none from the 19th century.  What is the book and what is the error?

[tradical]

@stranger,

The doctrine is not merely the opinion of one theologian as it is published in a theological textbook with a reliable imprimatur.  In other words, your  assertion is a red herring.

Even so, whether the acceptance is by the bishops (Church Teaching) or the combined Bishops and the Church Learning is irrelevant as both groups have accepted that each successive Pope.

If you were to ask the moral majority of Catholics after each election who was the reigning Vicar of Christ, you would find the following after each election:

John 23
Paul 6
John Paul 1
John Paul 2
Benedict 16
Francis

It is that simple.

Many theological textbooks receive an imprimatur, that doesn't make them infallible. For example, I personally know of a theological textbook with an imprimatur from the late 19th century which contains at least one doctrine contrary to Catholic teaching.
As I said, without proof your theory is just an opinion. Quoting a short passage from a single theologian, who does not explore the matter in depth, is not a solution.

The dogmatic fact is created when the papal claimant receives "universal and pacific acceptance" from the whole Church. Now, most Traditional Catholics refuse pacific acceptance to the Conciliar pontiffs (their acceptance is in name only, while in substance they reject their authority, they reject them as the rule of Faith, many even openly call them heretics), and Sedevacantists refuse them any acceptance at all.

So, the Conciliar pontiffs obviously do not have universal and pacific acceptance, even if we count only the SVs as rejecting their authority, but there is also a strong case for counting other Traditionalists since they share with Francis neither unity of faith (he does not profess the Catholic Faith, but the modernist religion, and they refuse and condemn his religion), nor unity of sacraments or communion (he does not use Catholic but modernist rites, and they condemn those rites), and there is no real unity of government because Traditional Catholics do not submit to Francis, nor is it possible for them to be truly subject to him without endangering their Faith.

As one noted fallen away, but managed to have a priest present at his death once said: Fuddle Duddle.

The imprimatur puts its authority against yours. Sorry, I take its authority vs yours any day. Especially since it is consistent with: Ott, Billot, Noort.

As far as the rest of your opinion - sorry what you have stated is inconsistent with the Catechism of the Council of Trent.  I started a discussion on this topic here ( http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8506.msg182721#msg182721 ).

Now if I hold your opinion up against the opinion contained within the Catechism of the Council of Trent - I again select the latter as a trustworthy source of Catholic Doctrine.

Final thought for today: It is necessary for sedevacantists to stop imitating the modernists by re-imagining Church Doctrine.  Vital Immanence is a heresy, so the 'religious sentiments' that well up in the hearts of the sedevacantists that go against Church Teaching are likewise heretical.

We now return to our original programming ...

[Lynne]

Pope Pius X once said that an imprimatur is no longer a guarantee that there are no errors. I'll look to see if I can find the exact quote.

Found it:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

51. To give you some more general directions, Venerable Brethren, in a
matter of such moment, We bid you do everything in your power to drive
out of your dioceses, even by solemn interdict, any pernicious books
that may be in circulation there. The Holy See neglects no means to
put down writings of this kind, but the number of them has now grown
to such an extent that it is impossible to censure them all. Hence it
happens that the medicine sometimes arrives too late, for the disease
has taken root during the delay. We will, therefore, that the Bishops,
putting aside all fear and the prudence of the flesh, despising the
outcries of the wicked, gently by all means but constantly, do each
his own share of this work...Let no Bishop think that he fulfils this
duty by denouncing to us one or two books, while a great many others
of the same kind are being published and circulated. Nor are you to be
deterred by the fact that a book has obtained the Imprimatur
elsewhere, both because this may be merely simulated, and because it
may have been granted through carelessness or easiness or excessive
confidence in the author as may sometimes happen in religious Orders.
Besides, just as the same food does not agree equally with everybody,
it may happen that a book harmless in one may, on account of the
different circumstances, be hurtful in another. Should a Bishop,
therefore, after having taken the advice of prudent persons, deem it
right to condemn any of such books in his diocese, We not only give
him ample faculty to do so but We impose it upon him as a duty to do
so. Of course, it is Our wish that in such action proper regard be
used, and sometimes it will suffice to restrict the prohibition to the
clergy; but even in such cases it will be obligatory on Catholic
booksellers not to put on sale books condemned by the Bishop. And
while We are on this subject of booksellers, We wish the Bishops to
see to it that they do not, through desire for gain, put on sale
unsound books. It is certain that in the catalogues of some of them
the books of the Modernists are not unfrequently announced with no
small praise. If they refuse obedience let the Bishops have no
hesitation in depriving them of the title of Catholic booksellers; so
too, and with more reason, if they have the title of Episcopal
booksellers, and if they have that of Pontifical, let them be
denounced to the Apostolic See.

[tradical]

Pope Pius X once said that an imprimatur is no longer a guarantee that there are no errors. I'll look to see if I can find the exact quote.

Found it:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

51. To give you some more general directions, Venerable Brethren, in a
matter of such moment, We bid you do everything in your power to drive
out of your dioceses, even by solemn interdict, any pernicious books
that may be in circulation there. The Holy See neglects no means to
put down writings of this kind, but the number of them has now grown
to such an extent that it is impossible to censure them all. Hence it
happens that the medicine sometimes arrives too late, for the disease
has taken root during the delay. We will, therefore, that the Bishops,
putting aside all fear and the prudence of the flesh, despising the
outcries of the wicked, gently by all means but constantly, do each
his own share of this work...Let no Bishop think that he fulfils this
duty by denouncing to us one or two books, while a great many others
of the same kind are being published and circulated. Nor are you to be
deterred by the fact that a book has obtained the Imprimatur
elsewhere, both because this may be merely simulated, and because it
may have been granted through carelessness or easiness or excessive
confidence in the author as may sometimes happen in religious Orders.
Besides, just as the same food does not agree equally with everybody,
it may happen that a book harmless in one may, on account of the
different circumstances, be hurtful in another. Should a Bishop,
therefore, after having taken the advice of prudent persons, deem it
right to condemn any of such books in his diocese, We not only give
him ample faculty to do so but We impose it upon him as a duty to do
so. Of course, it is Our wish that in such action proper regard be
used, and sometimes it will suffice to restrict the prohibition to the
clergy; but even in such cases it will be obligatory on Catholic
booksellers not to put on sale books condemned by the Bishop. And
while We are on this subject of booksellers, We wish the Bishops to
see to it that they do not, through desire for gain, put on sale
unsound books. It is certain that in the catalogues of some of them
the books of the Modernists are not unfrequently announced with no
small praise. If they refuse obedience let the Bishops have no
hesitation in depriving them of the title of Catholic booksellers; so
too, and with more reason, if they have the title of Episcopal
booksellers, and if they have that of Pontifical, let them be
denounced to the Apostolic See.

The instruction is for Bishops examining texts.

Unless one can find something wrong with the text itself and not just base it on a feeling that emanates from within oneself, these texts that have been cited can be considered reliable.

i.e. the application of a generalized statement to a specific case is not warranted until the generalized case has been proved applicable.

[LoneWolfRadTrad]

I can name many things from the 20th century which contain error and yet have an imprimatur, but none from the 19th century.  What is the book and what is the error?

I KNOW!!!

[Gardener]

I can name many things from the 20th century which contain error and yet have an imprimatur, but none from the 19th century.  What is the book and what is the error?

contain error or contain something which is in disagreement with Dominican manualists? 

[LouisIX]

I can name many things from the 20th century which contain error and yet have an imprimatur, but none from the 19th century.  What is the book and what is the error?

contain error or contain something which is in disagreement with Dominican manualists? 

The good Dominican fathers are unimpressed with your redundant distinction.