Author Topic: TLM Never Abrogated?  (Read 13739 times)

Offline Mattock

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1629
  • Thanked: 797 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
« Reply #45 on: April 16, 2015, 12:43:53 AM »
Pius XII erred when he made those changes. What particular statement is so disastrous? What a pope can do and what a pope should do might well be different things. The faithful should not enable these errors by their silence.
For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that doth not yield good fruit, shall be cut down, and cast into the fire.

 
‎ن‎
 

Offline aquinas138

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 927
  • Thanked: 839 times
  • Māran etraḥam 'lay!
Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
« Reply #46 on: April 16, 2015, 07:07:43 AM »
A solid case can be made that Pope St. Pius V's decree is irreformable.

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

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

It is arguable that the Mass qua Mass has really changed if we are reducing it down to the barest level of "sacrament vs. not-sacrament" - in that case each and every part of the Mass apart from the words of Institution is, strictly speaking, a discipline. The NO retains the words of Institution (Mysterium Fidei, of course, being displaced); thus the form of the sacrament remains, and assuming valid matter and intent, the sacrament remains.
O unashamed intercessor of Christians, ever loyal advocate before the Creator, do not disregard the prayerful voice of sinners but in your goodness hasten to assist us who trustfully cry out to you: Intercede always, O Mother of God, in behalf of those who honor you!
 

Offline Mattock

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1629
  • Thanked: 797 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
« Reply #47 on: April 16, 2015, 03:50:02 PM »
A solid case can be made that Pope St. Pius V's decree is irreformable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We, as Catholics, are ordered, adjured by Christ and His apostles, to hold to the Faith as we received it. While the New Missal can perhaps be used from within a framework consonant with the Apostolic Faith, the spirit that is behind the very origin and orientation of that missal are not. Paul VI had to even defend its very orthodoxy as it was quite questionable. This autodemolition of the Roman Rite must be resisted. We are but laymen. At this point we must commend the restoration of the Church to God. Christ has not, and never will, abandon His Bride, just as Christ will never abandon any one of us. Even though it sure feels like it at times.
For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that doth not yield good fruit, shall be cut down, and cast into the fire.

 
‎ن‎
 

Offline VeraeFidei

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2353
  • Thanked: 243 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
« Reply #48 on: April 17, 2015, 03:54:01 PM »
Pius XII erred when he made those changes. What particular statement is so disastrous? What a pope can do and what a pope should do might well be different things. The faithful should not enable these errors by their silence.
If Pius XII did not violate Quo Primum by changing Holy Week, the calendar, so many rubrics and traditions about Feasts, suppressing so many Octaves, and so forth and so on, then by God, Quo Primum would be prima facie un-violateable.
 

Offline Christopher McAvoy

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 457
  • Thanked: 44 times
  • Traditio Legis (et Clavum)
  • Religion: 11th c. Orthodox Latin Catholic - a medieval relic aloof to 21st century trads
Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
« Reply #49 on: April 21, 2015, 12:15:25 AM »
Not only has the Tridentine "Roman Use" of the Roman Rite never been abrogated - neither has the Salisbury use of 16th c. England, which is why I hope someday it too may once again- along with the traditional dominican and carmelite uses that it closely resembles - be a normal part of our patrimony, especially in the english speaking world.
 

Offline Bonaventure

  • Oberstleutnant
  • Hauptmann
  • *****
  • Posts: 9047
  • Thanked: 1638 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
« Reply #50 on: April 21, 2015, 12:36:59 AM »
Pius XII erred when he made those changes. What particular statement is so disastrous? What a pope can do and what a pope should do might well be different things. The faithful should not enable these errors by their silence.
If Pius XII did not violate Quo Primum by changing Holy Week, the calendar, so many rubrics and traditions about Feasts, suppressing so many Octaves, and so forth and so on, then by God, Quo Primum would be prima facie un-violateable.


Matt, those changes are ill-timed, unwise, but not illicit.
 

Offline Mattock

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1629
  • Thanked: 797 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
« Reply #51 on: April 21, 2015, 02:43:54 AM »
Pius XII erred when he made those changes. What particular statement is so disastrous? What a pope can do and what a pope should do might well be different things. The faithful should not enable these errors by their silence.
If Pius XII did not violate Quo Primum by changing Holy Week, the calendar, so many rubrics and traditions about Feasts, suppressing so many Octaves, and so forth and so on, then by God, Quo Primum would be prima facie un-violateable.


Matt, those changes are ill-timed, unwise, but not illicit.
Fully agreed. My choice of the word "erred" was unclear. "Erred" morally but not legally. The Pauline Missal appears to be the beginning of the clear legal aberration. For the life of me, I am genuinely uncertain about the true legal status of the NOM. It's a complete novelty and was "promulgated" in a ambiguous fashion. I don't want to be obscurantist about legal matters, but I hate the way the VII popes simply imply things instead of ordering them. It creates these kind of controversies. :very pissed:
For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that doth not yield good fruit, shall be cut down, and cast into the fire.

 
‎ن‎
 

Offline Prayerful

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 6411
  • Thanked: 2762 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
« Reply #52 on: April 21, 2015, 05:34:25 AM »
The Novus Ordo-ists have an invincible pride that makes it impossible for them to ever tolerate the Mass as anything other than a minority activity. Some day the Masonic NO service will be suppressed, but it will be a long time coming. The NO service was published in Latin, Pope Francis said it in Latin in Korea, I believe. TLM is ropey usage even if people know what it means.

In a marginal way the Mass was never suppressed as Pope Paul VI did provide indults, and gradually it did become accessible down to the present where it's mostly no more than a car journey away. That is something for which the holy Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre must be thanked.
Padre Pio: Pray, hope, and don't worry. Worry is useless. God is merciful and will hear your prayer.
 

Offline VeraeFidei

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2353
  • Thanked: 243 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: TLM Never Abrogated?
« Reply #53 on: April 21, 2015, 04:55:15 PM »
Pius XII erred when he made those changes. What particular statement is so disastrous? What a pope can do and what a pope should do might well be different things. The faithful should not enable these errors by their silence.
If Pius XII did not violate Quo Primum by changing Holy Week, the calendar, so many rubrics and traditions about Feasts, suppressing so many Octaves, and so forth and so on, then by God, Quo Primum would be prima facie un-violateable.


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