1967 letter sent to Pope Paul VI

[Filioque]

With regard to Fr. Kramer, I don’t find his jump an minority opinion among the Post Vatican II traditionalists to be consistant with the teaching of the Church prior to the Council. It is easy to proclaim something to be De Fide now, (as the Feeney Followers do about the extreme position of Extra Ecclesia) Fr. Zuldorf has this to say of Fr. Kramer, wdtprs.com/blog/2009/07/quaeritur-pro-multis-and-validity/ So I don’t think I’m alone in my opinion of him, or the invention of Quo Primum as infallible. If it is unchangable then the modifications to the Missal that have taken place since the First Editio Typica was promulgated are all wrong, and ommiting the King from the Canon is an act that has excommunicated all Popes since Clement VIII for tampering with not just the Missal, but the Canon itself. Quo Primum does have the force of law, but is not above any Successive Popes to supress.

What do I make of the quotation? I suggest that Fr. Kramer has very little standing to make any such interpretation.
Paul VI and John Paul II were Popes. They were no less Popes than Innocent XI. They promulgated the post-Conciliar editions of the Missal. Popes don’t give Holy Church Missals with texts for invalid Masses. You might not like what they promulgated in every respect, but the Masses are not invalid. You might think that the texts of the previous Missal were superior, but the newer texts are not invalid.
Fr. Kramer’s insinuations were imprudent.
People can argue about whether or not the texts of the Novus Ordo rite of Mass are good, or whether they convey a somewhat different theology than that of the older, pre-Conciliar Missale Romanum. People can like or not like, for various reasons, the Novus Ordo. But it is wrong to say that Mass with the post-Conciliar editions is invalid. To do so implies that you think your own authority is above that of the Vicar of Christ.
I will be delighted with the new translation of the Novus Ordo is released, with its correct rendering of pro multis, and this tired controversy is put to rest.

 

[Filioque]

As the great liturgical scholar Fr. Adrian Fortescue wrote, this Mass is **“the most venerable in all Christendom, with a history of unbroken use far longer than that of any Eastern rite, there being no doubt that the essential parts of the Mass are of Apostolic origin.” **Thus, the Mass that Pope St. Pius V was confirming in Quo Primum was not some new construct like the Novus Ordo Missae, but was essentially the Apostolic Mass of Sts. Peter and Paul at Rome. Nor is it the Mass of some particular area of the Church like the Eastern rites, but it is the UNIVERSAL rite of the Church, the rite of the Roman See, the Papal See.

Fr Fortescue was indeed a giant among Scholars. However there have been documents regarding the Liturgy of the early Church that he did not have access to. He also wrote extensivly on the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches and Liturgies. I’ll have to gather what he said about them.

I don’t think I ever stated that the Missal of Pope St. Pius V was a new construct. Neither is the Missal of Pope Paul VI entirely new. In fact it restores some of the primitive practices that were abandoned around the 9th Century. Practices that are also of Apostolic Origin. Some of these practices did remain in the Ambrosian and Mozarabic Liturgy including having lay-people bring the wine, water and altar breads up to the priest in procession.

While the Pope has Universal Jurisdiction, the Roman Rite is not a or the Universal Rite. At least not in any respectable source I’ve read. I’m assuming that those are your words and not Fr. Fortescue’s

I’ll look up the Denziger 1829 quote to see if it is what is written, it seems to me to be a little far fetched, but then again, I’ve been wrong before, and would like to have an iron clad argument. Until then I have to be honest, that as far as I have read from reputable sources I see nothing that makes Quo Primum infallible.

 

[ProVobis]

With regard to Fr. Kramer, I don’t find his jump an minority opinion among the Post Vatican II traditionalists to be consistant with the teaching of the Church prior to the Council.

I’ve heard some of his tapes and he presents some well-researched and legal arguments in his talks. So convincing even some of the traditionalists fear he might convince too many to take an extreme position. I can understand and respect Fr. Z’s position too.

Note, however, Fr. Kramer doesn’t quite say Quo Primum is infallible. He’s careful with his words. But I’ll agree with him to the extent that Quo Primum is not just another decree Pope Pius V’s successors should ignore just because they can. Even today most Catholics have never heard of Quo Primum and that’s probably because everyone in the “Magisterium” probably wishes Quo Primum had never been written. This can’t be good either.

 

[ProVobis]

While the Pope has Universal Jurisdiction, the Roman Rite is not a or the Universal Rite. At least not in any respectable source I’ve read. I’m assuming that those are your words and not Fr. Fortescue’s

Not my words but those of the website. Understand that it is not necessarily the absolute truth but a rebuttal and subject to criticism, of course. There are other interesting rebuttals there, by the way. Many, though, have become moot points because of the 2007 SP.

 

[Filioque]

As to Fr. Fortescue, of happy memory. Look at pages 111 forward in the book “The Orthodox Eastern Church” If you don’t have a copy, please see this link.
archive.org/stream/orthodoxeasternc00fortuoft#page/n7/mode/2up Either the quote you provided was originally written before he was as read on the East, or his opinion had changed. Happily I was able to find the book scanned online, as I would have hated to have typed all the pages out. And you’ve already made it clear that you don’t want to read endless postings.

 

[Filioque]

As compelling as Fr. Kramer’s talks may be, they fly in the face of the quote, (DB 1829). which does not mention Quo Primum, nor directly to Infallibility. It does however point out that the authority of the Pope is superior to Councils and that the Pope has the authority to govern the entire Church. It further states that the decisions of the Pope do not need to be ratified by Civil authorities, because the authority of the Holy See superceeds that of the Temporal government. What it does not say but is covered in other pronouncements, and by Dogmatic Theologians is that in a matter like the RIte of the Mass one Pope cannot bind a future Pope to leave the first Popes decisions untouched. If that was the case my posting about the removal of the Secular King from the Canon could not have happened, as it would strictly speaking corrupt the Canon.

I can post the Latin original from a copy of the Denzinger, I’ve got three editions, two prior to Vatican II and one I used at Econe that was part of our text books issued, published in 1978. They all say the same thing.

 

[NeelyAnn]

With regard to Fr. Kramer, I don’t find his jump an minority opinion among the Post Vatican II traditionalists to be consistant with the teaching of the Church prior to the Council. It is easy to proclaim something to be De Fide now, (as the Feeney Followers do about the extreme position of Extra Ecclesia) Fr. Zuldorf has this to say of Fr. Kramer, wdtprs.com/blog/2009/07/quaeritur-pro-multis-and-validity/ So I don’t think I’m alone in my opinion of him, or the invention of Quo Primum as infallible. If it is unchangable then the modifications to the Missal that have taken place since the First Editio Typica was promulgated are all wrong, and ommiting the King from the Canon is an act that has excommunicated all Popes since Clement VIII for tampering with not just the Missal, but the Canon itself. Quo Primum does have the force of law, but is not above any Successive Popes to supress.

Except for the fact that Pope Benedict XVI, speaking as Cardinal Ratzinger, said that event eh Pope himself was not permitted to make arbitrary changes to the Mass.

 

[Filioque]

Except for the fact that Pope Benedict XVI, speaking as Cardinal Ratzinger, said that event eh Pope himself was not permitted to make arbitrary changes to the Mass.

It was/is within the authority of the Pope to revise or initiate any Rite that is in accordance to Catholic principles. It has yet to be proved that the Missal of Pope Paul VI are arbitrary changes. While some of the Pauline Missal are radically different from the Pian Missal, these changes conform to early Sacramenaries and practices of the Church. Other elements are in conformity to the Pian Missal. In all the Pauline Missal is a valid Mass, which was legally imposed on the Church.