Archbishop Lefebvre

[catharina]

Hey, Dave? Thanks.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

In any event, it speaks volumes about the catholic church that Lefebvre can be a completely orthodox bishop before the council and the worst enemy of the RCC afterward(1st to be declared excommunicated) without changing a thing that he practiced or believed. There is obviously something wrong with this picture and it has troubled my conscience to a great degree.

Sorry, but your post is largely based on rhetorics. First of all he never become the worst enemy of the Church. It is ridiculous to say such and I don’t believe you even believe it yourself. Second of all he wasn’t excommunicated for his orthodoxy but for his actions, that is disobeying his superior (the Pope) by consecrating bishops without permission. His excommunication was automatic and there was no plot against him. He perfectly knew what he was doing.

Coincidently, today Fr. Z posted a PODCAzT in which he speaks about Archbishop Lefebvre, specifically about the claims that he is St. Athanasius of the modern era.

 

[bear06]

She’s quoting what Pope Paul VI said in 1966. Was Paul VI unaware of the teaching of the Church about the infallibility Ordinary Magisterium when he wrote what he wrote? Of course not…then why did he write what he wrote? It’s a little confusing isn’t it?

So why did he say it? It’s a legitimate question to ask.

SFD

Nobody has said that their was a solemn dogmatic definition pronounced at the council!!! This has never been the argument. The argument always lies in whether or not the council is binding. He probably said it because the council wasn’t planing on defining any new dogma. And? It still doesn’t exclude the fact that the council is binding, that it did touch on dogma (although not new), etc. I’d suggest searching the forums for something like “Vatican II binding?” because this is off-topic for the thread.

 

[bear06]

In any event, it speaks volumes about the catholic church that Lefebvre can be a completely orthodox bishop before the council and the worst enemy of the RCC afterward(1st to be declared excommunicated) without changing a thing that he practiced or believed. There is obviously something wrong with this picture and it has troubled my conscience to a great degree.

Because nobody has ever been blinded by pride before…

 

[VARC]

Sorry, but your post is largely based on rhetorics. First of all he never become the worst enemy of the Church. It is ridiculous to say such and I don’t believe you even believe it yourself. Second of all he wasn’t excommunicated for his orthodoxy but for his actions, that is disobeying his superior (the Pope) by consecrating bishops without permission. His excommunication was automatic and there was no plot against him. He perfectly knew what he was doing.

Coincidently, today Fr. Z posted a PODCAzT in which he speaks about Archbishop Lefebvre, specifically about the claims that he is St. Athanasius of the modern era.

Rhetoric? You’ve blinded yourself to reality concerning this issue. The Marcel Lefebvre of 1968 is the same Marcel Lefebvre of 1988. He didn’t change a thing concerning his religious belief or practice. It is the Vatican that changed. And when Lefebvre refused to change with it he was made into an enemy. The man’s only desire was to pass on the Traditional roman rite to the Society he founded. The Vatican bureaucrats knew if they waited it out then Lefebvre would die and no one would be able to ordain the priests to carry on the traditional roman rite. The lesson learned is that the nothing in the catholic religion, not even the venerable Roman rite of the mass, is so sacred that the Vatican can’t throw in the garbage and excommunicate those who don’t want to let the treasures of their faith go.

 

[SFD]

Nobody has said that their was a solemn dogmatic definition pronounced at the council!!!

No kidding. Why all the exclaimation points?

This has never been the argument. The argument always lies in whether or not the council is binding. He probably said it because the council wasn’t planing on defining any new dogma.

He said it in 1966. After the Council.

It still doesn’t exclude the fact that the council is binding, that it did touch on dogma (although not new), etc.

It touched on all dogmas…Vatican II did not establish any rule against the Faith. The Faith was not outlawed by Vatican II. Nor was actual heresy imposed as an infallible law of belief. But the men who ran it and who also took the other major actions of the era, were working against the Catholic Church. Why? Because the council and various other statements of doctrine contradicted Church teaching on many points, and they led the clergy and the faithful to think that they could freely doubt anything that suited them.

Please read what Archbishop Lefebvre described only one year after the Council closed, “In a more or less general way, when the Council has introduced innovations, it has unsettled the certainty of truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as unquestionably belonging to the treasure of Tradition.” And, “In fact, Rome is no longer the unique and necessary Magistra Veritatis [Teacher of Truth].”

This is what we see today…and there are those who just wish to believe it is disobedience…all these individuals decided to be disobedient at the same time in a multitude of areas …and most claim that they are perfectly within their ‘rights’ as Catholics to hold contrary “opinions”.

SFD

 

[JReducation]

John Paul II basically says the same in Ecclesia Dei.

Benedict XVI seems to share the opinion.

It doesn’t change that he was Excommunicated, as were the four priests consecrated by him as bishops. (JP II refered to them as priests in ED when referencing their formal excommunication for accepting illicit ordination, which since they knew* it was illicit, is also invalid.)

Illicit and invalid are not the same. The ordinations were valid, but illicit. For validity a bishop does not need the approval of the Pope. Ordination is part of a bishop’s power. This cannot be taken away, even by excommunication.

They are illicit, as in illegal. Nonetheless, the four bishops whom LeFebvre ordained are validly ordained. This is part of the problem.

To ordain a bishop who is not in communion with the Vicar of Christ is the same as starting your own branch of the Church. In fact, Canon law would recognize them as an apostolic Church, but an illicit one at that. Because LeFebvre was a validly ordained bishop, he did have apostolic succession.

This is comparable to the Bishops of the Orthodox Churches. They are valid bishops and their sacraments are valid, because they were ordained by previous generations of valid bishops. Unlike the bishops of the Anglican Church. That’s a big mess, because many of them were appointees of the crown. The crown had no sacramental power at all. Archbishop LeFebvre, like the bishops of the East, had sacramental power, they did not have the mandate from Peter. What they did was valid, but illegal. Canon law calls it illicit.

If they perpetuate, eventually, what we will have is another schismatic church.

It’s a very sad event.

 

[JReducation]

What reforms? If you are claiming that the New Mass was a reform of the Council, please read the Constitution on the Liturgy. The New Mass was created by a handful of theologians that ignored the Constitution.
So what reforms stemming from the Vatican II council are you talking about?

Do not forget, that liturgists were commissioned by the Church to hammer out reforms to the liturgy. In the end, the Sacred Congregation picked what it found in keeping with the Church’s faith and discarded the rest.

The final edition of the Sacramentary, which is what we use in parishes around the world and the final edition of the Lectionary, may have been the work of many liturgists (not theologians, by the way), this is a different discipline. That being said, the Sacred Congregation gave its blessing to the current Sacramentary and Lectionary. That’s the only one that’s approved for use in the Church.

One disclaimer: there are some special editions for certain religious orders and for the Eastern Rite Catholics (not the same as Orthodox Christians), but those too were approved by the Sacred Congregation.

 

[SFD]

Do not forget, that liturgists were commissioned by the Church to hammer out reforms to the liturgy. In the end, the Sacred Congregation picked what it found in keeping with the Church’s faith and discarded the rest.

The final edition of the Sacramentary, which is what we use in parishes around the world and the final edition of the Lectionary, may have been the work of many liturgists (not theologians, by the way), this is a different discipline. That being said, the Sacred Congregation gave its blessing to the current Sacramentary and Lectionary. That’s the only one that’s approved for use in the Church.

FYI,

Originally Posted by Consilium Fathers
Revising the pre-existing text becomes more delicate when faced with the need to update content or language, and when all this affects not only form, but also doctrinal reality. This revision is called for in the light of the new view of human values, considered in relation to and as a way to supernatural goods. The Council clearly proposes this new view and it was kept in mind when the Temporal Cycle was revised. It could not have been ignored in the Sanctoral Cycle. In other cases, ecumenical requirements dictated appropriate revisions in language. Expressions recalling positions of struggles of the past are no longer in harmony with the Church’s new positions. An entirely new foundation of Eucharistic theology has superseded devotional points of view or a particular way of venerating and invoking the Saints. Retouching the texts, moreover, was deemed necessary to bring to light new values and new perspectives. – Consilium’s Father Carlo Braga, 1966.

The statistics reveal this; that of the 1182 orations in the Traditional Missal, 760 were dropped entirely. The remaining were altered in more that half of the cases. Only 17 % of the old orations made it into the new missal. The Temporal Cycle contained prayers that were ancient, in some cases 1600 years old.

The Consilium incorporated into the new missal only those older texts “which could have a pastoral worth for contemporary man”. To have introduced the unaltered ancient prayers which alluded to doctrinal controversies or fasting, or which disparaged the things of the world, would have created “difficulty for the psychology of the man who experiences other problems, who has a different way of thinking, and who lives in a different material and disciplinary situation.”

SFD

 

[stmaria]

Do not forget, that liturgists were commissioned by the Church to hammer out reforms to the liturgy. In the end, the Sacred Congregation picked what it found in keeping with the Church’s faith and discarded the rest.

 

[SFD]

JReducation;3163562:

“Hammer out reforms to the liturgy”?? The commission was established to** implement **

the *Constitution on the Liturgy ***not interpret **it to their desires.

APOSTOLIC LETTER
SACRAM LITURGIAM
ISSUED MOTU PROPRIO
January 25, 1964
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19640125_sacram-liturgiam_en.html

“For these reasons it is apparent to all that it is our uppermost concern that all Christians, and especially all priests, should consecrate themselves first of all to the study of the already- mentioned Constitution and from now on, resolve to** implement **its individual prescriptions in good faith as soon as they enter into force… Meanwhile, it seems evident that many prescriptions of the Constitution cannot be applied in a short period of time, especially since some rites must first be revised and new liturgical books prepared. In order that this work may be carried out with the necessary wisdom and prudence, we are establishing a special commission whose principal task will be **to implement **in the best possible way the prescriptions of the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy itself.”

Stmaria,

What they did was done under the watch of Paul VI and is part of the ordinary magisterium and, as such, is an object of disciplinary infallibility. The fact that they did not follow the Vatican Council II is really of little consequence…the Pope directed and accepted what was done.

Do you see the problem?

SFD

 

[stmaria]

stmaria;3164461:

Stmaria,

What they did was done under the watch of Paul VI and is part of the ordinary magisterium and, as such, is an object of disciplinary infallibility. The fact that they did not follow the Vatican Council II is really of little consequence…the Pope directed and accepted what was done.

Do you see the problem?

SFD

Pope Paul said that the New Mass was " not a dogmatic definition". For something to be declared infallible it has to be binding on the entire Church not just the Latin Rite.
If you are trying to claim that the Novus Ordo is an object of disciplinary infallibility then you must say that the Tridentine Mass is also an object of disciplinary infallibility. Dogma cannot change, discipline can. Neither Mass is an object of disciplinary infallibility.

 

[SFD]

SFD;3164542:

Pope Paul said that the New Mass was " not a dogmatic definition". For something to be declared infallible it has to be binding on the entire

Church not just the Latin Rite.
If you are trying to claim that the Novus Ordo is an object of disciplinary infallibility then you must say that the Tridentine Mass is also an object of disciplinary infallibility. Dogma cannot change, discipline can. Neither Mass is an object of disciplinary infallibility.

This is simply not true. If you were familiar with even a few manuals of dogmatic theology you would see this is the case.

See post #64 on this thread: “Sedevacantist against the True Church and our Blessed Pope.”

SFD

1. From the official statement of the Church, which stigmatized as “at least erroneous” the hypothesis “that the Church could establish discipline which would be dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition and materialism. (16)

Corollary

The well-known axiom, Lex orandi est lex credendi (The law of prayer is the law of belief), is a special application of the doctrine of the Church’s infallibility in disciplinary matters. This axiom says in effect that formulae of prayer approved for public use in the universal Church cannot contain errors against faith or morals.

But it would be quite wrong to conclude from this that all the historical facts which are recorded here and there in the lessons of the Roman Breviary, or all the explanations of scriptural passages which are used in the homilies of the Breviary must be taken as infallibly true.(17) As far as the former are concerned, those particular facts are not an object of infallibility since they have no necessary connection with revelation. As for the latter, the Church orders their recitation not because they are certainly true, but because they are edifying.

 

[SFD]

stmaria,

Also consider the following:

1. The Criteria, or means of knowing Catholic truth, may be easily gathered from the principles already stated. They are nearly all set forth in the Brief Tuas Libenter, addressed by Pius IX to the Archbishop of Munich. The following are the criteria of a dogma of Faith: (a) Creeds or Symbols of Faith generally received; (b) dogmatic definitions of the Popes or of ecumenical councils, and of particular councils solemnly ratified; (c) the undoubtedly clear and indisputable sense of Holy Scripture in matters relating to Faith and morals; (d) the universal and constant teaching of the Apostolate, especially the public and permanent tradition of the Roman Church; (e) universal practice, especially in liturgical matters, where it clearly supposes and professes a truth as undoubtedly revealed ; (f) the teaching of the Fathers when manifest and universal; (g) the teaching of Theologians when manifest and universal.

II. Between the doctrines expressly defined by the Church and those expressly condemned stand what may be called matters of opinion or free opinions. Freedom, however, like certainty, is of various degrees, especially in religious and moral matters. Where there is no distinct definition there may be reasons sufficient to give us moral certainty. To resist these is not, indeed, formal disobedience, but only rashness. Where there are no such reasons this censure is not incurred. It is not possible to determine exactly the boundaries of these two groups of free opinions; they shade off into each other, and range from absolute free do to morally certain obligation to believe. In this sphere of Approximative Theology, as it may be styled, there are (1) doctrines which it is morally certain that the Church acknowledges as revealed (veritates fidei proxima); (2) theological doctrines which it is morally certain that the Church considers as belonging to the integrity of the Faith, or as logically connected with revealed truth, and consequently the denial of which is approximate to theological error (errori theologico proxima); (3) doctrines neither revealed nor logically deducible from revealed truths, but useful or even necessary for safeguarding Revelation: to deny these would be rash (temerarium). These three degrees were rejected by the Minimizers mentioned at the end of the last section, and all matters not strictly defined were considered as absolutely free. Pius IX., however, on the occasion of the Munich Congress in 1863, addressed a Brief to the Archbishop of that city laying down the Catholic principles on the subject. The 22nd Proposition condemned in the “Syllabus” was taken from this Brief and runs thus: “The obligation under which Catholic teachers and writers lie is restricted to those matters which are proposed for universal belief as dogmas of Faith by the infallible judgment of the Church.” And the Vatican Council says, at the end of the first constitution, “It sufficeth not to avoid heresy unless those errors which more or less approach thereto are sedulously shunned.”

SFD

 

[kleary]

In any event, it speaks volumes about the catholic church that Lefebvre can be a completely orthodox bishop before the council and the worst enemy of the RCC afterward(1st to be declared excommunicated) without changing a thing that he practiced or believed. There is obviously something wrong with this picture and it has troubled my conscience to a great degree.

On paper, the Archbishop was excommunicated for consecrating Bishops without papal mandate. He was not excommunicated for “not believing new doctrines”.

Also he was a very good friend of the Council, even signing the Document on the Sacred Liturgy from Vatican II. It is the WRONG missinterpretation of the Council that he fought against, and that the Church is just waking up to see. The more and more common the TLM becomes, the more Catholic Answers and EWTN stay on the air, the more the entire Catholic world will wake up and see the “errors” of what is being pushed forth as “The Council”.

Ken

Ken

 

[SFD]

On paper, the Archbishop was excommunicated for consecrating Bishops without papal mandate. He was not excommunicated for “not believing new doctrines”.

Also he was a very good friend of the Council, even signing the Document on the Sacred Liturgy from Vatican II. It is the WRONG missinterpretation of the Council that he fought against, and that the Church is just waking up to see. The more and more common the TLM becomes, the more Catholic Answers and EWTN stay on the air, the more the entire Catholic world will wake up and see the “errors” of what is being pushed forth as “The Council”.

Ken

Ken,

Please read what Archbishop Lefebvre described only one year after the Council closed, “In a more or less general way, when the Council has introduced innovations, it has unsettled the certainty of truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as unquestionably belonging to the treasure of Tradition.” And, “In fact, Rome is no longer the unique and necessary Magistra Veritatis [Teacher of Truth].”

He was hardly a “friend of the Council”.

Anyway, what was done was done under the watch of Paul VI and is part of the ordinary magisterium and, as such, is an object of disciplinary infallibility. The fact that they did not follow the Vatican Council II is really of little consequence…the Pope directed and accepted what was done.

SFD

 

[stmaria]

. The fact that they did not follow the Vatican Council II is really of little consequence…the Pope directed and accepted what was done.

Do you see the problem?

SFD

If you believe that the New Mass is infallible then wouldn’t the mis-translation of *pro mutlis *be a heresy? Jesus clearly said 'for many" not for “all”. The Council of Trent declared ,“For you and for many” were "joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God”
Why aren’t the words of Consecration infallible? How could Pope Paul remove the words "Mystery of Faith "?. How could he add “which is given up for you?”. How could he allow the mis- translation of pro multis?
The Vatican has admitted it erred in the translation.

**Pro multis means “for many,” Vatican rules **
Vatican, Nov. 18, 2006 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican has ruled that the phrase pro multis should be rendered as “for many” in all new translations of the Eucharistic Prayer
cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=47719

You have stated that that Trent declared that the Church cannot issue something that would lead to impiety. I agree that the Church cannot but in my opinion Churchmen can.
The New Mass, in my opinion, is not the problem. It is the novelities that have been introduced into the Mass that has lead 60- 70% of Catholics to believe that the Eucharist is symbolic.
Those novelities are communion in the hand, removal of tabernacle, allowing the laity to distribute communion, standing during the Consecration, removal of kneelers. standing to receive communion etc. All have lead Catholics to believe that nothing extraordinary happens at the Consecration. The Mass had become less sacred.
Remove all of these novelities and return to traditional practices and belief in the Real Presence will return.

The fact that they did not follow the Vatican Council II is really of little consequence…the Pope directed and accepted what was done.

Pope Paul had the authority but was it an abuse of his authority not to follow the Council’s Constitution on the Liturgy and instead follow the constitution of a few men
Pope Paul had the obligation to follow Tradition

Spirit of the Liturgy (pp. 165-166): Cardinal Ratzinger
rtforum.org/lt/lt92.html

“After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . . . The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. . . . The greatness of the liturgy depends - we shall have to repeat this frequently - on its unspontaneity.”

 

[SFD]

stmaria:

Pope Paul had the authority but was it an abuse of his authority not to follow the Council’s Constitution on the Liturgy and instead follow the constitution of a few men. Pope Paul had the obligation to follow Tradition.

stmaria,

Yes, I agree that what he did must be resisted. But the disciplines of the Church are determined by the Pope. The Pope is protected from issuing false or impious disciplines. This is what the charism of infallibility means. Do you reject the theologically certain doctrine of disciplinary infallibility?

Cardinal Manning, one of the key fathers at the Council in 1870, explains how misguided your interpretation is.

“In a word, the whole magisterium or doctrinal authority of the Pontiff as the supreme Doctor of all Christians, is included in this definition of his infallibility. And also all legislative or judicial acts, so far as they are inseparably connected with his doctrinal authority; as for instance, all judgments, sentences, and decisions, which contain the motives of such acts as derived from faith and morals. Under this will come the laws of discipline, canonization of the saints, approbation of Religious Orders, of devotions, and the like; all of which intrinsically contain the truths and principles of faith, morals and piety. The definition, then, does not limit the infallibility of the Pontiff to his supreme acts ex cathedra in faith and morals, but extends his infallibility to all acts in the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority.” (From, “The Vatican Council and its Definitions”).

Spirit of the Liturgy (pp. 165-166): Cardinal Ratzinger
rtforum.org/lt/lt92.html

“After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . . . The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. . . . The greatness of the liturgy depends - we shall have to repeat this frequently - on its unspontaneity.”

Well, Fr. Ratzinger has gotten it wrong here. He was a liberal at the Council, if you didn’t know. The pope ratifies the ecumenical council…until that happens, the council means little. When the Pope accepts a council, only then it becomes part of the infallible ordinary magisterium. The Council does not give the pope a “mandate”…the Pope is an absolute monarch!…but he is constrained by divine law and guided by the Holy Ghost. He can change any ecclesiastical law he wants…but the indefectibility of the Church assures us that he will never make laws that are impious or err in faith and morals.

The problem is that this very thing that cannot happen appears to have happened. That is the mystery.

I agree with you stmaria, but you must look at the situation in the Church according to Her own teachings.

SFD

 

[stmaria]

QUOTE=SFD;3168925]stmaria,

. the disciplines of the Church are determined by the Pope. The Pope is protected from issuing false or impious disciplines. This is what the charism of infallibility means. Do you reject the theologically certain doctrine of disciplinary infallibility?

Cardinal Manning, one of the key fathers at the Council in 1870, explains how misguided your interpretation is.

Are the Church’s disciplinary laws infallible?sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__canonical.htm#disciplinarylaws
“It is certainly true that, before Vatican II, pious theologians proposed that the pope’s infallibility should extend to his legislative acts. We know, however, that if such a thesis be accepted, that it does not and cannot include all his legislative acts, any more than his infallibility can include all his teaching acts.
It is only indirectly that legislative acts teach dogma. It is certainly reasonable that a legislative act of the pope would in this way participate in the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. It could not, however, participate in the infallibility of the Extraordinary Magisterium, for there is not in a legislative act a formal definition of a dogma. It can, therefore, only participate in the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.
The conditions for the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium are that that which is taught, has been taught ubique, semper et ab omnibus; that is, always, everywhere and by all. “

Well, Fr. Ratzinger has gotten it wrong here. He was a liberal at the Council, if you didn’t know.

I think Cardinal Ratzinger got it right. His book *Spirit of the Liturgy *was just recently written. He has had years to reflect on his ideas.

”…the Pope is an absolute monarch!…but he is constrained by divine law and guided by the Holy Ghost. He can change any ecclesiastical law he wants…but the indefectibility of the Church assures us that he will never make laws that are impious or err in faith and morals.

The problem is that this very thing that cannot happen appears to have happened. That is the mystery.

I agree with you stmaria, but you must look at the situation in the Church according to Her own teachings.

This is why I believe you are wrong about discipline being infallible. If this is true then it would be impossible for there to be bad translations from Latin to English.* Pro Multis *is only one of many errors.

Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal
adoremus.org/CDW-ICELtrans.html
B. In the Creed, which has unfortunately also maintained the first-person plural “We believe” instead of the first-person singular of the Latin and of the Roman liturgical tradition, the above-mentioned tendency to omit the term “men” **has effects that are theologically grave. **
C. After the Orate, fratres, the people’s response Suscipiat Dominus sacrificium de manibus tuis . . . has been distorted, apparently for purposes of “inclusive language”: “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of God’s name, for our good, and the good of all the Church.” The insertion of the possessive God’s gives the impression that the Lord who accepts the sacrifice is different from God whose name is glorified by it. The Church is no longer his Church, and is no longer called holy a flaw in the previous translation that one might have hoped would be corrected.
C. Another example of the translators’ having altered texts (or, in this case, maintained a deficient wording) to the **detriment **of the distinction of roles between priest and people is the prayer Orate fratres, ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium . . ., which becomes “Pray, brothers and sisters, that our sacrifice . . . . as if the congregation and priest both offered the sacrifice in an indistinct manner.
D. Given the Latin tradition that very closely links the words “Mysterium fidei” to the words of institution, it is inappropriate for the deacon to give the invitation to the Memorial Acclamation. The translators, with no authorization, have introduced this change.”

 

[cam100]

Are the Church’s disciplinary laws infallible?sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__canonical.htm#disciplinarylaws
“It is certainly true that, before Vatican II, pious theologians proposed that the pope’s infallibility should extend to his legislative acts. We know, however, that if such a thesis be accepted, that it does not and cannot include all his legislative acts, any more than his infallibility can include all his teaching acts.

…

This is why I believe you are wrong about discipline being infallible. If this is true then it would be impossible for there to be bad translations from Latin to English.* Pro Multis *is only one of many errors.

This quoted piece was written by the SSPX to justify their actions. It’s not supported by Church teaching, however. Although the pope’s discilpinary actions are in themselves infallible, the Church is protected from deceiving the faithful by presenting invalid sacraments as valid ones. The pope cannot promulgate an invalid mass. This does not mean that the English translation of Christ’s words of consecration is guaranteed to be exactly the same, word for word. But it does mean that the consecration is valid.

Well, Fr. Ratzinger has gotten it wrong here. He was a liberal at the Council, if you didn’t know. …
SFD

Actually, Cardinal Ratznger’s words do not contradict Cardinal Manning’s. I think some people here are misunderstanding Ratzinger. His words have been used to indicate that the NO mass is invalid or at least unsatisfactory. Yet he himself celebrates according to this form! So it seems that this interpretation is incorrect. Rather, it seems that he was saying that a pope SHOULDN’T monkey with the mass. He does not appear to question the pope’s ABILITY to do so, however.

There appears to be no contradiction. While the pope should respect tradition and not try to re-write the mass, he is still protected from promulgating something invalid or evil as the mass.