B
bear06
Guest
I just realized this is a link for a partial version of PA. I can’t find my link to the full version. If anyone has this, please post. I’ll do it when I find it.
- Status
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
In particular:
A
albert_cipriani
Guest
Nope. Just those who changed the liturgy or a sacrament to such an extent that its validity could be reasonably doubted.
Every sacrament involves lower small case “t” AND upper case “T” tradition. Do you mean to say that a change in lower case tradition never spills over to change upper case Tradition?
Every sacraments’ form and matter (i.e., upper case Tradition) has been messed with as a result of VCII. On what basis do you insist that none of these changes are heretical or proximate to heresy or at least an affront to pious ears? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
albert cipriani:
Although a Pope can personally be a heretic, his charism of infallibility protects him from imposing on the Church a form of worship which is displeasing to God or, worse, invalid.
At least, this is the Traditional teaching of the Church. Not surprisingly, it is at least implicitly denied by the Lefebvrists and other schismatics, which makes them heretical . . .
I repeat:
Although a Pope can personally be a heretic, his charism of infallibility protects him from imposing on the Church a form of worship which is displeasing to God or, worse, invalid.
At least, this is the Traditional teaching of the Church. Not surprisingly, it is at least implicitly denied by the Lefebvrists and other schismatics, which makes them heretical . . .
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
I’ll be happy to do so. First, we have to remember that the canons concerning *ex cathedra *statements require that the mind of the pope be clear. That is, it should, in some way, be made clear that he intends to bind all Christains by some teaching on faith or morals. Clearly, *Quo Primum *fails in this since the pope permits those liturgical traditons (In this case he is specifically referring to the Ambrosian and Mozarabic litrugies) that had been in constant use for over 200 years to continue. If this were *ex cathedra *his teaching would be the equivalent of teaching that one must believe in the Immaculate Conception unless where you live there had been a 200 year tradition denying the Immaculate Conception. In other words, it’s not possible to have two conflicting dogmatic teachings.
However, we go further in our analysis by looking at the punishment that is to be given if one does not follow Quo Primum. Failure to accept and follow an *ex cathedra *teachings renders one a heretic. But, failure to follow *Quo Primum *simply gets one a fine! (“Wherefore, in order that the Missal be preserved incorrupt throughout the whole world and kept free of flaws and errors, the penalty for nonobservance for printers, whether mediately or immediately subject to Our dominion, and that of the Holy Roman Church, will be the forfeiting of their books and a fine of one hundred gold ducats, payable ipso facto to the Apostolic Treasury.”) Now, there is an excommunication incurred for some who fail to follow the directives.
But, these directives specifially say they are a law and not a moral or theological teaching (“This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women - even of military orders - and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church.”) Furthermore, they do not call for “religious submission of will” which is required for doctrinal or dogmatic teachings but, rather, “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.” Note, the call is for “holy obedience” which is required of disciplines, not doctrine or dogma.
I hope this is sufficient.
Deacon Ed
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
Bravo, Deacon! A concice demonstration of intellectual clarity, objectivity, and common sense!
So naturally, of course, the “Traditionalists” won’t get it . . .
So naturally, of course, the “Traditionalists” won’t get it . . .
R
RomanRiteTeen
Guest
Please realize I am honestly trying to understand this, but
This snipet from The Bull Quo Primum makes it to seem that even the Pope is subject to this document, in virtue of Holy Obedience, and thus more than simple disciplinary action for the time. It speaks “in perpetuity”.
If the Tridentine Mass is to retain it’s full effect and validity always, why do they, the priests, need an indult to lawfully celebrate it? Why is it relegated to the back?
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
Teen:
You’re repeating the same questions, but without taking into account all the evidence that’s been presented to you negating the “Traditionalist” interpretation of this passage.
I suppose the only thing new I have to add is that the Papal Office is not an “ecclesiastical dignity,” such as a Cardinal is, but is instead a divinely-ordained and constituted institution of Christ. No Pope can possibly bind his successor to something disciplinary, and you won’t find anything in the annals of Catholic history or theology to suggest otherwise.
Again, if this were the case, every revision of the Roman liturgy from 1570 to 1962 would be invalid, even revisions done by Saint Pius V!
The strong-sounding words of Saint Pius are conventional legal formulae in papal documents of the day, not something binding on future popes. When the Breviary was reformed by Trent, the same type of language was used; and when Saint Pius X revised it some 400 years later, he too used the same words! Tthe Jesuit Order was suppressed by Clement XIV “in perpetuity,” only to be reinstituted by Pius VII!
And again, Pius V himself refers to the Tridentine Mass as a “new rite.”
For more detailed documentation, see “Did Pope Paul VI Have Authorization to Create a New Mass?”
I could go on, but it’s pointless if you’re just going to keep brining up the same objections, and not take our answers into acount when you counter-reply.
You’re repeating the same questions, but without taking into account all the evidence that’s been presented to you negating the “Traditionalist” interpretation of this passage.
I suppose the only thing new I have to add is that the Papal Office is not an “ecclesiastical dignity,” such as a Cardinal is, but is instead a divinely-ordained and constituted institution of Christ. No Pope can possibly bind his successor to something disciplinary, and you won’t find anything in the annals of Catholic history or theology to suggest otherwise.
Again, if this were the case, every revision of the Roman liturgy from 1570 to 1962 would be invalid, even revisions done by Saint Pius V!
The strong-sounding words of Saint Pius are conventional legal formulae in papal documents of the day, not something binding on future popes. When the Breviary was reformed by Trent, the same type of language was used; and when Saint Pius X revised it some 400 years later, he too used the same words! Tthe Jesuit Order was suppressed by Clement XIV “in perpetuity,” only to be reinstituted by Pius VII!
And again, Pius V himself refers to the Tridentine Mass as a “new rite.”
For more detailed documentation, see “Did Pope Paul VI Have Authorization to Create a New Mass?”
I could go on, but it’s pointless if you’re just going to keep brining up the same objections, and not take our answers into acount when you counter-reply.
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
albert cipriani:
I would make the assertion on the grounds that 1) the Church cannot teach error and, 2) the Church cannot fail to present the sacraments. Failure in either of these cases would indicate that the Church is not indefectible, and that means that we’ve all be deceived.
Deacon Ed
Albert,
I would make the assertion on the grounds that 1) the Church cannot teach error and, 2) the Church cannot fail to present the sacraments. Failure in either of these cases would indicate that the Church is not indefectible, and that means that we’ve all be deceived.
Deacon Ed
B
bear06
Guest
albert cipriani:
So are you saying that the normative liturgy is a change in Tradition?
B
bear06
Guest
Oops, I’m sorry. I dropped the “h” in the original link. This is a great article that explains what we have been saying.
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/QUOPIUS.HTM
R
RomanRiteTeen
Guest
Thanks a lot Dominvs! That article really helped, I almost went off the deep end after reading Quo Primum yesterday.
A
albert_cipriani
Guest
Deacon Ed:
The Church does not condone this evil, but the Church hierarchy does wink and nod at what is going on. Winking and nodding does not constitute a formal legal action. Ergo, the Church has not defected, yet she presently harbors a vipers nest of practices that would constitute a defection were she to formally bind such practices upon us. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
- Mucking up the sacraments, as you guys yourselves continue to correctly assert, is not a teaching. The Church’s infallibility applies to matters of moral or dogmatic teaching, not liturgical practices or disciplines. So the Church is having her cake and eating it too in the sense of having mucked up the sacraments and yet not having usurped her charism of teaching infallibily.
- Yes. The Church will have done the imposible should she fail to present the sacraments. Such a failure would constitute a defection of the Church and a contradiction of our Lord’s promise that He would be with us until the end of time.
The Church does not condone this evil, but the Church hierarchy does wink and nod at what is going on. Winking and nodding does not constitute a formal legal action. Ergo, the Church has not defected, yet she presently harbors a vipers nest of practices that would constitute a defection were she to formally bind such practices upon us. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
A
albert_cipriani
Guest
DominvsVobiscvm said:
Where do you get this? Do you just make it up as you go? What doctrine supports your contention that “God is pleased only that we, the laypeople, obey”???
If all we have to do is obey the latest pope, why do we bother even recording what prior popes have said? What’s the point of theology’s attempt to reconcile Church teachings with the Bible and philosophy?
Just obey? Excuse me while my right fingers straighten out, I loose control over my keyboard, and my right arm stiffens and rises uncontrolably… Heil Dominvs! – Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
geocities.com/albert_cipriani/index.html
groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligiousPhilosophy/
B
bear06
Guest
albert cipriani:
Once again it would seem that you’ll tout any pre-Vatican II document except Pastor Aeternus. You might want to give it a read.
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
Then allow me to rephrase this. According to traditional Catholic teaching, the Magisterium cannot impose upon the faithful a rite that, if employed correctly, would be displeasing to God or, worse, invalid.
It’s called “traditional Catholicism.”
It’s always good to understand historical context. Even our non-dogmatic beliefs need to be informed by tradition, as well as our piety. But the past disciplinary decrees of Popes and Councils are not *binding * once they have been overturned by legitimate authority.
Again, we’re not talking theology here, but liturgical discipline. It is hypothetically possible that we have a heretical Pope, but not possible that he could introduce legislation which, if followed, would displease God or render worship invalid.
A
albert_cipriani
Guest
The operative word in your statement is “impose.” But the Catholic Church has NOT imposed the Novus Ordo rite. Read the document whereby Pope Paul VI promulgated the New Mass. The two operative words in that document are “hope” and “wish.”
Catholics are not bound by our pontiff’s hopes and wishes. He may wish us to participate in the new sacraments all he wants. Until a pope binds us to participate, we are free to have recourse to the Mass of the ages. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
albert cipriani:
I disagree. The pope makes it quite clear that this is, indeed, a papal mandate when he writes:
Deacon Ed
Albert,
I disagree. The pope makes it quite clear that this is, indeed, a papal mandate when he writes:
The pope never uses the word “hope” in the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum which promulgated the missal. He does use the word “wish” – twice, but they have nothing to do with the fact that the pope did, indeed, order the use of the new missal.
Deacon Ed
A
albert_cipriani
Guest
Hi Deacon Ed,
Unfortunately I don’t have access to my notes at the moment. So please accept a rain check on my response. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
Unfortunately I don’t have access to my notes at the moment. So please accept a rain check on my response. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
- Status