Can "Ex Cathedra" Be Changed?

[albert_cipriani]

Deacon Ed:

The pope never uses the word “hope” in the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum

Sorry Deacon Ed, but you are wrong. Here’s the quote:

“We WISH to give the force of law to all that we have set forth concerning the new Roman Missal. In promulgating the official edition of the Roman Missal… we HOPE nevertheless that the Missal will be received by the faithful… We WISH that these Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the Future…”

The Pope’s WISH is not my command. As Catholics we are perfectly free to deny him his wishes by attending the Mass of our fathers and shunning the Mass by committee. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[RomanRiteTeen]

albert cipriani:

Sorry Deacon Ed, but you are wrong.

…

The Pope’s WISH is not my command. As Catholics we are perfectly free to deny him his wishes by attending the Mass of our fathers and shunning the Mass by committee. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

Wish and hope definitely don’t sound too forceful, where can I read this document in it’s entirety? I’d like to look into it a bit.

 

[bear06]

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6MISSAL.HTM

 

[bear06]

BTW, there is always a problem when one tries to take things out of context. Good job in looking for the whole document.

 

[RomanRiteTeen]

As the good Deacon said, the word ‘hope’ does not appear in the document, and I don’t see those exact (or even very similar) quotes in the link Bear provided. I’m guessing you were quoting something different, Albert?

 

[John_Higgins]

CCC:

Can 749 §3 No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated.

John

 

[albert_cipriani]

RomanRiteTeen:

As the good Deacon said, the word ‘hope’ does not appear in the document

Yes it does. Go to the Vatican site here.
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum_en.html

 

[John_Higgins]

Two different translations. Here’s the Latin:

Ad extremum, ex iis quae hactenus de novo Missali Romano exposuimus quiddam nunc cogere et efficere placet. Cum Decessor Noster S. Pius V principem Missalis Romani editionem promulgavit, illud veluti quoddam unitatis liturgicae instrumentum idemque tamquam genuini religiοsique cultus in Ecclesia monumentum christiano populo repraesentavit. Haud secus Nos, etsi, de praescripto Concilii Vaticani II, in novum Missale legitimas varietates et aptationes (Cf CONCILIUM OECUMENICUM VATICANUM II, Const. de sacra liturgia Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 38-40; AAS 56, 1964, p. 110) ascivimus, nihilo tamen secius fore confidimus, ut hoc ipsum a christifidelibus quasi subsidium ad mutuam omnium unitatem testandam confirmandamque accipiatur, utpote cuius ope, in tot varietate linguarum, una eademque cunctorum precatio ad caelestem Patrem, per summum Pontificem nostrum Iesum Christum, in Spiritu Sancto, quovis ture fragrantior ascendat.

Quae Constitutione hac Nostra praescripsimus vigere incipient a die XXX proximi mensis Novembris hoc anno, id est a Dominica I Adventus.

“Confidimus” is stronger than we hope. It’s more like we are confident.

John

 

[RomanRiteTeen]

albert cipriani:

Yes it does. Go to the Vatican site here.
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum_en.html

Thanks! Odd that EWTN’s version differs from that of the Holy See.

 

[RomanRiteTeen]

John Higgins:

Two different translations.

…

John

Ah, alright then. I was a tad confused.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

What part of this don’t you understand?

In conclusion, we wish to give the force of law to all that we have set forth concerning the new Roman Missal. In promulgating the official edition of the Roman Missal, Our predecessor, St. Pius V, presented it as an instrument of liturgical unity and as a witness to the purity of the worship the Church. While leaving room in the new Missal, according to the order of the Second Vatican Council, “for legitimate variations and adaptations,” we hope nevertheless that the Missal will be received by the faithful as an instrument which bears witness to and which affirms the common unity of all. Thus, in the great diversity of languages, one unique prayer will rise as an acceptable offering to our Father in heaven, through our High-Priest Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit.

We order that the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect November 30th of this year, the first Sunday of Advent.

We wish that these Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by Our predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation.

You’re really tripping on semantics if you actually believe that the Pope isn’t issuing a command here. He is not using the words “wish” or “hope” is contradistinction to “command.” The words signify instead the intention of the Pope that his orders be obeyed. We speak this way all the time, and so do Popes.

His inention here is plain to anyone with half-a-brain.

If the Pope wishes to promulgate something into law, and then goes through all the effort to issue an Apostolic Constitution in accordance with this wish, it becomes law. Period.

 

[albert_cipriani]

DominvsVobiscvm:

What part of this don’t you understand?.. His inention here is plain to anyone with half-a-brain.

Are you addressing me? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The Church’s infallibility applies to matters of moral or dogmatic teaching, not liturgical practices or disciplines.

At the risk of repeating myself … see here:

It has been argued that formal disciplines of the Church ARE secondary objects of faith and morals. This is the PRE-VATICAN II position, the TRADITIONAL view. I’m surprised that some so-called traditionalists now reject such a view.

The Church has condemned the proposition that the Church can establish an ecclesiastical discipline that is "useless … burdensome … harmful … dangerous."

Furthermore, according to the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia article CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ecclesiastical****Discipline the author calls the thesis that ecclesiastical disciplines are indirectly infallible as being held “unanimously” by Catholic theologians, and, rightly understood, is “undeniable.”

What you suggest has been condemned by the Church.

Pius VI’s condemnation reads as follows:

The prescription of the synod [of Pistoia] … it adds, “in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstituion and materialism”; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,–false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.

(Pius VI, cited in Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, translated by Roy F. Deferari from the 13th ed. Of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1954, Loreto Publications, 2nd printing, 2004, pg. 393)]

Here’s an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1909) article mentioned above …

Disciplinary Infallibility] has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church (De Ecclesiâ}. The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i. e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching.

And from this 1908 pre-Vatican II source, P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258:

“The Church is** infallible in her general discipline**. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . .

“If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”

 

[albert_cipriani]

itsjustdave1988:

Furthermore, according to the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia article CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ecclesiastical Discipline the author calls the thesis that ecclesiastical disciplines are indirectly infallible as being held “unanimously” by Catholic theologians, and, rightly understood, is “undeniable.”

Pius VI’s condemnation reads as follows:
as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,–false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.

(Pius VI, cited in Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, translated by Roy F. Deferari from the 13th ed. Of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1954, Loreto Publications, 2nd printing, 2004, pg. 393)]

Here’s an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1909) article mentioned above

Disciplinary Infallibility] has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church (De Ecclesiâ}. The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i. e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching.

And from this 1908 pre-Vatican II source, P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258:
“The Church is** infallible in her general discipline**. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . .

“If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”

Are you shadow boxing? You are certainly repeating yourself as I’ve read these citations innumerably.

The issue on the table is not whether or not to disobey Church disciplines, but whether or not what you call Church disciplines really are Church disciplines.

I’ve produced the documentation that, contrary to Deacon Ed’s allegations, states that the Pope only WISHED and HOPED that we’d attend his new mass. My claim is that Church disciplines are not founded on wishes and hopes. Plese make an argument to the contrary or limit your participation to a respectful silence. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[Deacon_Ed]

albert cipriani:

Sorry Deacon Ed, but you are wrong.

The Pope’s WISH is not my command. As Catholics we are perfectly free to deny him his wishes by attending the Mass of our fathers and shunning the Mass by committee. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

Albert, I looked at the Latin (since I never trust translations, and the word translated as “wish” in the Vatican translation is *volumus *which has the following meanings: to will, wish, want, purpose, be minded, determine. The translation that I have says “We decree” which is in keeping with the “will” concept of *volumus *which is in the 3rd person plural, indicative, active mode. While an individual could “wish” it doesn’t seem reasonable that the pope, writing in the “royal we” form would “wish” but would, rather, “decree”.

Deacon Ed

 

[itsjustdave1988]

To convince yourselves that the Church does indeed have the authority to change ecclesiastical discipline, even those disciplines that have existed “from the beginning” one ought to read this encyclical from Pope St. Pius X:

From Quam Singulari (1910), approved and promulgated by St. Pius X …
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10quam.htm

The Catholic Church, bearing this in mind, took care even from the beginning to bring the little ones to Christ through Eucharistic Communion, **which was administered even to nursing infants. … *done at Baptism until the thirteenth century … ***

This practice later died out in the Latin Church, and children were not permitted to approach the Holy Table until they had come to the use of reason and had some knowledge of this august Sacrament. This new practice, already accepted by certain local councils, was solemnly confirmed by the Fourth Council of the Lateran, in 1215* …
*

It you were a true “traditionalists,” is seems you should reject the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, no? Pretty bold step to prohibit something that had been Catholic custom for over twelve centuries, from “the beginning,” no? Perhaps the fine Bishops of the 13th century understood that they indeed had the power to “bind and loose?”

Another good example is the decree to avoid blood (Acts 15:20).

This is discussed by St. Augustine:

For, allowing that the apostles did on that occasion require Christians to abstain from the blood of animals, and not to eat of things strangled, they seem to me to have consulted the time in choosing an easy observance that could not be burdensome to any one, and which the Gentiles might have in common with the Israelities, for the sake of the Corner-stone, who makes both one in Himself; while at the same time they would be reminded how the Church of all nations was prefigured by the ark of Noah, when God gave this command,–a type which began to be fulfilled in the time of the apostles by the accession of the Gentiles to the faith. But since the close of that period during which the two walls of the circumcision and the uncircumcision, although united in the Corner-stone, still retained some distinctive peculiarities, and now that the Church has become so entirely Gentile that none who are Outwardly Israelites are to be found in it, no Christian feels bound to abstain from thrushes or small birds because their blood has not been poured out, or from hares because they are killed by a stroke on the neck without shedding their blood. (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Bk XXXII, 13)

I wonder if some ancient “traditionalists” continued to observe the traditional decree set forth in Acts 15:20, eating only kosher meats that were unstrangled? If so, I also wonder if they were critical of those that didn’t observe the more ancient rule, critical of those that preferring instead to observe the novel unprecedented practice which had no roots in Catholic tradition?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Are you shadow boxing? You are certainly repeating yourself as I’ve read these citations innumerably.

And yet you continue to propose that the Church can and did establish ecclesiastical discipline that is dangerous and harmful to the faithful. How ironic, for someone professing to take the “traditional” position of Catholicism.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I’ve produced the documentation that, contrary to Deacon Ed’s allegations, states that the Pope only WISHED and HOPED that we’d attend his new mass.

Yes, and this is ridiculous, as the Missale Romanum was promulgated as an Acta Apostolica Sedis, and was published as such, giving it the force of law. You must have an indult from the Bishop to celebrate a liturgy in the Latin Rite, other than the Pauline Liturgy.

Paul VI stated: “We decree that these laws and prescriptions be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and amendment.”

Do you know what “notwithstanding” means? Paul VI is saying that those things to the contrary, to include “apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions” no longer stand in contrast to the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul VI issued on April 3, 1969, which is to be “firm and effective now and in the future.”

Nonetheless, St. Thomas Aquinas states the traditional view of obedience, which some so-called traditionalist no longer abide by (another strange irony):

obedience is a special virtue, and its specific object is a command tacit or express, because the superior’s will, however it become known, is a tacit precept, and a man’s obedience seems to be all the more prompt, forasmuch as by obeying he forestalls the express command as soon as he understands his superior’s will. (Summa Theologica, IIb, 104, 2)

I’m surprised at how often I hear so-called traditionalists quibble about whether the APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION expressly issued by Pope Paul VI was truly promulgated or not. If you were truly traditionalist, you would understand that “the superior’s will, however it become known, is a tacit precept” that demand obedience.

A true traditionalist would take St. Catherine’s view.

From St. Catherine of Sienna’s letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza:

“For divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil.”

 

[bear06]

All we have to do is read Pastor Aeternus, a pre-Vatican II document, on what our duty to the obedience to disciplines are. Not that hard. It spells it out.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Moreover, the March 26, 1970, decree of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship states:

This Congregation for Divine Worship, at the mandate of the Pope, now promulgates and declares to be the *editio typica *this new edition of the Roman Missal prepared in accord with the decrees of Vatican Council II. … Anything to the contrary notwithstanding.

Furthermore, the 27 March 1975 Decree, Second Editio Typica, from the Sacred congregation for Divine Worship states:

Pope Paul VI has approved this second edition of the Roman Missal by his authority and the Congregation for Divine Worship now issues it and declares it to be the editio typica. It will be the responsibility of the conferences of bishops to introduce into the respective vernacular editions the changes contained in this second edition of the Roman Missal.
All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Again, there’s that phrase again, which abrogates all universal law which is contrary to this decree.

Do you know what something published in the *Acta Apostolica Sedis *means?