Clowns Clowns Clowns!!!!!!!!

[stmaria]

=jmcrae;3647711]That was not an “ex cathedra” statement. No Pope can take authority away from subsequent Popes. The authority to set the form of the Mass belongs to the present, living Pope, and comes to him from Christ through Peter. This authority cannot be taken away from him by any of his predecessors.

This is exactly what most traditionalists would say. Quo Primum was not ex cathedra. However one Pope would never abrogate another Pope’s decree except under serious circumstances. A Pope can make changes in discipline to fit the times in which he rules. Pope Paul planned on making drastic, sudden changes to the mass codified by Pius V. That is why he left the OLD RITE untouched and created a NEW RITE of Mass the New Order of the Mass.

Subsequent Popes can do the exact same thing that he did, and with the exact same Papal authority that he had - they can change the Mass around to suit the needs of their own generation, just as he changed the Mass around to suit the needs of his generation.

Correct. Pope Benedict would never abrogate the Mass of Paul VI. He would, as we shall see, make organic changes over time and it would remain the Mass of Paul VI. If he wanted to make a sudden, drastic change to the current Mass he would have to make a NEW RITE and call it the Mass of Benedict XVI but in that case he would leave the Mass of Paul V untouched.

 

[piouswoman]

I’m pretty sure this was not a Catholic Mass. I believe it was actually in an Episcopal church (not that it makes it better, but just for the record…)

You are absolutely WRONG. This is a “Catholic” Mass at a “Catholic” church, Christ the King in Pleasant Hill, CA.
Please don’t make false and misleading statements without proof.
ctkph.org/

 

[piouswoman]

That was not an “ex cathedra” statement. No Pope can take authority away from subsequent Popes. The authority to set the form of the Mass belongs to the present, living Pope, and comes to him from Christ through Peter. This authority cannot be taken away from him by any of his predecessors.

Subsequent Popes can do the exact same thing that he did, and with the exact same Papal authority that he had - they can change the Mass around to suit the needs of their own generation, just as he changed the Mass around to suit the needs of his generation.

I’m sorry, but *you *are incorrect.

"By declaring Ex Cathedra that Quo Primum can never be revoked or modified, St. Pius V infallibly defined that Quo Primum is of itself irreformable. --Fr. Paul L. Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div., A Theological Vindication of Roman (Nazareth, India: Apostle Publications, 1997).

complete article:catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/qprimum.htm

 

[jmcrae]

I’m sorry, but *you *are incorrect.

"By declaring Ex Cathedra that Quo Primum can never be revoked or modified, St. Pius V infallibly defined that Quo Primum is of itself irreformable. --Fr. Paul L. Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div., A Theological Vindication of Roman (Nazareth, India: Apostle Publications, 1997).

complete article:catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/qprimum.htm

And yet, it was continually being modified.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

No, he cannot. You evidently didn’t thoroughly read the link I posted. Furthermore, it would help to show that you are mature and diplomatic by not referring to others whose views are opposed to yours as “clowns”. That is really high school stuff.

You should really go back and read it yourself. It’s about whether or not it WAS abrogated, not whether or not it COULD be abrogated.

As for the Mass, the only thing the Pontiff could NOT change are the correct form (the words of the consecration, which alone in an emergency can confect the Holy Sacrifice. For an example of this, one could read the life of the imprisoned Cardinal Mindzinty), the correct matter (the species), and the intent (the priest must intend to confect the Holy Sacrifice). The Tridentine Mass COULD be abrogated. I don’t think it SHOULD be nor do I think it WILL be, but it certainly falls within the authority of the Supreme Pontiff.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Also, to the poster who thought the clown travesty was in an Episcopal Church, I’m sorry to say it was, indeed, a Catholic Church.

 

[terillmorris]

Attention OP:

Do try to refute this but if I see that you are going to ignore this very relevant and FACTUAL post then I know who is dealing from emotion and not from fact.

I never deal from emotion chief i deal with facts. I have stated, as other public apologists have (Akin, Sungenis, Most, Keating etc) that it is a flawed understanding that the TLM could never be lawfully revoked. It isnt irrelevant because people who believe that dont understand the first Vatican 's council teaching regarding the Pontiff. The teaching that deals with the Pope’s authority in matters of discipline. Whether or not the TLM was supressed or not is something that you have brought up not me. I never said it was supressed. I merely asserted that those who continue to say it COULD NEVER be supressed dont understand church teaching. It can be revoked. Dont be a clown!!!

 

[terillmorris]

I’m not arguing that the Quo Primum was or was not ex cathedra - I’m saying the point is moot now (and btw, given the nature of the document, I’d tend to say it wasn’t ex cathedra - but it certainly was authoritative and worthy of respect). The missal of Blessed John XXIII *was the missal of Pius V with some minor organic changes…as such had taken place very rarely over the course of centuries since Quo Primum to no great confusion or scandal of the faithful…*And none which changed the character of the liturgy in a great way.

You can’t really say the same thing about the missal of Paul VI - the human side of the mass was changed, in a great way. Sure, it’s a valid mass if done according to the books by a valid priest - God’s part is always infinitely perfect - our part? Well not so much. It can vary. Anyway, the N.O. liturgy itself did not grow organically from Apostolic Tradition and constituted a great - even shocking and abrubt abandonment of tradition in favor of, as someone smarter than I once said - something “banal”:
“We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced - as if it were a technical production - with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product.”
-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, (source)-
As such, the subsequent “bans” on the TLM were, in fact, injustices. And despite the multitude of enemies of tradition (of which you seem to be a card carrying member) claiming otherwise, no one who was prohibited from saying the TLM was prohibited justly. As per Quo Primum:
Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used.
-Pope Pius V, Quo Primum-
Whether or not Quo Primum is ex cathedra or not? Well, that’s moot (at least for the time being). The Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict XVI, has vindicated us.
It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church.
-Pope Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum, September 7, 2007-

Fishing for sedes are we?

Good grief.

DustinsDad

PLEASE POUND THIS INTO YOUR HEAD. THE RITE OF MASS IS A DISCIPLINE. IT IS NOT FAITH OR MORALS!!! PIUS V COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SPEAKING EX CATHEDRA. THE ISSUE IDOESNT EVEN FALL INTO THE REALM OF INFALLIBILITY!!!

 

[dbacks5439]

PLEASE POUND THIS INTO YOUR HEAD. THE RITE OF MASS IS A DISCIPLINE. IT IS NOT FAITH OR MORALS!!! PIUS V COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SPEAKING EX CATHEDRA. THE ISSUE IDOESNT EVEN FALL INTO THE REALM OF INFALLIBILITY!!!

Says you. Besides, if you had an ounce of catechesis in you, you would know that Vat. II states that the Liturgy is the source and summit of our faith, without it we would have nothing. So I’m guessing the Liturgy is indeed a matter of faith, don’t you think?

Also, using caps is against forum rules I believe. Thank you.

 

[terillmorris]

OK QUESTION!!! What is w ronmg with Bob Sungenis’ logic here. Please tell me

Question 21- Pope Paul VI Suppressed the Traditional Latin Mass?

Mr. Sungenis, in answering some of the questions posed to you, you said that the Novus Ordo can be imposed by the Pope. Do you also say that the Traditional Latin Mass can be also forbidden? I read an article from Catholic Family News (the link is oltyn.com/tridmass.htm ) that it was never forbidden and priests in good standing can’t be forced to say the Novus Ordo Rite of Mass by any bishop; Cardinal Stickler made this comment. Please clarify.

Sincerely,
Paul D.

R. Sungenis: Paul, the pope could suppress the traditional mass. If he can create the Novus Ordo he can certainly demand that the traditional mass be stopped. In fact, by the very fact that John Paul II asked nine of his top cardinals whether Paul VI had stopped the traditional mass and found out by an 8-1 margin that Paul VI had not stopped it means that John Paul II understood that Paul VI had the prerogative of stopping the traditional mass but didn’t choose to exercise it.

???

 

[piouswoman]

OK QUESTION!!! What is w ronmg with Bob Sungenis’ logic here. Please tell me

Question 21- Pope Paul VI Suppressed the Traditional Latin Mass?

Mr. Sungenis, in answering some of the questions posed to you, you said that the Novus Ordo can be imposed by the Pope. Do you also say that the Traditional Latin Mass can be also forbidden? I read an article from Catholic Family News (the link is oltyn.com/tridmass.htm ) that it was never forbidden and priests in good standing can’t be forced to say the Novus Ordo Rite of Mass by any bishop; Cardinal Stickler made this comment. Please clarify.

Sincerely,
Paul D.

R. Sungenis: Paul, the pope could suppress the traditional mass. If he can create the Novus Ordo he can certainly demand that the traditional mass be stopped. In fact, by the very fact that John Paul II asked nine of his top cardinals whether Paul VI had stopped the traditional mass and found out by an 8-1 margin that Paul VI had not stopped it means that John Paul II understood that Paul VI had the prerogative of stopping the traditional mass but didn’t choose to exercise it.

???

The sun doesn’t rise and set on Sungenis you know.

 

[terillmorris]

Says you. Besides, if you had an ounce of catechesis in you, you would know that Vat. II states that the Liturgy is the source and summit of our faith, without it we would have nothing. So I’m guessing the Liturgy is indeed a matter of faith, don’t you think?

Also, using caps is against forum rules I believe. Thank you.

Of course the Mass is a matter of faith and morals. But the rubrics or rite of mass is not. It is simple. ThePope cant say there is no more Mass. Because that is a matter of faith and morals. The way the Mass is celebrated (as long as no essentials are changed) is a matter of discipline. it is very simple!!!

 

[Gara3987]

I hate to name call, but some of these radical “traditionalists”(I really dont consider them real traditionalists) are clowns. They make the same mistake over and over again and dont seem to ever retract thier erroneous positions.

Example: I dont know how many times I have seen “traditionalists” on this very forum say that the Traditional Latin Mass could never be lawfully revoked. I mean, I love the Tridentine Mass very much, but this might be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I mean the Rite of Mass is not a teaching or dogma. It isnt something that has been around since the begginning of the Catholic church, so it is a discipline. The Pope, according to Vatican I, is the supreme pastor in matters of discipline as well as doctrine, so if he wanted he could say “no more latin,” “no more prayers at the foot of the altar,” “no more Our Father at Mass” etc—It is discipline. I know they love to quote Pius V and Quo Primum. That still doesnt change the fact that the rite of mass is a discipline, and therefore can be revoked any time the Pope wants. You may not agree, but you have to obey. Please stop the madness. Stop saying things like “It can never be revoked.”

Here is something from the Novus Ordo:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[terillmorris]

Here is something from the Novus Ordo:

http://www.traditio.com/comment/com0508s.jpg

http://www.traditio.com/comment/com0209b.jpg

Means nothing!!! Another straw man!! Because some priests dress in clown outfits for mass this someohow means that the TLM can never be re vocked. Is that a picture of you in the pictures?

 

[piouswoman]

Means nothing!!! Another straw man!! Because some priests dress in clown outfits for mass this someohow means that the TLM can never be re vocked. Is that a picture of you in the pictures?

How old are you? Childish posts should be reported. And can be.

 

[DustinsDad]

PLEASE POUND THIS INTO YOUR HEAD. THE RITE OF MASS IS A DISCIPLINE. IT IS NOT FAITH OR MORALS!!! PIUS V COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SPEAKING EX CATHEDRA. THE ISSUE IDOESNT EVEN FALL INTO THE REALM OF INFALLIBILITY!!!

Eh, what part of “and btw, given the nature of the document, I’d tend to say it wasn’t ex cathedra - but it certainly was authoritative and worthy of respect” didn’t you understand?



DD

 

[Ghoti]

Great link, by the way. Are there any clown masses in Latin?

Just wondering

I’m not sure…weren’t a lot of the early Christians in the Circus Maximus?

 

[holdencaulfield]

Sorry OP, you are a Neo-Catholic, who thinks that Tradition is worthless, and that the Pope can do whatever he wants. Try to actually read the documents of the First Vatican Council. Pope St. Pius V’s words were Infallible. That doesn’t mean we can only have the Tridentine Rite of the Mass, just that it cannot be Licitly abolished.

 

[terillmorris]

Sorry OP, you are a Neo-Catholic, who thinks that Tradition is worthless, and that the Pope can do whatever he wants. Try to actually read the documents of the First Vatican Council. Pope St. Pius V’s words were Infallible. That doesn’t mean we can only have the Tridentine Rite of the Mass, just that it cannot be Licitly abolished.

I am not a neo -catholic. You might be though. How can his words be infallible when the matter isnt faith or morals.The rite of mass isnt a dogma. Sorry you know you are wrong, but you just keep persisiting in your error----again i ask you what is the error in Bob Sungenis’ argument here.

Question 21- Pope Paul VI Suppressed the Traditional Latin Mass?

Mr. Sungenis, in answering some of the questions posed to you, you said that the Novus Ordo can be imposed by the Pope. Do you also say that the Traditional Latin Mass can be also forbidden? I read an article from Catholic Family News (the link is oltyn.com/tridmass.htm ) that it was never forbidden and priests in good standing can’t be forced to say the Novus Ordo Rite of Mass by any bishop; Cardinal Stickler made this comment. Please clarify.

Sincerely,
Paul D.

R. Sungenis: Paul, the pope could suppress the traditional mass. If he can create the Novus Ordo he can certainly demand that the traditional mass be stopped. In fact, by the very fact that John Paul II asked nine of his top cardinals whether Paul VI had stopped the traditional mass and found out by an 8-1 margin that Paul VI had not stopped it means that John Paul II understood that Paul VI had the prerogative of stopping the traditional mass but didn’t choose to exercise it.

Please tell me!!!

 

[holdencaulfield]

The Liturgy is having to do with faith and morals. This is just a cop out for not listening to Pope St. Pius V and Pope Benedict XVI. How am I a Neo-Catholic, for believing what the Church has always taught. Sorry I don’t worship the ground the heretic Pope Paul VI walks on.