Could the Pope suppress the current GIRM of the Ordinary Form?

[giuseppeTO]

I’ve no idea what Abe Foxman has to do with any of this, but you’re partially right: the Pope has no superior. Except that we are not speaking of juridical matters, but rather to Tradition. There, the Church, as guided by the Holy Ghost, is superior. And further, you have failed to explain how it would be possible for a liturgy considered sacred and holy for centuries to be declared prohibited.

Abe Foxman is the guy who tells the Pope what he can and cannot have in the Good friday liturgy.

I am not sure how else to say this except that if the Pope decided to issue a Motu Proprio tomorrow saying that priests can say Mass in street clothes, there is absolutely no recourse for anyone to do anything about it, except complain loudly.

If the Pope promulgates a new Benedict XVI Missal next year where he revamps the Mass, or combines the OF and EF, or brings the Sarum back, or allows an indult for priests to marry, tit will be done. All of these are fairly traditional concepts (except perhaps the OF) and none of them contradict an article of Catholic faith, per se.

Mal, I think the challenge is yours to tell of the process by which you think such a thing can be stopped or the means by which a bishop or cardinal can prevent such a thing. By saying that he should be guided by the Holy Ghost and Tradition, you are tell me why he wouldn’t do those things - and I am right with on that - but not how he would be prevented from doing that by the church.

 

[malphono]

Abe Foxman is the guy who tells the Pope what he can and cannot have in the Good friday liturgy.

Oh. The Good Friday liturgy (actually the entire Holy Week liturgy) was badly enough affected by Bugnini & Co in 1955 when the hoodwinked Pius XII. I doubt we need anyone to make it even worse.

I am not sure how else to say this except that if the Pope decided to issue a Motu Proprio tomorrow saying that priests can say Mass in street clothes, there is absolutely no recourse for anyone to do anything about it, except complain loudly. If the Pope promulgates a new Benedict XVI Missal next year where he revamps the Mass, or combines the OF and EF, or brings the Sarum back, or allows an indult for priests to marry, tit will be done. All of these are fairly traditional concepts (except perhaps the OF) and none of them contradict an article of Catholic faith, per se.

(a) if vesting were proscribed, it would be more than loud complaining: it would lead to yet another schism. But with PP Benedict XVI, anything of the sort is highly unlikely, so this is really a non issue.
(b) If a “new Missal” were to be promulgated next week, it’s doubtful that PP Benedict XVI would rescind Summorum Pontifucum, so that really is a non issue as well.
(c) an indult for priest to marry would be contrary to Tradition. Allowing married men to be ordained priest would be the restoration of Tradition. The first would be a major problem. The second, not a problem at all.
(d) at this point in history, reinstating the Sarum usage would be the equivalent of establishing a new usage. Again, a not a problem and a non issue.

Mal,

I prefer not to be referred to as “Mal.” I may not agree with you completely, but I am not evil, and don’t particularly appreciate the overtone.

I think the challenge is yours to tell of the process by which you think such a thing can be stopped or the means by which a bishop or cardinal can prevent such a thing. By saying that he should be guided by the Holy Ghost and Tradition, you are tell me why he wouldn’t do those things - and I am right with on that - but not how he would be prevented from doing that by the church.

I am saying that, while a Pope is not bound by his predecessors in matters of discipline, at the same time he cannot act against either the Holy Ghost or Tradition. Take it mean what you will.

And I still don’t see an answer to the question: how it would be possible for a liturgy considered sacred and holy for centuries to be declared prohibited?

 

[giuseppeTO]

I am saying that, while a Pope is not bound by his predecessors in matters of discipline, at the same time he cannot act against either the Holy Ghost or Tradition. Take it mean what you will.

Okay. You say he “cannot”. Show me the thing that prevents him from acting against Tradition.

If your answer is “The Holy Ghost” or his conscience, we are in agreement. But there is nothing of a temporal nature that would prevent him.

And since neither you nor I know the will of the Holy Ghost, then if the Pope were to suppress a Traditional rite, as was the case in practice with Pius V Mass, it would necessarily be the will of the Holy Ghost that for decades the Sacred rite was unavailable to the public, for whatever divine reason that was.

 

[jimmy]

And I still don’t see an answer to the question: how it would be possible for a liturgy considered sacred and holy for centuries to be declared prohibited?

It was essentially done with the Roman liturgy. No priest was allowed to say the mass according to the missal of 1962 with a congregation. There were exceptions made for certain priests who were used to the old liturgy but it was also stipulated that it could said in private with no congregation. Austin Flannery’s translation of the documents of VII and some post concilliar documents makes this clear on pages 281-282 where it says,

With regard to the Roman Missal: when an episcopal conference has determined that a vernacular version of the Roman Missal - or of a part of it, such as the Order of the Mass - must be used in its territory, from then on Mass may not be celebrated, whether in Latin or in the vernaccular, save according to the rite of the Roman Missal promulgated by the authority of Paul VI on 7 April 1969.

With regard to the regulations issued by this sacred congregation in favor of priests who, on account of advanced years or infirm health, find it difficult to use the new Order of the Roman Missal, or the Mass Lectionary: it is clear that an ordinary may grant permission to use, in whole or in part, the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal, with the changes introduced by the Decrees of 1965 and 1967. But this permission can only be granted for Masses celebrated without a congregation. Ordinaries may not grant it for masses celebrated with a congregation. Ordinaries, both religious and local, should rather endeavor to secure the acceptance of the Order of the Mass of the new Roman Missal by priests and laity. They should see to it that priests and laity by dint of greater effort and with greater reverence comprehend the treasures of divine wisdom and of liturgical and pastoral teaching which it contains. What has been said does not apply to officially recognized non-Roman rites, but it does hold against any pretext of even an immemorial custom. [Note on the Obligation to use the New Roman Missal, Austin Flannery p281-282]

 

[malphono]

It was essentially done with the Roman liturgy. No priest was allowed to say the mass according to the missal of 1962 with a congregation. There were exceptions made for certain priests who were used to the old liturgy but it was also stipulated that it could said in private with no congregation. Austin Flannery’s translation of the documents of VII and some post concilliar documents makes this clear on pages 281-282 where it says,

With regard to the Roman Missal: when an episcopal conference has determined that a vernacular version of the Roman Missal - or of a part of it, such as the Order of the Mass - must be used in its territory, from then on Mass may not be celebrated, whether in Latin or in the vernaccular, save according to the rite of the Roman Missal promulgated by the authority of Paul VI on 7 April 1969.

With regard to the regulations issued by this sacred congregation in favor of priests who, on account of advanced years or infirm health, find it difficult to use the new Order of the Roman Missal, or the Mass Lectionary: it is clear that an ordinary may grant permission to use, in whole or in part, the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal, with the changes introduced by the Decrees of 1965 and 1967. But this permission can only be granted for Masses celebrated without a congregation. Ordinaries may not grant it for masses celebrated with a congregation. Ordinaries, both religious and local, should rather endeavor to secure the acceptance of the Order of the Mass of the new Roman Missal by priests and laity. They should see to it that priests and laity by dint of greater effort and with greater reverence comprehend the treasures of divine wisdom and of liturgical and pastoral teaching which it contains. What has been said does not apply to officially recognized non-Roman rites, but it does hold against any pretext of even an immemorial custom. [Note on the Obligation to use the New Roman Missal, Austin Flannery p281-282]

Yes I know, and I said as much earlier. But even so, there were exceptions to that. Take, e.g., the SSPX when they were founded as a society of diocesan right. Or the rescript allowing the continuance of the ancient (i.e. pre-conciliar) Dominican usage. And of course there are others.

Was there a Motu Proprio or anything directly from Paul VI about any of this? No: rather, it was the bureaucracy in control (well, it was even in control of Paul VI but I digress) speaking its own agenda.

Taken all together, the EF was never officially suppressed. The appearance of suppression, absolutely. The fact, as clarified in Summorum Pontificum, was something else.

And yet again I have to raise the question: how could it, something that was considered sacred and holy for centuries, be suppressed in fact?

 

[malphono]

Okay. You say he “cannot”. Show me the thing that prevents him from acting against Tradition.

If your answer is “The Holy Ghost” or his conscience, we are in agreement. But there is nothing of a temporal nature that would prevent him.

There is nothing of a “temporal nature” that concerns the Holy Liturgy. Whether Eastern/Oriental or Western. Period. Again, you may read from that what you will.

And since neither you nor I know the will of the Holy Ghost, then if the Pope were to suppress a Traditional rite, as was the case in practice with Pius V Mass, it would necessarily be the will of the Holy Ghost that for decades the Sacred rite was unavailable to the public, for whatever divine reason that was.

While we are most likely in general agreement (although most definitely not – and apparently never will be – in specific agreement) on these matters, did the idea of the agenda of those in control at the time ever cross your mind? See my previous post.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Was there a Motu Proprio or anything directly from Paul VI about any of this? No: rather, it was the bureaucracy in control (well, it was even in control of Paul VI but I digress) speaking its own agenda.

How could the Holy Ghost allow any other bureaucracy to control access to a sacred Traditional rite other than the Pope? Are you saying the gates of hell triumphed against Christ’s promise?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Giuseppe,

Mar-

What stands at the end of all dogmatic councils are the resolutions.

Here is what V1 said:

As I suspected. The same response as every other person who believes in the “absolute power” myth. Instead of actually trying to make sense of two apparently contradictory portions, your interpretation completely hinges on merely ignoring one part of the decree in favor of another. Instead of understanding the “resolutions” IN LIGHT of the apostolic constitution given prior to it, you seek to simply ignore the apostolic constitution. Thus, I feel totally secure in rejecting your (mis)interpretation.

The council gave no other primate or ecclesiastic body the authority censor the Pope. There is no way for anyone in the church to bring a grievance against the Pope (except for heresy, which would be a matter for Bishops to adjudicate but has never been put to practice, to my knowledge) on any of his proclamations. He does not need to submit anything he does to a “vote” - period.

Well, the history of the Church bears witness against your novelty. Remember the Easter controversy? Remember the Fifth Ecumenical Council? It is not true that Vatican I says that you cannot appeal to an Ecumenical Council from the decisions of the Roman Pontiff PERIOD. It says, contrary to your misinterpretation, that one cannot appeal to an Ecumenical Council from the decision of the Roman Pontiff AS TO AN AUTHORITY SUPERIOR TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF. The Ecumenical Council is the formal method of appealing from a decision of the Pope wherein the Pope, in a deliberation that involves his brother bishops, and never without them, can be moved to change his prior decision (if it is indeed found to be against the laws of the Church).

The informal method is for the body of bishops to rally against a decision of the Pope (admittedly, not on a matter of faith or morals), either in a concerted action, or even while dispersed throughout the world. Remember the Eastern controversy? Remember the Council of Constantinople that eventually came to be known as the Fifth Ecumenical Council?

Once again, the only law is Canon Law - which the Pope ‘owns’, and all are bound by the anathemizations of previous councils and popes. And there is nothing in Vatican I that requires the Pope to get any consensus from bishops.

Rather, the ONLY thing that does not require “consensus” as far as the Pope is concerned is in the declaration of a matter ex cathedra. Even then, that non-requirement of consensus applies ONLY to the quality of the decree as Truth, not to the manner by which that decree was arrived at (which is always collegial).

There was a time in church history when a council took precedence over the pope but Vatican I cemented the Pope’s ultimate primacy.

Good. It cemented primacy, NOT absolute power. The primacy is always to be exercised in a collegial manner.

which was a big problem for the folks who eventually became the “Old Catholics”

To be more concise, they JOINED a body of “Old Catholics” (which began about 150 years before Vatican I).

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

How could the Holy Ghost allow any other bureaucracy to control access to a sacred Traditional rite other than the Pope? Are you saying the gates of hell triumphed against Christ’s promise?

If we let your misinterpretation of Vatican I run rampant (an interpretation that contradicts Sacred Tradition), the Gates of Hell will have a better time at it, because you’re just promoting disunity with your “absolute power” position.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

There is nothing of a “temporal nature” that concerns the Holy Liturgy. Whether Eastern/Oriental or Western. Period. Again, you may read from that what you will.

Well, put, brother. As several Fathers testify, the Divine Liturgy is a transportation to the heavenly realm, from the reading of the Word, to the Holy Communion.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Okay. You say he “cannot”. Show me the thing that prevents him from acting against Tradition.

Vatican I prevents him by asserting that he cannot violate the rights and prerogatives of his brother bishops. Also, the body of bishops around the world (remember, the Easter controversy?).

And since neither you nor I know the will of the Holy Ghost, then if the Pope were to suppress a Traditional rite, as was the case in practice with Pius V Mass, it would necessarily be the will of the Holy Ghost that for decades the Sacred rite was unavailable to the public, for whatever divine reason that was.

A few of your Latin brethren (I’m not talking about brother Malphono, who is an ORIENTAL Catholic) have already asserted that the Mass of Pius V was never supressed.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Copied from an old thread “Vatican I”

As stated before, I will give evidence that the intentions of the Vatican fathers regarding its Decrees were not intended to be a license for the Pope to do what he wants, where he wants, whenever he wants (as our resident EO polemicists, and even some EO apologists have contended). To this end, I shall discuss issues and bring in texts from the Decree on the Primacy of the Pope.

DECREE ON THE PRIMACY

First, I will discuss three important texts in the Decree, and then provide the impetus for these amendments, thereby fulfilling my stated intention in the first paragraph.
First amendment: There was a revision in the statement of anathema.
First draft: “We condemn any who affirm that the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiffs is not ordinary and immediate both over all the churches together, and over individual churches of particular pastors.”
Proposed amendment: “If anyone says that the primacy of the Roman Pontiff is only the office of inspection and direction, and that his supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church is not full, but only extraordinary and mediate; let him be anathema.”
Final form: “If anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church…that this power is not ordinary and immediate either over each and every church or over each and every shepherd and faithful member: let him be anathema.”

Second amendment: A very important addition.
“This power of the Supreme Pontiff is far from standing in the way of the power of ordinary and immediate Episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishop who, under appointment of the Holy Spirit, succeeded in the place of the apostles, feed and rule individually, as true shepherds, the particular flock assigned to them. Rather, this latter power [of the bishops] is asserted, confirmed, and vindicated by this same supreme and universal shepherd in the words of St. Gregory the Great: ‘My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the solid strength of my brothers. I am truly honored when due honor is paid to each and every one.’”

Third amendment: A very important deletion.
First draft explained the prerogatives of the Pope in the terms “episcopal, ordinary, and immediate.”
The final form deleted the word “episcopal.”

Why were these amendments enacted? There was a tremendous concern from the Minority bishops that: 1) the rights and privileges of the Patriarchs would be demeaned or erased; 2) the Pope’s brother bishops would be viewed either as mere vicars or representatives of the Popes. 3) The Pope’s prerogatives should not be regarded as something that is normally or usually utilized. The changes were enacted to meet these concerns.

Notice in the first amendment that the original draft made a stark distinction between “all the churches together,” on the one hand, and “individual churches” on the other hand. This highlighted the idea that the Pope could exercise his FULL prerogatives in EITHER sphere of jurisdiction (in fact, this is the very issue we are talking about currently in this thread). This was unacceptable. The final form mollifies this feature. Instead of distinguishing between “all the churches together” and “individual churches”, the stark distinction in the final form is now between “each and every church,” on the one hand, and the members of those churches, on the other. This lessened the possibility of the misinterpretation that the Pope can interfere in the affairs of individual churches at his whim.

In order to mollify the second concern noted above, a WHOLE NEW PARAGRAPH was inserted into the schema of the Decree, and this has already been quoted. It should also be noted that in Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Satis Cognitum (published 1896), he explicity asserts that “bishops are not to be accounted as vicars of the Roman Pontiff.”

To address the third concern, the word “episcopal” was removed. The word made it appear that, when the Pope exercised his unique prerogatives, there would either be more than one ordinary bishop in a diocese, or the ordinary bishop was being completely replaced (albeit temporarily), which is against the canons of the Church. There had to be a way to express the fullness of the papal prerogative while preserving the prerogatives of the local bishop. The truth of the matter was and is, of course, the Pope, when exercising his unique prerogatives in a jurisdiction outside his own, does so in an extraordinary manner – both in the sense that it is rare, and that such exercise is not a mere episcopal function. Suggestions were various: remove the words “ordinary and immediate”; preserve all the words with an official explanation of “ordinary and immediate”; retain “episcopal and immediate,” while substituting “extraordinary” for “ordinary”; remove all the words. In the end, it was decided that removing the word “episcopal” was sufficient to reflect the mind of the Church on the matter, leaving the proper explanation of the words “ordinary and immediate” to the discretion of the local bishops to their respective flocks.

The third concern is also the reason for the rejection of the anathema in the form that explicitly condemns the use of the word “extraordinary” (see Proposed amendment to the first draft above under the heading of “First Amendment”). Many of the Minority and even some of the Majority Fathers proposed the use of this very word in place of “ordinary” in the text. As noted in the previous paragraph, though the word “ordinary” was retained, it was obvious that in the proper explanation of the texts to their flock, the bishops would and should have recourse to the word “extraordinary” to explain the actual intention of the Decree. Hence, the Fathers decided that use of the word “extraordinary” to describe the prerogatives of the Pope should not obtain an anathema.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

Continued

now, here are a few relevant excerpts from the council regarding the primacy, gathered from the debates (i.e., from those within the council, not the misleading, false, and distorted exaggerations of those outside of it, such as dollinger):
the following are from representatives of the minority party:
abp rauscher of vienna (leader of the minority party) – “in matters of discipline there is no institution so legitimate, no right so certain, that the pontiff, when the good of souls calls for such action, cannot override it , as when pius vii suppressed the french dioceses in the concordat]. It cannot be denied that the supreme pontiff has the power in any diocese of doing the things that belong to the bishops. On the other hand, it cannot be called in question that bishops in ruling their dioceses have a right that is their own, and they are not vicars of the pope. The statement that the pope’s jurisdiction over other dioceses is ‘ordinary’ is liable to be misunderstood, because such intervention would be, in common parlance, ‘extraordinary.’” abp connolly of halifax wants to use “super-ordinary.” abp haynald of kalocsa, hungary, with bp hefele of rottenburg, germany, urged replacing “immediate and ordinary” with “full power, which he can exercise not only in extraordinary cases, but always, alike on all the faithful and on the bishops of the whole church.” abp haynald, in his own speech – “that by the words of christ, ‘feed my lambs, feed my sheep,’ the care and custody of the universal flock of the lord entrusted to peter and his successors the roman pontiffs; and that by this the unity and firmness of the holy church of god is cemented, no catholic denies. Every catholic venerates peter and the roman pontiff as the supreme pastor under whose supreme rule the other pastors, successors of the apostles, rule as bishops the particular churches in which they are set by the holy ghost to rule the church of god. I object to the word ‘episcopal’ because it is impossible for the pope to exercise episcopal jurisdiction in all dioceses.” abp tarnoczy, primate of germany - “the formula ‘immediate and ordinary jurisdiction’ is most true if rightly understood, but liable to be misinterpreted if not made more clear.” abp melcher of cologne, leader of the german minority party – “the supreme pontiff without doubt has supreme and full power over the whole church and over each and every part of it; but it should be exercised saving the rights of the bishops. The jurisdiction of bishops is immediate and ordinary, received from god, each in his own dioceses; but is so subordinated to the roman pontiff that his supreme power of jurisdiction over every single part of the universal church is immediate and ordinary.” bp dupanloup of orleans – “that the pontiff has ordinary and immediate power over each and every church, is true and not open to doubt, in the sense that this power is his own and not delegated, and certainly exercised of itself and not directly; but it should not be brought into play usually, so as not to interfere with the bishop’s immediate and ordinary jurisdiction…the pope’s primacy of universal jurisdiction rests on the clear words of christ taken in their obvious and natural meaning. Such is the tradition of the gallican church from irenaeus to bossuet…some limits should be set to the usual exercise of the primacy, and a recognition of the jurisdiction of bishops, metropolitans, patriarchs. The right of appeal to rome is certain, but the jurisdiction of the lower courts should be respected.” bp ginoulhiac of grenoble – “in a canonist and theological sense the roman pontiff may be said to have ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over every single diocese, provided it is not taken to mean that he is the only real bishop of all the churches, and the others only improperly called bishops.” a group of ten minority french bishops suggested the addition: “we teach and declare that the power of jurisdiction of the primacy, which is proper to it, is ordinary and immediate over all, and maybe exercised directly, without seeking anyone’s consent.” bp. Verot of savannah (verot was considered the “enfant terrible” of the council, the most vocal opponent of the majority view) proposed adding a clause that the roman pontiffs have always declared that their supreme authority is to be exercised according to the canons. Verot concluded his speech by proposing a new canon – “if anyone says that the authority of the pope in the church is so full that he may dispose of everything by his mere whim, let him be anathema.” the reaction of the bishops was laughter and murmurs, as if anyone ever taught such a thing. Card. Capalti, president of the commission, rebuked bp verot – “we are not in a theatre to hear buffooneries, but in the church of god to transact the serious business of the church.” greek-melchite patriarch jussef of antioch pleaded that “in view of the orthodox churches no canons with anathema should be enacted on the matter of the primacy; only the decree of florence without addition, [and] a decree protecting the rights and privileges of the old patriarchates.” abp vanesa of transylvania stated that “for the sake of reunion…another formula be substituted.” in his speech, he asserts, “i will not utter frivolities, but i must defend the institutions of my church, by vindicating what is just and licit.” the bishop of nice (name not given), while admitting the pope’s universal jurisdiction, denied that it could be described as “episcopal, ordinary, or immediate” and proposed substituting the word “pontifical.” these are sufficient to provide for the reader the general attitude of the minority party council fathers regarding the primacy issue.

continued

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Comments from representatives of the Majority Party:
The Bishop of Barcelona proposed that the universal jurisdiction should be described as “extraordinary.” Bp Freppel of Angers (theology professor at Sorbonne, and one of the few theologians called to Rome to prepare for the Council) – “The rights of the Patriarch are by ecclesiastical law, those of the Pope by divine law, and what is of divine law cannot be limited by what is of ecclesiastical law. We are making a dogmatic, not a disciplinary decree, and it would cause confusion to bring in what is only of ecclesiastical law. [NOTE: *This was in reference to the request by some of the Oriental representatives to include a statement on the prerogatives of Patriarchs. Though this latter request was not granted per the argument given by Freppel, a whole new text, as noted earlier, was added to include the rights of bishops, which are also of divine law, in keeping with the purpose of the text. The rights of the Patriarchs, however, was addressed at Vatican II, which formally completed Vatican I

]. Ordinary and immediate are no new terms for the Pope’s universal jurisdiction; the former was used by the Fourth Lateran Council, the latter by St. Thomas. When Popes have said that they may not act counter to the canons, does that imply they are bound by the canons? …Every legislator in every kind of government is bound to observe the laws he has made or confirmed, unless and until they be lawfully abrogated; this by natural and divine law, because the common good and right order of any society require it…This distinction excludes the fantastic despotism, or absolutism that we have heard spoken of. Absolutism is the principle of Ulpian in the Roman law, that the mere will of the prince is law. But who has ever said that the Roman Pontiff should govern according to his sweet will, by his not, by arbitrary power, by fancy, that is, without the laws and canons. We all exclude mere arbitrary power; but we all assert full and perfect power. Is power arbitrary because it is supreme? Are General Councils confirmed by the Pope arbitrary because supreme? Let all this confusion of ideas Go! Let the doctrine of the schema be accepted in its true, proper, and genuine sense, without preposterous interpretations.” (This was followed by applause) Bp Zinelli of Treviso – he spent a good amount of time discussing the terms “episcopal, ordinary, and immediate.” “The jurisdiction itself [is] not questioned by anyone; but there [is] a certain jealousy that the terms used in asserting it might seem to derogate from the position of bishops as successors of the Apostles…The terms, when rightly understood, were sound and did not give rise to any curtailment of the ordinary, immediate jurisdiction of each bishop in his diocese. Will any bishops say that the Pope would have to get his permission to preach, or hear confessions, or administer the sacraments in his diocese? When this question has been put, it has been met with laughter – the most conclusive answer…In regard to this chapter being a bar to the reunion of the Eastern Churches, when the time comes God will move their hearts and minds; meantime let us pray for them, and let us define the truth fearlessly.”

Blessings

 

[giuseppeTO]

Vatican I prevents him by asserting that he cannot violate the rights and prerogatives of his brother bishops. Also, the body of bishops around the world (remember, the Easter controversy?).

Can you quote the V-1 declaration the prevents the Pope from doing this?

A few of your Latin brethren (I’m not talking about brother Malphono, who is an ORIENTAL Catholic) have already asserted that the Mass of Pius V was never supressed.
Blessings

I would say that if a priest could not, without fear of retribution, publicly offer the Pius V Mass without an indult (which means special permission to do something that is otherwise not authorized), it was most certainly supressed, if not officially by the Pope, then at least by every Bishop in Christiandom except perhaps for Bishop De Castro-Meyer in South America.

And from 1970 to 1984, there was no indult. In 1984, a very weak indult was put in place, followed by another in 1988 which was only marginally more effective.

So, although there is no document dictating suppression, it was most certainly and definitely suppressed.

 

[mardukm]

Can you quote the V-1 declaration the prevents the Pope from doing this?

Thanks for the question. It is contained in the apostolic constitution to the dogma on the Primacy:

This power of the Supreme Pontiff is far from standing in the way of the power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops who, under appointment by the Holy Spirit, succeeded in the place of the apostles, feed and rule individually, as true shepherds, the particular flock assigned to them. Rather, this latter power is asserted, confirmed and vindicated by this same supreme and universal shepherd in the words of St, Gregory the Great: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the solid strength of my brothers. I am truly honored when due honor is paid to each and every one.

I would say that if a priest could not, without fear of retribution, publicly offer the Pius V Mass without an indult (which means special permission to do something that is otherwise not authorized), it was most certainly supressed, if not officially by the Pope, then at least by every Bishop in Christiandom except perhaps for Bishop De Castro-Meyer in South America.

It seems even this admission by you refutes your claim that the Mass was supressed.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[603304529]

Thanks for the question. It is contained in the apostolic constitution to the dogma on the Primacy:

This power of the Supreme Pontiff is far from standing in the way of the power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops who, under appointment by the Holy Spirit, succeeded in the place of the apostles, feed and rule individually, as true shepherds, the particular flock assigned to them. Rather, this latter power is asserted, confirmed and vindicated by this same supreme and universal shepherd in the words of St, Gregory the Great: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the solid strength of my brothers. I am truly honored when due honor is paid to each and every one.

It seems even this admission by you refutes your claim that the Mass was supressed.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk, for the sake of clarification, are you saying that the Tridentine Mass was not suppressed?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother,

Marduk, for the sake of clarification, are you saying that the Tridentine Mass was not suppressed?

I am an Oriental Catholic and came into Catholic communion about 4 years ago. I have mostly focused on matters of dogma in my journey to the Catholic Church, so I am not fully apprised of the internal debates of the Latin Catholic Church. But as far as I am aware, it was not supressed, but existed even after Vatican 2. It depended on the willingness of local bishops to accept and implement the NO, which the great majority did. Pope Paul VI of blessed memory regarded the NO as merely a “revision” of the EF, not a supression of it, and Sacrosanctum Concilium explicitly admitted that it is within the competence of the local ordinary to implement the Mass in whichever way he saw fit according to the needs of his flock.

Well, that’s my POV for what little I know of the internal debate on the matter within the Latin Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[603304529]

There is absolutely no debate as to whether the Tridentine Rite was suppressed or not.

It was smothered, practically, completely, by almost every single bishop in the world. Because one or two bishops, in particular de Castro Mayer, did not suppress it, does not mean that it was not suppressed througtout 99.99999something % of the Church.

Practically speaking, the SSPX is responsible for keeping the tridentine Mass alive, throughout the western world.

Thank God for the SSPX. Thank God for Archbishop Lefebvre, and Bishop de Castro Mayer.

 

[mardukm]

There is absolutely no debate as to whether the Tridentine Rite was suppressed or not.

It was smothered, practically, completely, by almost every single bishop in the world. Because one or two bishops, in particular de Castro Mayer, did not suppress it, does not mean that it was not suppressed througtout 99.99999something % of the Church.

Practically speaking, the SSPX is responsible for keeping the tridentine Mass alive, throughout the western world.

Thank God for the SSPX. Thank God for Archbishop Lefebvre, and Bishop de Castro Mayer.

So basically, it wasn’t the Pope or the Council that “supressed” it, but local bishops, since it was really in their power to do, according to V2.

Blessings,
Marduk