Defense of the Pauline Mass

[vadermanu89]

I have found this amazing treatise which deals with the Pauline Mass in a very deep level. It is mainly a treatise shaped from a debate between a few traditionalist and around 4 Catholics Apologists namely Dr Art Sippo. It examines the history behind the Mass, liturigcal theologies, misconceptions within the Tridentine Rite, proof that the so-called Protestant influence (priest = president) existed in the ancient Rites etc.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/detection.html

Enjoy!

 

[GerardP]

I wouldn’t trust it. It’s loaded with errors and at least one of those apologists I have doubts about the authenticity of his understanding of the faith.

One example:

Who are these people to say whether the Pauline Mass is centered around God or not??? Where are they at all competent to judge what is and is not a God-centered Mass??? Simple, they are not. They are merely expressing an opinion and a weakly informed one at that since it flies in the face of the Pope who in union with the episcopate promulgated a Revised Missal to the Universal Church. Such an action constitutes an exercise of papal infallibility much as the promulgation of a Catechism does; although neither exercise of infallibility is in solemn form.

This is wrong. Infallibility is when something is universally defined. A missal is specific to the rite it pertains to. While the Latin rite is the largest, it is not the Universal rite of the Church. The Pope would have to bind the Eastern rites as well in order for something to begin to have the marks of infallibility.

 

[vadermanu89]

He never did claim that pope Paul VI used papal infallibility to promulgate the Mass. He was saying that the very nature of the liturgy gurantees it infallibility since it bears witness to faith. If you read further, he clarifies himself -

Such an action constitutes an exercise of papal infallibility much as the promulgation of a Catechism does; although neither exercise of infallibility is in solemn form. Thus Pope Paul’s comments of the Missal “not being a dogmatic definition” are completely accurate. Dogmatic definitions are solemn in form and the Missal is not dogmatic. That does NOT mean that it has not protected from error though. In fact, a Missal promulgated by the Pope to the Universal Church HAS to be infallible in content from the standpoint of not containing any errors in dogma. The reason is because both a Catechism and the **liturgy are not disconnected from faith but in fact witness to it. **They also teach and actively promote the faith to the laity.

In short though, “trads” are notoriously ignorant about the true scope of infallibility that their attempts to “correct” me are almost laughable. Infallibility is NOT some solemn legal definition that only applies in detached juridicial statements by a Pope or Council on matters of dogma. In fact, the Catholic Encyclopedia notes the following on the subject:

As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under tbe scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined. [2]

The liturgy is so intimately connected to both faith and morals that it requires infallible determination in the sense of being protected from containing any errors. The Eucharist is celebrated at Mass. An invalid Mass would mean an invalid Eucharist and the faith cannot be adequately guarded without assurance that any officially promulgated Missal would be protected from error

 

[GerardP]

He never did claim that pope Paul VI used papal infallibility to promulgate the Mass. He was saying that the very nature of the liturgy gurantees it infallibility since it bears witness to faith. If you read further, he clarifies himself -

He actually does say that the promulgation of the Liturgy is an exercise in infallibility.

What he says it is not is a “solemn definition” like the Assumption of Our Lady.

Secondly, it’s only his opinion about the “nature of Liturgy” guaranteeing infallibility. This begs the question what constituted a “natural Liturgy” vs. “unnatural Liturgy”.

The Holy Father himself has described the Novus Ordo as “fabricated Liturgy.” vs. the “organic” (ie natural) development of the TLM and the other rites.

After that the term “official” promulgation is only a canonical standing. It has nothing to do with theological or sacramental reality. Magisterially it only has to be from the “authentic” magisterium to be official and not “ordinary infallible” or “extraordinarily infallible.”

The problem isn’t with trads misunderstanding the scope of infallibility. It’s with the author misunderstanding the scope of human fallibility within the heirarchy.

 

[SemperFidelis]

vadermanu89, almost all of your posts since you have come on this forum revolve around bashing “Traditionalists,” Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX, and now your trying to defend the Novus Ordo by claiming that infallibility is somehow involved in the making of the new Mass. That’s all find and dandy and your agenda is noted, but you are not the first poster who’s come on here and immediately started these crusades. Are we feeling a little insecure?

BTW, I’m still waiting for your reponse in that “sola traditio” thread.

 

[stmaria]

He never did claim that pope Paul VI used papal infallibility to promulgate the Mass. He was saying that the** very nature of the liturgy gurantees it infallibility since it bears witness to faith**. -

Then this would mean that the Tridentine Mass is infallibile. Which would beg the question, why was it discarded? Declared to be abrogated? Needed to be radically altered?

 

[universalindult]

Shouldn’t this thread be moved to a more appropriate subforum?

 

[cam100]

vadermanu89, almost all of your posts since you have come on this forum revolve around bashing “Traditionalists,” Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX, and now your trying to defend the Novus Ordo by claiming that infallibility is somehow involved in the making of the new Mass. That’s all find and dandy and your agenda is noted, but you are not the first poster who’s come on here and immediately started these crusades. Are we feeling a little insecure?

BTW, I’m still waiting for your reponse in that “sola traditio” thread.

Please don’t bash other posters personally on this forum. Many people have viewpoints that shape their posts. It is not necessarily an “agenda”.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Please don’t bash other posters personally on this forum. Many people have viewpoints that shape their posts. It is not necessarily an “agenda”.

I’m not bashing and it’s apparent that vaderman has an agenda when you look at his posts. There have recently been a few posters who’ve come on here and have acted in a like manner, and they’ve all been banned. We had a new poster come on here and about his second post ever, posted the thread on the “orthodox-heterodox circle,” placing “TLM-only” Catholics on the heterodox side. Then we had a poster on about his second or third post, start a thread calling all traditional Catholics “fundies.” After only four posts, vaderman here started a thread on “sola traditio” claiming that traditional Catholicism is based off of “private interpretation theology.” I find it quite uncharitable when Catholics come on the Traditional Catholicism Forum after having one or two posts under their belt and start comparing traditional Catholics with protestants, heretics, and fundies. There is a common theme here and it is starting to get a little annoying, and I often wonder if these three posters are possibly the same person, because all of their posts are remarkably similiar and have the exact same agenda. So cam100, who’s bashing who here?

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Shouldn’t this thread be moved to a more appropriate subforum?

This is an appropriate forum for this thread. It is not inappropriate for there to be threads in Traditional Catholicism that invite participants to consider the merits of the ordinary form of the Roman rite of the Mass.

I ask that those who participate in this thread return to the original subject of the thread. Thanks!

 

[PassthePeace1]

Then this would mean that the Tridentine Mass is infallibile. Which would beg the question, why was it discarded? Declared to be abrogated? Needed to be radically altered?

I was thinking along these lines too.

 

[Pious_Mat]

I think that perhaps the point is being missed here. This essay was not written to “bash” the Tridentine Mass, or, from my point of view, to even assert any superiority of the Pauline Mass. The topic in this essay is very narrow: the validity of the Pauline Mass. I agree that some arguments were used in this piece that I wouldn’t have used, but we certainly can’t deny that when said according to the rubrics, the Pauline Mass confects the host. Even Bishop Lefebvre, from all I have heard, believed that the Pauline Mass was technically still the Mass.

This topic is rather off the mark of what we should be worried about regarding the Pauline Mass. I believe, as do many, that there ought to be vernacular mass in the Roman Rite, but also like many, I am concerned about liturgical continuity, natural development, and symbology. Some things are not present in the New Mass that ought to be. For example, as shown in another thread, each of the 52 signs of the cross in the Tridentine Mass are done for a reason, and as a whole, they paint a picture of Our Lord’s passion.

 

[palmas85]

I’m not bashing and it’s apparent that vaderman has an agenda when you look at his posts. There have recently been a few posters who’ve come on here and have acted in a like manner, and they’ve all been banned. We had a new poster come on here and about his second post ever, posted the thread on the “orthodox-heterodox circle,” placing “TLM-only” Catholics on the heterodox side. Then we had a poster on about his second or third post, start a thread calling all traditional Catholics “fundies.” After only four posts, vaderman here started a thread on “sola traditio” claiming that traditional Catholicism is based off of “private interpretation theology.” I find it quite uncharitable when Catholics come on the Traditional Catholicism Forum after having one or two posts under their belt and start comparing traditional Catholics with protestants, heretics, and fundies. There is a common theme here and it is starting to get a little annoying, and I often wonder if these three posters are possibly the same person, because all of their posts are remarkably similiar and have the exact same agenda. So cam100, who’s bashing who here?

Semper Fi, I’m shocked, scandalized and mortified that you would think for a second that anyone on this forum would have an anti traditionalist agenda.:bigyikes: The only ones on this forum that have agendas are obviously traditionalists probably due to their anal retentive personalities. No my friend, progressives would never have an anti traditionalist agenda.:tsktsk: Why they are full of love and charity for all.

Traditionalists such as I are merely mistaken in our desire for reverence and the solemn majesty of th Traditional Mass. We have yet to breathe in the fresh aroma of the new springtime and are trapped as it were in a time warp of some sort. In our narrow unenlightened minds we cannot grasp the grandeur and power of Barney Masses, Polka Masses, Hop Hop Masses, Life Teen events and the Neo Cats among others, which is undoubtedly the wave of the future. All of them practice true community as you are well aware. Not at all like us, mere spectators at a Medieval pagaent that has no place in the modern world.

No Semper, its time that we as Traditionalists face the truth. There is no agenda on the part of any element of the progressive crowd. Its all on us. We are the problem.

It must be true, they say so, and we know they would never ever tell a lie. And more than that, they would never never under any circumstances whatsoever, be the slightest bit uncharitable.

 

[FATIMAisUrgent]

Then this would mean that the Tridentine Mass is infallibile. Which would beg the question, why was it discarded? Declared to be abrogated? Needed to be radically altered?

I couldn’t have thought of a more simple, yet brilliant response. I like it!