S
StTommyMore
Guest
It was a follow up to Ecclesia Dei.
- Status
O
Ockham
Guest
"But the one on whose authority the Novus Ordo Missae was enforced was Pope Paul VI, who “promulgated” it by his apostolic constitution, Missale Romanum (April 3, 1969).
Or did Pope Paul VI REALLY DO SO?
In the original version of Missale Romanum, signed by Pope Paul VI, no mention was made either of anyone’s being obliged to use the Novus Ordo Missae or when such an obligation might begin.
Translators of the constitution mistranslated cogere et efficere (i.e., to sum up and draw a conclusion) as to give force of law.
The version in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (which records all official texts of the papacy) has an added paragraph “enjoining” the new missal, but it is in the wrong tense, the past, and reads praescripsimus (i.e…, which we have ordered) thereby referring to a past obligation, and nothing, moreover, in Missale Romanum prescribes, but at most permits the use of the “New Rite" (The Angelus, March 1997, p. 35).
Can it be true that Pope Paul VI wanted this missal but that it was not properly imposed (it is known moreover, that Pope Paul VI signed the Institutio Generalis without reading it and without ensuring that it had been previously confirmed by the Holy Office)."
sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novusordo.htm
Or did Pope Paul VI REALLY DO SO?
In the original version of Missale Romanum, signed by Pope Paul VI, no mention was made either of anyone’s being obliged to use the Novus Ordo Missae or when such an obligation might begin.
Translators of the constitution mistranslated cogere et efficere (i.e., to sum up and draw a conclusion) as to give force of law.
The version in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (which records all official texts of the papacy) has an added paragraph “enjoining” the new missal, but it is in the wrong tense, the past, and reads praescripsimus (i.e…, which we have ordered) thereby referring to a past obligation, and nothing, moreover, in Missale Romanum prescribes, but at most permits the use of the “New Rite" (The Angelus, March 1997, p. 35).
Can it be true that Pope Paul VI wanted this missal but that it was not properly imposed (it is known moreover, that Pope Paul VI signed the Institutio Generalis without reading it and without ensuring that it had been previously confirmed by the Holy Office)."
sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novusordo.htm
S
StTommyMore
Guest
Try using something reliable. Nothing from the SSPX can be considered so, as the SSPX clearly views itself as the Magisterium.
D
doanli
Guest
Is the SSPX still excommunicated from Rome? This is Bishop LeFevre’s group, isn’t it?
(I’m a big ignorant on this, so I’d appreciate any answers, thank you.)
O
Ockham
Guest
You say you are ignorant of the subject yet know the SSPX to be not reliable?
O
Ockham
Guest
"Our Dear Sons and Daughters:
Address to a General Audience, November 26, 1969
adoremus.org/PaulVI_ChangesMass.html
- We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass. This new rite will be introduced into our celebration of the holy Sacrifice starting from Sunday next which is the first of Advent, November 30 [in Italy].
- A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. It seemed to bring the prayer of our forefathers and our saints to our lips and to give us the comfort of feeling faithful to our spiritual past, which we kept alive to pass it on to the generations ahead.
- It is at such a moment as this that we get a better understanding of the value of historical tradition and the communion of the saints. This change will affect the ceremonies of the Mass. We shall become aware, perhaps with some feeling of annoyance, that the ceremonies at the altar are no longer being carried out with the same words and gestures to which we were accustomed—perhaps so much accustomed that we no longer took any notice of them. This change also touches the faithful. It is intended to interest each one of those present, to draw them out of their customary personal devotions or their usual torpor.
- To conclude, it will be helpful to read to you some directions from the competent office, namely the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship. Here they are: "As regards the obligation of the rite:
- For the Latin text: Priests who celebrate in Latin, in private or also in public, in cases provided for by the legislation, may use either the Roman Missal or the new rite until November 28, 1971. If they use the Roman Missal, they may nevertheless make use of the three new anaphoras and the Roman Canon, having regard to the provisions respecting the last text (omission of some saints, conclusions, etc.). They may moreover recite the readings and the prayer of the faithful in the vernacular. If they use the new rite, they must follow the official text, with the concessions as regards the vernacular indicated above."
Address to a General Audience, November 26, 1969
adoremus.org/PaulVI_ChangesMass.html
O
Ockham
Guest
"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,”(15) 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.
Given at Rome, at Saint Peter’s, Holy Thursday, April 3 1969, the sixth year of Our pontificate.
PAUL VI, POPE"
adoremus.org/PaulVI_1969Missal.html
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.
Given at Rome, at Saint Peter’s, Holy Thursday, April 3 1969, the sixth year of Our pontificate.
PAUL VI, POPE"
adoremus.org/PaulVI_1969Missal.html
D
doanli
Guest
I don’t know—is it?
I know at one time Bishop LeFevre was excommunicated for ordaining priest.
Please be more charitable and cut the sarcasm.. As I said, I hardly know what is going on with all of this. I just WANT TO LEARN.
T
TMC
Guest
Bishop Lefebvre was excommunicated for illicitly ordaining bishops, as were the bishops he ordained. He has since passed away. Recently, the Vatican rescinded the excommunication of the surviving bishops, but did not reinstate their clerical faculties. So they are not outside of the Church, but they are not authorized to perform any Sacraments. As a result, Sacraments performed by any SSPX priest or bishop are valid, but illicit. That means that they are valid for the lay people that participate, but the priest performing them is engaging in an illicit act of disobedience by performing the Sacrament. The Church continues to talk with the SSPX in an effort to bring it fully back into the fold, but as far as I know no real progress has been made. There are some sticky posts that may give more details, but that is the situation as best I understand it.
O
Ockham
Guest
How was I being sarcastic? You stated the SSPX site is not reliable yet don’t seem to know much about the subject. Perhaps calling someone unreliable without knowing much about them isn’t very charitable.
If you are sincere in your request to learn more about this subject, in charity I suggest you start here: dictionary.reference.com/browse/prejudice
T
TMC
Guest
Perhaps you should read more carefully. It was not doanli that said SSPX was not reliable, it was StTommyMore. See posts 63 and 64.
O
Ockham
Guest
More from that ‘unreliable’ SSPX site:
"Then on the concept of tradition in Vatican II’s Dei Verbum, again Cardinal Ratzinger writes:
Vatican II’s refusal of the proposal to adopt the text of Lerins, familiar to, and, as it were, sanctified by two Church Councils, shows once more how Trent and Vatican I were left behind, how their texts were continually reinterpreted…Vatican II had a new idea of how historical identity and continuity are to be brought about. The static semper of Vincent of Lerins no longer seems to Vatican II adequate to express the problem. (L.Th.K., Vol. 13, p. 521)
Then on the Council’s key text Gaudium et Spes, Cardinal Ratzinger describes it as a Counter-Syllabus, in other words the opposite of the Catholic Church’s authoritative Syllabus of 1864. The Cardinal writes (Principles of Catholic Theology [Téqui, 1982], p. 426),
If we seek an over-all analysis of Gaudium et Spes, we could say that it is (linked with the texts on religious liberty and on world religions), a revision of Pius IX’s Syllabus, a sort of Counter-Syllabus… Let us recognize here and now that Gaudium et Spes plays the part of a Counter-Syllabus insofar as it represents an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the modern world as emerging since the French Revolution of 1789."
sspx.org/superior_generals_ltrs/supgen_62.htm
"Then on the concept of tradition in Vatican II’s Dei Verbum, again Cardinal Ratzinger writes:
Vatican II’s refusal of the proposal to adopt the text of Lerins, familiar to, and, as it were, sanctified by two Church Councils, shows once more how Trent and Vatican I were left behind, how their texts were continually reinterpreted…Vatican II had a new idea of how historical identity and continuity are to be brought about. The static semper of Vincent of Lerins no longer seems to Vatican II adequate to express the problem. (L.Th.K., Vol. 13, p. 521)
Then on the Council’s key text Gaudium et Spes, Cardinal Ratzinger describes it as a Counter-Syllabus, in other words the opposite of the Catholic Church’s authoritative Syllabus of 1864. The Cardinal writes (Principles of Catholic Theology [Téqui, 1982], p. 426),
If we seek an over-all analysis of Gaudium et Spes, we could say that it is (linked with the texts on religious liberty and on world religions), a revision of Pius IX’s Syllabus, a sort of Counter-Syllabus… Let us recognize here and now that Gaudium et Spes plays the part of a Counter-Syllabus insofar as it represents an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the modern world as emerging since the French Revolution of 1789."
sspx.org/superior_generals_ltrs/supgen_62.htm
D
doanli
Guest
Accepted, and thank you.
A
At_Trent
Guest
Didn’t say you were. You were talking in general as I was.
A good point though. Liberals scream for “liberty” and freedom, but now that they are great in number, they want to silence anyone who disagrees with them.
To a liberal, censorship is a bad thing unless they want to censor something. That’s ok though. Elections are coming.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
Excommunicated-no, but they have no canonical status, and as such have no licit sacraments, and confessions and marriages are.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
It was not suppressed de jure–as the commission of cardinals convened by John Paul II unanimously ruled and as Pope Benedict XVI (one of those cardinals) has now declared officially. But it certainly was suppressed de facto. And I am one of those who believes its de facto suppression did harm the Church. I’ve always liked the observation, as expressed above, of what would happen if the NO were to be de facto suppressed, overnight. How many would be scandalized? How many would leave? Why does anybody think that the opposite was any less disruptive?
As for whether we need an apology, I’ll take any number of concrete papal interventions like Summorum Pontificum over that sort of a symbolic gesture. Actions (which we are getting) speak louder than words and we don’t need any more symbolism over substance.
O
Ockham
Guest
That’s exactly what I meant by saying ‘virtually suppressed’. In the speeches and documents I provided, Pope Paul VI didn’t create an optional rite, he replaced the TLM with the NO. How he did that in light of Trent is another subject for another thread.
Just look at the near hysterial some people are going into over the corrected NO translations.
Our current pontiff and senior clergy are clearly trying to fix things. It will take generations to complete the rebuild process. My fear is the number of lost souls as a result of the destruction wrought upon us by misinterpreting V2.
- Status