Q's for Traditionalists who believe Vatican II and NO were wrong/invalid:

[MTD]

There is too much Catholic Theology in the Mass in order to be called just a discipline. Discipline is whether you should abstain from meat on Friday not which god or God Catholics should be praying to.

If the Mass is just a discipline that any Pope can completely revise, then Trent went to a lot of trouble for nothing.

This is why I made post #2 in this thread. Every discipline has a doctrinal aspect and a practical aspect. The pope is infallible with regards to the doctrinal aspect. In virtue of negative and indirect infallibility, he cannot make disciplinary actions contrary to Divine Law.

The promulgation or suppression of a rite is a disciplinary act. As such, it has a doctrinal aspect and a practical aspect. Remember that the pope is infallible with regards to the doctrinal aspect of any disciplinary act.

Maria

 

[BobP123]

Ah, the key words you used are “completely revise.” My understanding is that there are key components that must be present in the Mass. However, how they are done can be changed…those are the parts which are discipline.

You agree that the Pauline Mass is licit, correct? I am no expert by any stretch of the imagination, but look to the items which would be checked off in determining the legitimacy of a Mass, and I would think you will find the essentials.

Fact is that Trent specifically prohibits any pastor from starting a new rite. Now if you can show that the Pauline Mass is not a new rite…

 

[TNT]

VAT I:

the Roman Pontiffs, according to the dictates of time and circumstances, sometimes by calling ecumenical councils or asking the opinion of the Church dispersed throughout the world, sometimes through particular synods, sometimes by using other means which divine providence supplied, defined those things which must be held and which they knew, by the help of God, to be consonant with the Sacred Scriptures and apostolic traditions. For the Holy Spirit promised to the successors of Peter, not that they would [not COULD NOT] unfold new doctrine which He revealed to them, but that, with His assistance, they would piously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith handed on through the Apostles. All the venerable Fathers and holy orthodox doctors venerated and followed their * apostolic doctrine; they knew full well that this See of St. Peter always remained unstained by all error, according to the divine promise which Our Savior made to the chief of His disciples when He said, ‘I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail, and you, having turned, strengthen your brothers.’

Therefore this charism of truth and unfailing faith was divinely given to Peter and his successors in this chair so that they might fulfill their high office for the salvation of all, so that the whole flock of Christ might, through them, be turned away from the poisonous food of error and be fed on the food of heavenly doctrine, and so that, the occasion of schism being removed*, the whole Church might be preserved as one and, firmly grounded on its foundation, might stand against the gates of hell.
…
Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian religion, for the glory of God our Savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define that it is a divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, i.e., when exercising his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals which must be held by the universal Church, enjoys, through the divine assistance, that infallibility promised to him in blessed Peter and with which the divine Redeemer wanted His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals; and therefore that the definitions of the same Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church.
“If anyone should presume to contradict this definition of ours - may God prevent this happening - anathema sit.”** MTD 2**
In virtue of negative and indirect infallibility, a pope cannot approve disciplines contrary to Divine Law.
** MTD 35**
Do you deny that a pope cannot approve disciplines contrary to Divine Law?
** MTD 66**
In virtue of negative and indirect infallibility, he cannot make disciplinary actions contrary to Divine Law.

I don’t agree with the word CANNOT. A pope has the same free will as anyone else. If a pope were to become a heretic or was a heretic when elected, he could teach all kinds of things contrary to Divine Law.
I would say that a pope MAY NOT approve disciplines contrary to Divine Law which is what VAT I clearly affirms. That is, he has no authority to do so, but he certainly has the ability to contradict Divine Law.
I see no word “indirect” in the VAT I Infallibility Dogma.
Where does “indirect infallibility” come from?
I’m not here denying it, just want to know who defined this and what it means.
If it means that a pope will be infallible when he imposes a discipline on the whole Church, and it will never be in opposition to divine law, then I would agree.
HOWEVER, if he DID so in opposition to divine law, he would IPSO FACTO have lost his authority by way of heresy. That is, by the very act of teaching in opposition to divine law, he forfeited his authority as pope and Teacher, and would not be infallible in anything he proclaims as universal faith/morals in the Church.

 

[TNT]

So, how does anyone at all determine if a heresy has been pronounced by a pope?
There is only one way in regards to a pope, since he has no superior for appeal or correction. That way is the Perennial Teaching of the Church on the same or related matter of faith/morals, has to be in clear and un-reconcilable opposition. Or, as VAT I says: “faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning”
If even this way were closed or denied, then at least 2 consequences follow:

1. The value of Tradition is made salvationally useless to the Faithful. The Perennial Teaching to the Faithful across the centuries by Councils & popes would mean nothing which is mostly how the Protestants treat it.
2. One would have to follow the teaching of the pope in those matters, with no regard to how heretical they are, because there is no way to discern his heresy. In effect, he becomes an Oracle or fountain of truth as in a cult.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Fact is that Trent specifically prohibits any pastor from starting a new rite. Now if you can show that the Pauline Mass is not a new rite…

That is such a distortion of what Trent said. Post it again, Bob, and let’s see if Trent really says what YOU think Trent says, because what you normally post is clearly talking about priests leaving out parts of the Mass or adding parts TO the Mass, NOT about the promulgation, abbrogation, or derogation of any rite.

 

[rlg94086]

Like I said, I am new to this, but I read the explanations in this article regarding the supposed prohibition on new rites and found it sufficient for my understanding.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html

This was a conventional legal formula in papal documents of the day, not something binding on future popes. As Whitehead notes: “Certainly Pope St. Pius X considered it so when he revised the Roman Breviary in 1911 in spite of the identical caveat contained in St. Pius V’s Quod a Vobis. He specifically says that he is ordering a “new arrangement” of the Roman Breviary “issued by St. Pius V and revised by Clement VIII, Urban VIII and Leo XIII,”… When Pope Pius X revised the Roman breviary, he even concluded his Apostolic Constitution Divino Afflatu with an ecclesiastical caveat against anyone daring to change his decision which was the established legal form to be attached to papal decree in his time. This was stated even while he was revising this ‘in perpetuity’ document of the 16th century!! Thus popes using such language do not stop future popes from making changes; it is remarkably similar to the caveat in Quo Primum.” (Whitehead, p. 57). Prior to Vatican II, other changes were made to the Missal by Pope Pius XII and John XXIII as well.

Did Pope Paul VI have the authority to repeal the Apostolic Constitution, Quo Primum? Technically, he did not abrogate the Roman Missal, but he did replace it by the new revised Roman Missal and derogated the use of the older Missal. Pope Paul VI possessed the same papal authority as Pope St. Pius V. The principle is explicitly recognized by the Code of Canon Law. Canon 22 states that “if the later law is equally general or equally particular with the former one” - and both Quo Primum and Missale Romanum are equally Apostolic Constitutions dealing with exactly the same subject matter of the former law. A later law repeals the former one, “if it contains an explicit statement to that effect, a repealing clause." Pope Paul VI’s Missale Romanum did exactly that. It both mentions Quo Primum and says that what he is promulgating is promulgated “notwithstanding, as far as is necessary, Apostolic Constitutions and Ordinances issued by our Predecessors and other prescriptions worthy of special mention and derogation.” (Whitehead, 58, 59)

Fact is that Trent specifically prohibits any pastor from starting a new rite. Now if you can show that the Pauline Mass is not a new rite…

 

[AJV]

Forgive me for being a tad pedantic I couldn’t resist: the name of the document is Quod a Nobis

 

[rlg94086]

Forgive me for being a tad pedantic I couldn’t resist: the name of the document is Quod a Nobis

Thanks…that explains why I couldn’t find it by googling.

Other than the typo, what about the analysis itself? I’m sure there are counter-arguments, but I am curious as to your opinion.

 

[TNT]

The ONLY things that a pope or anyone else has no authority to change in the Mass, as with any other Sacrament (and the Mass is simply the rituals leading to and from the Sacrament) is the

1. FORM
2. Matter.
3. The person’s authority to confect it.

---

No one argues a change of the Matter.
That leaves us with the Form & authority, if one wants to argue against the validity.​

Whether one does or does not like the rituals leading to the Sacrament is outside the discussion of the validity of Form.​

The sedevacantist argues the Form is more than “this is my Body”.​

The sedevacantist argues against the validity of Form & Matter of the new **Sacrament of Ordination **which then effects the Authority of the one confecting the Eucharistic Sacrament.
**RE:
**

CAESAR 12
There are some nutbars out there who seem to think that the current Pope is invalid.

I really do not think that calling even a group derogatory names is fitting.
This leaves the accuser open to be called the same names and removes the discussion from differences in objective opinion and support thereof, and moves it to you are xxxx and I on the other hand, am not xxxx so I must be listened to and you must be ignored.
Because someone holds a belief that we hold as seriously erroneous does not make them void of sanity.
And, besides, it violates the new dogma of ecumenism toward all, not just the animists, Hindus & Buddhists.
I do not recall any recent pope when referring to a religion that holds Bovine animals as Sacred, anything like nuts. In fact every reference to that religion is done with utter superlatives in praise.

 

[AJV]

Thanks…that explains why I couldn’t find it by googling.

Other than the typo, what about the analysis itself? I’m sure there are counter-arguments, but I am curious as to your opinion.

For what it’s worth (not much ) I usually feel that in trying to defend the NO he goes a bit too far: but in this he is right- there are many Papal documents that use the same language Nulli ergo hominem etc., etc. Much better arguments can be had for defending the Classical liturgy than by appealing to strict (and incorrect) reading of Papal bulls with this wording.

Here are some parts from the Bull in case you’re interested

But all permissions and customs, even those given by the Holy See or others, and also statutes even by oath, by confirmation of the Holy See, or secured by other firm grant, and even privileges, permissions, and indults of prayer and singing the Psalms, whether within or without Choir, by custom and rite, given to the aforesaid Churches, Monasteries, Convents, Militias, Orders, and places, and even to Cardinals, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, of the Holy Roman Church, and all other Prelates of the Church, and to each and every other religious, secular, and regular person, of both sexes, by whatever cause granted, approved, and renewed, reinforced by whatever solemn formula, and decree, and clause, We entirely revoke: and We wish all those to no longer have any force and effect. And all other use whatsoever, as was said, having been forbidden, We instruct this Our Breviary, and the formula of praying and singing the Psalms, to be observed in all the Churches, Monasteries, Orders, and places of the entire world even exempt, in which the Office must be said from the custom and rite of said Roman Church, or is accustomed to be, saving the aforesaid institution or custom of the aforesaid two hundred years survival: At no time may this Breviary be changed whether in whole or in part, or anything whatsoever added, or altogether removed; and those establishing it impose penalties, through constituted Canonical sanctions, on whomever, who ought to say the Canonical Hours or sing the Psalms by the manner and rite of the same Roman Church, by law or custom, does not say the divine Office daily, prescribed from this Roman Breviary, and whomever must say and sing the Psalms hereafter in perpetuity these diurnal and nocturnal Hours, must entirely keep it by this manner: no one among them, to whom the duty of saying and singing the Psalms is imposed, satisfies it except by this formula alone…

…Therefore it is permitted for no man at all to infringe, or to rashly oppose this notice of our removal, abolition, permission, revocation, command, precept, statute, indult, mandate, decree, relaxation, exhortation, prohibition, imposition, and will. And if anyone shall presume to attack this, let him know he will incur the anger of almighty God, and of blessed Peter and Paul his Apostles.

 

[BobP123]

Like I said, I am new to this, but I read the explanations in this article regarding the supposed prohibition on new rites and found it sufficient for my understanding.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html

I said nothing about Quo Primum.

From Session 7 of Trent,

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.

Having said that, it is possible, is it not, that Pope Paul VI was not aware of the decrees of Trent?

 

[AJV]

I said nothing about Quo Primum.

From Session 7 of Trent,

Having said that, it is possible, is it not, that Pope Paul VI was not aware of the decrees of Trent?

But the would this not put the Council in opposition to Pius XII in Mediator Dei: It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.

And surely one could make a good argument that it is not directed towards the Pope given the discussions of the Council, and also that the wording is quoted in the Rituale Romanum and other books warning priests not to change anythig but adhere faithfully to the formulae used in the liturgical books?

 

[rlg94086]

I said nothing about Quo Primum.

From Session 7 of Trent,

Having said that, it is possible, is it not, that Pope Paul VI was not aware of the decrees of Trent?

If you believe that Canon XIII is saying that future Popes and Ecumenical Councils can not change any of the rites of the Church, I think you are reading it incorrectly. I’m not a canon lawyer, but it appears to me to be a statement prohibiting someone from changing the rites without Church approval, thus the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church.” The Pauline Mass is an approved rite of the Catholic Church.

And no, I seriously doubt that Pope Paul VI was unaware of the decrees of Trent.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I said nothing about Quo Primum.

From Session 7 of Trent,

Having said that, it is possible, is it not, that Pope Paul VI was not aware of the decrees of Trent?

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Church’s authority to alter or even supress a rite. It is clearly directed at priests and it clearly states that they may not alter the Mass or omit parts of the Mass. That’s all it says.

 

[gorman64]

MTD 2
In virtue of negative and indirect infallibility, a pope cannot approve disciplines contrary to Divine Law.
MTD 35
Do you deny that a pope cannot approve disciplines contrary to Divine Law?
MTD 66
In virtue of negative and indirect infallibility, he cannot make disciplinary actions contrary to Divine Law.

TNT:

MTD is correct here. You are misreading V1.

You can find this in any pre-V2 dogmatic theology manual. Also, if you have Deferrari’s translation of Denzinger, look at the systematic index, section II, especially II f.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[TNT]

TNT:

MTD is correct here. You are misreading V1.

You can find this in any pre-V2 dogmatic theology manual. Also, if you have Deferrari’s translation of Denzinger, look at the systematic index, section II, especially II f.

Yours,

Gorman

I didn’t misread anything. I merely quoted VAT I, then proposed a question.
I also proposed that a pope CANNOT (if he remains pope) actually should be MAY NOT…etc.
CANNOT refers to an inability. A pope does not lose any faculty of free will simply by the act of his election.

BTW:
Kindly post links as everyone does not have theology libraries at their immediate disposal.

 

[gorman64]

I didn’t misread anything. I merely quoted VAT I, then proposed a question.
I also proposed that a pope CANNOT (if he remains pope) actually should be MAY NOT…etc.
CANNOT refers to an inability. A pope does not lose any faculty of free will simply by the act of his election.

TNT:

Cannot or may not is not the issue here. The doctrinal portion of a Church discipline is infallibly safe. Only the practical judgment can be inopportune…a mistake in practical judgment.

Do you deny this?

Gorman

 

[MTD]

TNT,

I think you got yourself confused here. A pope cannot approve disciplines contrary to Divine Law. Vatican I addresses positive and direct infallibility. But disciplinary infallibility is a negative and indirect infallibility and is a result of positive and direct infallibility.

Whether a valid pope can become a heretic doesn’t really have anything to do with disciplinary infallibility. First of all, the most weighty theological opinion is that he can’t become a heretic. Second, if he can become a heretic according to the opposite theological opinion, he can’t pronounce error ex cathedra. Likewise, he can’t make disciplinary acts contrary to Divine Law.

The sedevacantist argues the Form is more than “this is my Body”.

No, I don’t think so. The sedevacantist argues that the pope who promulgated the Pauline Rite is invalid; thus the Pauline Rite is very probably invalid because it doesn’t follow the formula of consecration approved for the Roman Rite by former valid popes.

The long form argument doesn’t disprove the Pauline Rite per se because the long form argument merely says that the whole formula approved for any rite is required for transubstantiation. Thus the whole formula of the Tridentine is “Hic est enim calix Sanguinis Mei, novi et aeterni testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum”; the whole formula of the Byzantine Rite “This is My Blood of the new testament, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins”; the whole formula of the vernacular Pauline Rite “This is the cup of My Blood, the Blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.”

You can find this in any pre-V2 dogmatic theology manual. Also, if you have Deferrari’s translation of Denzinger, look at the systematic index, section II, especially II f.

In absence of such theology manuals, you can read about disciplinary infallibility in the “Disciplinary Infallibility” section of this article from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Maria

 

[Uxor]

I said nothing about Quo Primum.

From Session 7 of Trent,

Having said that, it is possible, is it not, that Pope Paul VI was not aware of the decrees of Trent?

Don’t you get the sense that some don’t trust tradition? That some look at the past through the eyes of the present, where traditionalists look at the present through the eyes of of the past.

 

[rlg94086]

Don’t you get the sense that some don’t trust tradition? That some look at the past through the eyes of the present, where traditionalists look at the present through the eyes of of the past.

IOW, you have no answer for the objections stated to BopP123’s post.