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

[MTD]

Yes, but the ‘matters of faith’ referred to in Vatican I does not make the Pope the final authority in every single matter of faith (he is only the final authority in matters of Doctrinal faith and belief).

The Mass is NOT a matter of doctrinal faith or morals and therefore the Pope is NOT the final authority on the Mass. Hence, if the Pope is NOT the final authority on the Mass he does not have infallible protection concerning it, and the promulgation of the New Mass could very well be a mistake for the Church since it does not enjoy Divine Protection.

Every discipline has a doctrinal aspect and a practical aspect. In regards to the doctrinal aspect of a discipline, the pope is infallible; in other words, in virtue of negative and indirect infallibility, a pope cannot carry out disciplinary actions contrary to Divine Law. However, in regards to the practical aspect of a discipline, it is possible for the pope to have made an imprudent decision.

Promulgation of a rite is a disciplinary action. Pope Paul VI was infallible in regards to the doctrinal aspect of promulgating the Pauline Rite. As to the practical aspect, it is up to debate whether it was the was the prudent thing to do, given the traditions of the Latin Church.

Maria

 

[Ad_Orientum]

Every discipline has a doctrinal aspect and a practical aspect. In regards to the doctrinal aspect of a discipline, the pope is infallible; in other words, in virtue of negative and indirect infallibility, a pope cannot carry out disciplinary actions contrary to Divine Law. However, in regards to the practical aspect of a discipline, it is possible for the pope to have made an imprudent decision.

Promulgation of a rite is a disciplinary action. Pope Paul VI was infallible in regards to the doctrinal aspect of promulgating the Pauline Rite. As to the practical aspect, it is up to debate whether it was the was the prudent thing to do, given the traditions of the Latin Church.

Maria

Which is more or less what I was saying.

The Pope, in promulgating the New Mass, was infallible in the sense that the New Mass was not an error in itself. (i.e it was not heretical)

Whether or not it was the right thing to do is up for debate.

All I was saying was that the arguement used in the OP cannot function properly if the reader takes into account the fact that the Pope is not the final authority on what is beneficial to the Church’s Liturgy.

 

[Genesis315]

Vatican I also declares that the Pope has supreme authority over Church discipline–this includes liturgical rites. The Pope has claimed authority over the liturgy.

St. Victor I is an early example of a pope exercising this authority as well as Gregory the Great here:
newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm

Most explicitly, Pius XII says that the liturgy is subject to the authority of the pope in his encyclical Mediator Dei:

1. 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.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.

---

1. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.
2. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.

---

1. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.

He is pretty clear on the liturgical changes by the Apostolic See as being legitimate.

continued…

 

[bear06]

Hmn? I dont think I understand what your saying?

She forgot to quote you entirely.

 

[Genesis315]

More from Pius XII:

“More properly, since the liturgy is also a profession of eternal truths, and subject, as such, to the supreme teaching authority of the Church, it can supply proofs and testimony, quite clearly, of no little value, towards the determination of a particular point of Christian doctrine.”

In this case, he is treating the liturgy like a symbol or creed–which all are subject to revision by the Roman Pontiff and to which the Roman pontiff may issue new symbols or creeds–and in fact his infallibility is exercised in the revision and/or drawing up of the creeds. See this section of the Summa:
newadvent.org/summa/300110.htm

If the Roman Pontiff has authority over symbols of faith–which are professions of the deposit of faith, it follows that he has authority over other professions of faith, including the liturgy. There are no doctrinal errors in the new rite so it was a legitimate revision and/or introduction by the pope.

More from Pius XII:

"50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites. "

1. Several causes, really have been instrumental in the progress and development of the sacred liturgy during the long and glorious life of the Church.
2. Thus, for example, as Catholic doctrine on the Incarnate Word of God, the eucharistic sacrament and sacrifice, and Mary the Virgin Mother of God came to be determined with greater certitude and clarity, new ritual forms were introduced through which the acts of the liturgy proceeded to reproduce this brighter light issuing from the decrees of the teaching authority of the Church, and to reflect it, in a sense so that it might reach the minds and hearts of Christ’s people more readily.
3. The subsequent advances in ecclesiastical discipline for the administering of the sacraments, that of penance for example; the institution and later suppression of the catechumenate; and again, the practice of eucharistic communion under a single species, adopted in the Latin Church; these developments were assuredly responsible in no little measure for the modification of the ancient ritual in the course of time, and for the gradual introduction of new rites considered more in accord with prevailing discipline in these matters."

continued…

 

[Genesis315]

This passage from St. Pius V’s Quo Primum seems to give the Holy See the authority over local liturgical tradition:

"Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women - even of military orders - and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever.

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding.

All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.

We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal."

Bl. Pius IX also seems to reserve authority over all rites to the Apostolic See in his encyclical Omnem Sollicitudinem:

"Therefore, as this same Supreme Pontiff declared, “that rule must be absolutely observed which states that, except for the most serious reasons and with the Apostolic See, no innovations are to be introduced into the holy rites of the liturgy, even under the pretext of restoring ceremonies which may seem to be more in conformity with liturgies approved by the same See.”

(We may disagree that the changes made were done for a serious reason, but it can be done with approval of the Holy See–why would this be if the Holy See did not have authority over liturgical rites?)

Again, he seems to give the Apostolic See authority over liturgical rites:

“Some of these rites have been used from time immemorial, others solemnly confirmed by the sanction of the Synod of Zamosi, which had the approbation of the Apostolic See.”

And again, we see that even organic changes are subject to the Apostolic See–how could statements like this be made if the Pope did not have authority over the liturgy?

“Our Predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs, have frequently and purposefully agreed to approve or permit those rites insofar as they in no way oppose the Catholic faith nor cause danger to souls nor derogate from ecclesiastical dignity.”[8] At the same time these canons have solemnly declared that no one whosoever, without consultation with this Holy See, may introduce even the slightest innovations into the liturgy."

As much as we may think the innovations in the 1969 missal are bad, innovations to the liturgy can be approved by the Pope. As much aas we or even previous popes may not have approved of the most recent changes, the current popes in their judgement have.

 

[Uxor]

Session 7 - Council Of Trent
Canon 13. If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema.

 

[MTD]

Session 7 - Council Of Trent
Canon 13. If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema.

So what, may I ask, are you trying to say? That Pope Pius XII was anathema when he said the following?

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.

Maria

 

[bear06]

Session 7 - Council Of Trent
Canon 13. If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema.

This is a very good quote. One should note a few things. First the one needst to take into account why Trent was called. Secondly, one should note that the first line says “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church” and then goes onto to say that any pastor of the churches with a small “c” can’t change them. No where does it say that the Catholic Church cannot make changes. No pastor of an individual church may deviate from the Magisterium’s received and approved rites.

 

[BobP123]

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.

Actually the Latin for this is:

Canon XIII.—Si quis dixerit, receptos et approbates Ecclesiæ Catholicæ ritus, in solemni sacramentorum administratione adhiberi consuetos, aut contemni, aut sine peccato a ministris pro libito omitti, aut in novos alios per quemcumque ecclesiarum pastorem mutari posse: anathema sit.

Important to note that it refers to any pastor WHOMSOEVER, which isn’t shown in the translation I posted above.

 

[bear06]

Important to note that it refers to any pastor WHOMSOEVER, which isn’t shown in the translation I posted above.

Same diff.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Actually the Latin for this is:

Important to note that it refers to any pastor WHOMSOEVER, which isn’t shown in the translation I posted above.

Doesn’t include the Pope, who as Supreme Legislator, is the final interpreter of canon law (under which a disciplinary issue would fall).

 

[gorman64]

The preaching of the Church is infallible to the extent that it is of the whole episcopal body. The errors of individual members of the episcopal body do not render the preaching of the Church untrustworthy.

Maria,

True. I don’t disagree with you here. But I don’t know if you realise the gravity of the situation where huge portions of the “Teaching Authority” and their Auxiliaries are teaching error. Are they still authorities? How? We are not talking about one errant bishop somewhere who has yet to be punished. Why do you think there is such “poor catechesis”? The blind are leading the blind…and they are both falling into the pit.

Hmmm, the only souls such bishops lead to perdition are their own. If the simple faithful are taught material heresy and sincerely believe it to be Church teaching, no sin of heresy is imputed to them. So how are they led to perdition?

Heresy is not the only sin…a plain old mortal sin can send one to hell…can it not? I would venture to say that many of the most prevalent sins today are contrary to the natural law written on all men’s hearts and the positive natural law. There isn’t any heresy there…just grave sins against the natural law. Marriage law is largely natural law…there’s no way around it. When it comes to natural law…one cannot claim ignorance.

The idea that a legitimate “Church Teaching” actually teaches heresy to their flock is contrary to what the Church teaches us about Herself. This has been happening…and for decades now…and the “Pope” does nothing about it. John Paul II thought it was a new springtime…a new pentecost.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[alih]

in order to maintain the claim of being the “true church of christ” to which one must belong inorder to obtain eternal salvation, with the exceptions of invincible ignorance, the church maintained continuity and consistency throughout history. it was in the wake of vat ii where a vast departure of eclesiastic norms took place. of these, they are now under discussion. major questions can be asked, “if the church can now depart from their traditions and now accept practices previously condemned, were their predecessors liars?” “if they were not and prior tradtions and practices were declared invalid, what then can be said of the church now?” have a good year. (alih)

 

[gorman64]

Session 7 - Council Of Trent
Canon 13. If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema.

Uxor,

Is the Novus Ordo Missae an approved rite of the Catholic Church? If not, what is your evidence to make this claim?

I’ll be blunt here…this argument is a really foolish argument and you need to abandon it ASAP.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[MTD]

But I don’t know if you realise the gravity of the situation where huge portions of the “Teaching Authority” and their Auxiliaries are teaching error.

Perhaps I don’t. Would you mind expanding a little on what error you are referring to here?

Are they still authorities? How?

We’ve already addressed in more than one thread whether pertinaciously heretical bishops have authority. They don’t. But how do we know which ones are pertinacious in their material heresy?

Why do you think there is such “poor catechesis”?

Because unqualified laymen are conducting it. NB: I’m not saying the bishops aren’t responsible for remedying this.

The blind are leading the blind…and they are both falling into the pit.

One who is misled and who is invincibly ignorant that he is being misled is not guilty. Such a one is not condemned to the pit, Hell, unless he should become vincibly ignorant.

Heresy is not the only sin…a plain old mortal sin can send one to hell…can it not?

Sure. But that’s irrelevant since I made that reply in response to your mention of bishops allowing the teaching of heresy in catechism classes. Heresy is the issue here, not mortal sin in general.

Maria

 

[Uxor]

Uxor,

Is the Novus Ordo Missae an approved rite of the Catholic Church? If not, what is your evidence to make this claim?

I’ll be blunt here…this argument is a really foolish argument and you need to abandon it ASAP.

Yours,

Gorman

I don’t appreciate your tone to me…and it seems to be the norm with orthodox catholics here. Some of which I understand because how you view the past through Vatican II. And just like a Father who loves his daughter, that can’t see she could never do anything wrong.

I attended a N.O. Mass for 30 years. something is wrong, something off…I don’t know what it is…it could be it had to do with the Parish I was attending, it is a matter that I’m seeking discernment on. From changing the words of Consecration to introducing ancient rites, Communion in the Hand, Extra Ordinary Ministers, etc (which I don’t agree with). but it is more than that…it is spiritual. People that attend the N.O. that I have talked to don’t even know what the Mystery of Faith is, that is mind bogglingly… I feel I could attend the Mass at the Holy Angels Monastery and it wouldn’t be a problem. So yes I do think the N.O. Mass is valid. But when I look at the fruits they are not good. This is spoken about in the Old Testament and by Christ…to look at the fruits. I’m not going hide my head in the sand and pretend nothing is going on here. And that is my blunt answer.

 

[bear06]

I don’t appreciate your tone to me…and it seems to be the norm with orthodox catholics here. Some of which I understand because how you view the past through Vatican II. And just like a Father who loves his daughter, that can’t see she could never do anything wrong.

Uxor, you are incredible. You are new to the boards and you have no idea what Gorman is about. He hardly sees things through the eyes of Vatican II. As a matter of fact you couldn’t be more wrong. Why don’t you try reading some of his posts to see where he is coming from before you try and classify him.

 

[AJV]

If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema.

Aside from the quote of Pius XII (and I would very much be interested in how those quoting the above Canon reconcile the two), the problem with a strict reading of this is that it would place everything after Trent as anathemized. Even the Mass of St. Pius V which removed numerous apologiae, sequences and other accretions. And moreover, it doesn’t just say the Mass- it is says the sacraments-and the rites of those have changed also since Trent. For some like marriage it varied: like in Baltimore, in the first days, the form of marriage was different form that of the Roman Ritual (and not received from anywhere). A strict reading of Trent would have anathemized that.

The whole reason for this Canon was to counter those who claimed that the Church could not bind in matters where Christ did not. (See for e.g. Waterworth Canons of Trent)

 

[Uxor]

Aside from the quote of Pius XII (and I would very much be interested in how those quoting the above Canon reconcile the two), the problem with a strict reading of this is that it would place everything after Trent as anathemized. Even the Mass of St. Pius V which removed numerous apologiae, sequences and other accretions. And moreover, it doesn’t just say the Mass- it is says the sacraments-and the rites of those have changed also since Trent. For some like marriage it varied: like in Baltimore, in the first days, the form of marriage was different form that of the Roman Ritual (and not received from anywhere). A strict reading of Trent would have anathemized that.

The whole reason for this Canon was to counter those who claimed that the Church could not bind in matters where Christ did not. (See for e.g. Waterworth Canons of Trent)

I find that hard to believe…these are Sacraments that you are talking about…you’re saying Christ doesn’t care about matter, form in the Sacraments He instituted. No wonder the Vatican Exorcist can’t peform an exorcism on someone with the new Baptismal Rite.