The "Binding Force Of Tradition"

[choose_to_love]

“what St. Pope Pius V said . . .” The Church either has the inherent authority to regulate the liturgy, or it doesn’t, it seems to me. The very authority that would permit St. PPV to make such a statement is the same authority that would permit the liturgy to be modified, as, in fact, it periodically is. Whether particular changes are prudent, effective, etc., is a different discussion.

Also, what was the context of St.PPV’s statement?

 

[Catholic_Northlander]

So far as I can remember, he was in the Vatican and he said this as a part of a formal blessing over all the missals for the old mass, including saying that they were bound to using that missal “in perpetuity”.

I’ll have to do a bit more research, but I will try to get back to you. You brought up a very good point I must say.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

The very authority that would permit St. PPV to make such a statement is the same authority that would permit the liturgy to be modified, as, in fact, it periodically is

The changes that have happened over the years to the TLM were changes within that Mass itself and I believe were allowed to happen by a Pope only. The N.O. though valid, I am not denying that, was a new Mass.

 

[OraLabora]

I would classify myself as traditional in that I would choose to follow the teachings of the pre-Vatican two council over post-Vatican two if there is an area where they contradict.

They don’t, and cannot, contradict.

In all humility if I were to feel that this or that part of Vatican II were to contradict with what was before Vatican II, I would defer to the theological opinions of 2000+ bishops including Pope Emeritus Benedict, his successor, and his predecessors, and assume I am wrong because of something I am misunderstanding, since I have no formal theological formation.

The changes that have happened over the years to the TLM were changes within that Mass itself and I believe were allowed to happen by a Pope only. The N.O. though valid, I am not denying that, was a completely new Mass.

I think “completely new” is a bit excessive. There are many, many elements in common with the old Mass, including the Roman Canon. Yes there are innovations in the OF Mass. Yes, the number and speed of the innovations is perhaps faster than occurred in the past But completely new to me would mean “unrecognizable” as a Mass. I still have no problems recognizing the OF Mass in spite of the vernacular.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I think “completely new” is a bit excessive. There are many, many elements in common with the old Mass, including the Roman Canon. Yes there are innovations in the OF Mass. Yes, the number and speed of the innovations is perhaps faster than occurred in the past But completely new to me would mean “unrecognizable” as a Mass. I still have no problems recognizing the OF Mass in spite of the vernacular.

Yes you are correct. I edited and took out the word completely. It is a new Mass but it is from the EF that the OF came. From the way I see it, if you want to understand what the parts of the OF represent and point to, learn and understand the EF.

 

[Catholic_Northlander]

Seeing what the responses are, I think I should make a couple of clarifications.

1. This was not initially supposed to be about comparing the Novus Ordo to the TLM, I merely used that as an example of where pre & post Vatican two differ. Some other examples may be the removal of two obligatory fasting days and replacing that with a (usually optional, unless I misunderstand something) fast from meat on Fridays, or a lack of emphasis on spiritual warfare in the church, or the fact that the church created a new rite of exorcism that - according to most exorcists - almost never works anywhere near as well as the old one.
2. The Novus Ordo is still a valid mass.
3. Father Chad Ripperger is an exorcist, meaning that if he was in fact being heretical, it doesn’t seem like he would be given the grace or authority to carry out his ministry.
4. I am not claiming to be very knowledgeable about these things. I would simply like to know what official church teachings there are that would either support or refute what Fr. Ripperger says in his talk “The Binding Force Of Tradition”.

I hope that clears up a few things, God bless you all!

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Father Ripperger is a priest in good standing in the Church. I believe you are correct in saying that if he was a heretic it would be a difficult for him to carry out his ministry, especially in regards to exorcisms. There are some here at CAF who will speak highly of him (myself included) and others who will speak very critically of him. He is a priest who supports the traditional movement. I have never heard him say anything heretical, though he can ruffle some progressive feathers and be pretty firm with traditional Catholics also. He lays it on the line pretty straightforward.

I am glad you stated the Novus Ordo Mass is a valid Mass. I have never heard Father say it wasn’t.

I understand Father in this particular talk (and book) to be clarifying Tradition, what it is, how it works in the Church and why it is part of the authority in the Church along with Scripture and Magisterium and why it is so important. He always uses Scripture, Church documents and Papal quotes, and encourages obedience to the Church in his talks so IMHO I do not see what would be refuted.

As far as what would support him, my suggestion is the Roman Catechism from the Council of Trent. He suggests reading it and so has my priest at my Catholic Novus Ordo/no EF Mass at all parish because it is very straightforward and clear language and the foundation for every other catechism.

I am not sure if you have been to Father Ripperger’s website or not but there are quite a few more talks there:

Home -

A Website Dedicated to the Sacred Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.

sensustraditionis.org

 

[commenter]

He suggests reading it and so has my Novus Ordo priest

There’s no such thing as a “Novus Ordo priest”.

Priests are priests 24 hours a day.

In my diocese there are a few priests who take turns saying the EF at two diocesan parishes, as well as saying the OF. On occasion a priest from a religious order such as FSSP visits to say the EF. The great majority of clergy, diocesan or other Religious orders, say only the OF at present.

Even if Novus Ordo were the correct current term for a liturgy, which it isn’t, calling someone a Novus Ordo priest seems less than respectful.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Priests are priests 24 hours a day.

Yes, I am well aware of that.

calling someone a Novus Ordo priest seems less than respectful.

I corrected it on my post to state my priest at my Novus Ordo/no EF Mass at all parish. It was not meant in anyway to be disrespectful. The reason I said Novus Ordo parish and mentioned this priest, who happens to be a very, very good priest who encouraged the Roman Catechism, is because several times here at CAF when I have mentioned this Catechism I have received criticism for mentioning it, implying more or less that it is no longer applicable to the faith today, which is not true, which again would be why my priest encouraged all to read it.

In my diocese there are a few priests who take turns saying the EF

Yes, I know that happens at many parishes.

The great majority of clergy, diocesan or other Religious orders, say only the OF at present.

yes, I am aware of that also.

God bless

 

[Catholic_Northlander]

Thank you so much! I will happily look into the Council of Treant Catechism as well as Fr. Ripperger’s website.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

Yes , I think he spotlights a few points like that and is quite concerned about that direction.