Traditionalists not attending Novus Ordo

[MTD]

Since you haven’t had a chance to respond yet and I’ve been thinking about it some more, I’m posting some more thoughts…

I don’t follow you here. Didn’t we already know he was referring to the Latin Rite?

I brought up the Eastern rites because I wanted to prove that St. Pius V’s De Defectibus does not refer to all rites. Since it does not refer to all rites, it must be determined which rite(s) it refers to. The answer is the Tridentine Rite, to which that document specifically refers.

You seem to be saying that it applies not only to the Tridentine, which was the Roman Rite referred to in De Defectibus, but to all rites which are promulgated as the Roman Rite. I disagree since St. Pius V promulgated the Tridentine “in perpetuity” and thereby excluded other future rites from his declaration.

And if that is not a good enough argument, let me propose another. Hypothetically, the Byzantine Rite, which is the normative rite of the Melkite, Greek, Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Romanian, etc. Churches, could also be promulgated as the universal rite of the Latin Church, thereby becoming the normative Roman Rite. Now since the formula of consecration in the Byzantine Rite is valid regardless of what Church the Byzantine Rite functions as the normative rite for, it follows that the formula would still be valid after the rite was promulgated as the Roman Rite since the formula would not have been changed in the process of promulgation. The formula would not be the same as the Tridentine formula outlined in De Defectibus, and yet it would still be valid. This shows that just because a rite is promulgated for universal use in the Latin Church does not mean it must abide by the regulations of De Defectibus. (And just in case you’re thinking of arguing that the Byzantine Rite could never be promulgated as the Roman Rite because the Tridentine was promulgated “in perpetuity,” I remind you that that would also mean the revisions of St. Pius X and Pius XII were invalidly promulgated, but such is admittedly not the case.)

Does this make sense?

Do you think the Novus Ordo is a new Rite…for the Latin Church?

It really comes down to our respective positions on sedevacantism. Consider my position: I believe the popes since Pius XII were valid. In virtue of negative and indirect infallibility, valid popes cannot promulgate disciplines contrary to the Divine Law. But approving an invalid formula of consecration is against the Divine Law, is it not? So, given my position of belief in the validity of Pope Paul VI, I believe in the validity of the formula of consecration of the Pauline Rite. What other conclusion should I come to?

Or is this debate a vehicle for proving the heresy and therefore the invalidity of Pope Paul VI? If so, I don’t see how you can use that argument to prove his heresy since the opinion that “This is My Blood/This is My Body” is the essential form of consecration is a valid theological opinion and therefore he cannot be accused of heresy on that point. As an interesting side note, Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI were not the only popes to hold that theological opinion; St. Pius X held it. From the Catechism of St. Pius X:
Q. What is the form of the sacrament of the Eucharist?
A. The form of the sacrament of the Eucharist consists of the words used by Jesus Christ Himself: “This is My Body: This is My Blood.”

If that is not your argument, I apologize for implying such. However, it’s difficult for me to know where you’re coming from if you don’t clearly outline your argument. So far I’ve only received questions hinting what you’re trying to prove and explanations of theological opinions. It would greatly help me if you could clearly outline your argument against the validity of the formula of consecration in the NO. How about it?

Maria

 

[aspawloski4th]

as someone who attends NO Mass, I still find serious probelms with it. the reason I go to NO is that the TLM Mass here is at a time I cant attend. the NO is said how ever the rpeist feels like it. On my side of grand rapids michigan the northwest side there aRE 7 ROman rite Catholic parishes, and everyone knows in those parishes theres 7different Masses said every sunday with varying degrees of liturgical abuses. want examples? I can give them. anything from eucharistic prayers not in the book, to not geuflecting at the proper time during consecration to eliminting the secend reading at sunday Mass. At least with TLM mass youve went to one low Mass you went to them all and you went to one high Mass you’ve went to them all, I wish there was that kind of uniformity with the NO Mass. Maybe at some point in the past your friend got sick n tired of liturgical abuses and the priest saying Mass howere he felt like it.

 

[MTD]

Maybe at some point in the past your friend got sick n tired of liturgical abuses and the priest saying Mass howere he felt like it.

Oh, are you talking to me? If so, I’ll explain that I’m not debating gorman64 on the beauty and propriety of the TLM. I love the TLM. I love any reverent, traditional, and approved celebration of the Mass, whether it be a TLM, NO, or some Eastern rite. I totally agree with you about the abuses so common in the NO. What I don’t agree with is sedevacantism and the resulting belief in the invalidity of the NO Mass. And that’s what I’m debating with gorman64.

Maria

 

[aspawloski4th]

Oh, are you talking to me? If so, I’ll explain that I’m not debating gorman64 on the beauty and propriety of the TLM. I love the TLM. I love any reverent, traditional, and approved celebration of the Mass, whether it be a TLM, NO, or some Eastern rite. I totally agree with you about the abuses so common in the NO. What I don’t agree with is sedevacantism and the resulting belief in the invalidity of the NO Mass. And that’s what I’m debating with gorman64.

Maria

I dont agree with sedvantism either. I was brought up by parents who had a very simple philosehphy, you obey the pope you got to heaven, you disobey the pope you go to hell no questions asked. and the pope can do what he wants and only has to answer to God and not anyone on earth, and baSICALLY thats not far from the way I believe. with sedvantism for it to be possible, Jesus had to be lying when he gave the key of heaven to peter, simple! with that said, NO mass in america is a joke, I only go to Mass because its my worship obligation and Im not like a protestant who thinks you have to get something out of it. with the 7 parishes I mentioned having 7 different from each other Masses on sunday, that is plain wrong. asside from abuses annother example I can bring up to show how different things can be, at st marys in the downtown west side fr host for the penitential rite says simply lord have mercy, christ have mercy, lord havemercy without petitions, and on with the rest of the Mass he is in a hell bent hurry to get thru, while at the old polish parish sacred heart fr hankiewickz always prays the I confess prayer then the full lord have mercy prayer then the gloria. I hope the angels and saints are praying for the st marys people while they are still not being invoked! Id bet at st marys one would be able to find a few who dodnt remember the I confess prayer, because it is absolutely never said there.I like the TLM Mass because it is uniform , the onlyt difference is high Mass and Low mASS. while I dont agree with the young lady who is partly the subject of this thread totally. I do think those of her ilk should be listened to seriously and some of their beefs heeded.-

 

[gorman64]

I dont agree with sedvantism either. I was brought up by parents who had a very simple philosehphy, you obey the pope you got to heaven, you disobey the pope you go to hell no questions asked.

This is not what is taught in the catechism. Your parents were a little too simplistic in their approach I think.

and the pope can do what he wants and only has to answer to God and not anyone on earth, and baSICALLY thats not far from the way I believe.

A true Pope is protected from error in matters of faith and morals in his teaching authority…he cannot just do whatever he wants (and I realise that I don’t know exactly what you mean here).

with sedvantism for it to be possible, Jesus had to be lying when he gave the key of heaven to peter, simple!

No, it is not that simple. I hope you know that no Catholic who holds the SV position thinks the Church has failed…this is something that is impossible because it is contrary to Christ’s promise.

 

[MTD]

I dont agree with sedvantism either. I was brought up by parents who had a very simple philosehphy, you obey the pope you got to heaven, you disobey the pope you go to hell no questions asked.

It isn’t? They didn’t say disagree but disobey. If the pope expressly commands something, we have to obey. There are, however, very few things the pope commands; most of the time he allows something. An example is the penitential rite aspawloski4th referred to in his post; the pope didn’t command the priest to use the short form but permitted it. It’s not disobedient to use the long form, and we are permitted to disagree with the advisability of using the short form. There’s a difference, you know.

I hope you know that no Catholic who holds the SV position thinks the Church has failed

That’s not what sedevacantists think in effect. “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16:18) Um, if sedevacantism were true, the gates of hell have been amazingly successful. No pope for just about 50 years, and millions of Catholics with invalid sacraments. Only a handful of faithful Catholics left and that without the rock Jesus promised. Their rock is not the Peter Jesus promised but fallible theologians.

Maria

 

[gorman64]

It isn’t? They didn’t say disagree but disobey. If the pope expressly commands something, we have to obey. There are, however, very few things the pope commands; most of the time he allows something. An example is the penitential rite aspawloski4th referred to in his post; the pope didn’t command the priest to use the short form but permitted it. It’s not disobedient to use the long form, and we are permitted to disagree with the advisability of using the short form. There’s a difference, you know.

I don’t necessarily disagree with this but I would point out that the disagreements should be few and far between. The idea that a practical judgment is harmful is not to be taken lightly.

From Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, Translated and Revised by John J. Castelot, S.S., S.T.D., S.S.L. & William R. Murphy, S.S., S.T.D., The Newman Press, Westminster, Maryland, 1957. pp 102-124.):

Assertion 3: The Church’s infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.

By the term “general discipline of the Church” are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. Note the italicized words: ecclesiastical laws, passed for the universal Church.

The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church’s rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment:

1. “This law squares with the Church’s doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree.

1. “This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.

Although it would be rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church’s rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.

The Church’s infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circumstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification.

 

[bear06]

Are we still talking about sedevacantism?.

Let’s just stop and think. When we did have interregnums which never lasted longer than 2 years 3 months, if I’m remembering correctly, what exactly was happening during that time? Didn’t we have a whole bunch of cardinals or bishops (depending on who could do the picking at the time) trying to do just that pick someone? Has anyone noticed that absolutely nobody in postition to pick is doing this? We don’t have a massive division in the Church arguing about who is the true Pope. Even those in the Magisterium before John XXIII didn’t accuse him of being an anti-pope. The only people accusing the past 5 popes of not being legitimate have absolutely no canonical authority to choose a new pope under the old rules (before Pope John’s election)as well as the rules promulgated by JPII. Geez. Even Cardinal Siri, the one who was supposedly validly elected instead of John didn’t even question it. If he was the valid Pope, don’t you think he would have had some inspiration from the Holy Spirit to fight for the proper pope being that he supposedly was this person. We can go on with can’t in happen? Can’t it happen? But do you really think this fits the profile laid out by Bellarmine’s theory?

 

[pnewton]

This is not what is taught in the catechism. Your parents were a little too simplistic in their approach I think.

[Mt 18:4](http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=18&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) - “Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

Maybe they just wanted follow the mandate of Jesus. Faith is a simple thing. A simplistic faith can keep us from arguing ourselves all the way out of the door of the Church.

 

[gorman64]

Let’s just stop and think. When we did have interregnums which never lasted longer than 2 years 3 months, if I’m remembering correctly, what exactly was happening during that time? Didn’t we have a whole bunch of cardinals or bishops (depending on who could do the picking at the time) trying to do just that pick someone? Has anyone noticed that absolutely nobody in postition to pick is doing this? We don’t have a massive division in the Church arguing about who is the true Pope. Even those in the Magisterium before John XXIII didn’t accuse him of being an anti-pope. The only people accusing the past 5 popes of not being legitimate have absolutely no canonical authority to choose a new pope under the old rules (before Pope John’s election)as well as the rules promulgated by JPII. Geez. Even Cardinal Siri, the one who was supposedly validly elected instead of John didn’t even question it. If he was the valid Pope, don’t you think he would have had some inspiration from the Holy Spirit to fight for the proper pope being that he supposedly was this person. We can go on with can’t in happen? Can’t it happen? But do you really think this fits the profile laid out by Bellarmine’s theory?

Exactly who are you responding to here?

 

[MTD]

I don’t necessarily disagree with this but I would point out that the disagreements should be few and far between. The idea that a practical judgment is harmful is not to be taken lightly.

Why, yes. And for the sake of the discussion: I agree with post #125, but I don’t see how it refutes anything I said in the post directly above it.

gorman64:

This is not what is taught in the catechism. Your parents were a little too simplistic in their approach I think.

Maybe they just wanted follow the mandate of Jesus. Faith is a simple thing. A simplistic faith can keep us from arguing ourselves all the way out of the door of the Church.

I think Gorman was mistaken when he said that and I explained why in post #124.

First Gorman says (in post #123) that it’s too simplistic to obey the pope in everything; then he says it’s dangerous to disagree with the pope’s decisions. Um, what, may I ask, is his point?

Maria

 

[gorman64]

First Gorman says (in post #123) that it’s too simplistic to obey the pope in everything; then he says it’s dangerous to disagree with the pope’s decisions. Um, what, may I ask, is his point?

Maria:

It is too simplistic to think that if one obeys the pope (I read this as expresses allegiance to the pope), then that is all that matters. One obeys the pope when he obeys the teaching Church. Many Catholics do not obey the teaching Church. And not just a small number of the members of the Teaching Church are heretics.

My point is that a Pope or Teaching Church that you find you must disagree with and disobey is not possible. That is what the application of the theologically certain proposition of disciplinary infallibility should tell us.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[MTD]

It is too simplistic to think that if one obeys the pope (I read this as expresses allegiance to the pope), then that is all that matters.

Well, that’s where you and I differ; I read it just as it stands: obey. What is the proper object of obedience? Laws/commands. Therefore I read it not in the sense of expresses allegiance to but obeys the commands of.

One obeys the pope when he obeys the teaching Church.

Huh? How can you obey a teaching? You believe a teaching and obey a ruling. A Catholic is obliged to both believe the Teaching Church and obey the Ruling Church.

I think it the other way around: one obeys the Teaching and Ruling Church when he obeys the pope. “And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matt. 16:19)

And not just a small number of the members of the Teaching Church are heretics.

I don’t include the latest papal claimants among them. My line of action is: if the member of the Teaching and Ruling Church is not in line with the pope, don’t follow him. Your line of action is: if the member of the Teaching and Ruling Church is not in line with what you know of dogmatic theology, don’t follow him. My rock is Peter; your rock is theology.

My point is that a Pope or Teaching Church that you find you must disagree with and disobey is not possible.

Exactly. That is why I distinguished between disobeying and disagreeing. I noted (correctly) that it is quite possible to disagree but not to disobey.

Maria

 

[Keightlynn]

Do you go to Christendom College?

 

[bear06]

Exactly who are you responding to here?

Anyone who can read the poor grammar used at 12:30 in the morning is fine with me. It would, however, seem that you are the one who thinks we’re living in a “super intereggnum” now of which only a few keenly observant people know.

 

[gorman64]

Huh? How can you obey a teaching?

Huh? I didn’t say obey a teaching…I said obey the Teaching Church who are the teaching authorities in the Church. We are the Taught Church.

From Scheeben:

VI. The authority of the Church’s Proposition enforcing obedience to its decrees and guaranteeing their infallibility, is not restricted to matters of Divine Faith and Divine Revelation, although these are its principal subject-matter. The Teaching Apostolate, in order to realize the objects of Revelation, i.e. to preserve the Faith not only in its substance but also in its entirety, must extend its activity beyond the sphere of Divine Faith and Divine Revelation. But in such matters the Apostolate requires only an undoubting and submissive acceptance and not Divine Faith, and consequently is, so far, a rule of theological knowledge and conviction rather than a Rule of Divine Faith. Hence there exists in the Church, side by side with and completing the Rule of Faith, a Rule of Theological Thought or Religious Conviction, to which every Catholic must submit internally as well as externally. Any refusal to submit to this law implies a spiritual revolt against the authority of the Church and a rejection of her supernatural veracity; and is, if not a direct denial of Catholic Faith, at least a direct denial of Catholic Profession.

VII. The judicial, legislative, and other similar acts of the members of the Teaching Apostolate are not all absolutely binding rules of Faith and theological thought, but rather resemble police regulations. These disciplinary measures may under certain circumstances command at least a respectful and confident assent, the refusal of which involves disrespect and temerity. For instance, when the Church forbids the teaching of certain points of doctrine, or commands the teaching of one opinion in preference to another, external submission is required, but there is also an obligation to accept the favoured view as morally certain. When a judicial decision has been given on some point of doctrine, but has not been given or approved by the highest authority, such decision per se imposes only the obligation of external obedience. Points of doctrine expressed, recommended, and insisted upon in papal allocutions or encyclical letters but not distinctly defined, may create the obligation of strict obedience and undoubting assent, or may exact merely external submission and approval. Thus in the Rule of Faith we distinguish three degrees: (1) the Rule of Faith in matters directly revealed, exacting the obedience of Faith; (2) the Rule of Faith in matters theologically connected with Revelation, exacting respect and external submission, and, indirectly, internal assent of a certain grade; (3) the Rule of Faith in matters of discipline, exacting submission and reverence.

The difference between the rules of theological knowledge and the disciplinary measures is important. The former demand universal and unconditional obedience, the latter only respect and reverence. Moderate Liberalism, represented in the seventeenth century by Holden (Analysis Fidei), in the eighteenth century by Muratori (De Ingeniorum Moderatione and Chrismann (Regula Fidei), is an attempt to conciliate Extreme Liberalism by giving up these various distinctions, and reducing all decisions either to formal definitions of Faith or to mere police regulations.

 

[MTD]

Do you go to Christendom College?

No, I don’t. Why do you ask?

Gorman: give me a little time to respond to your last post. I can’t understand half of what Scheeben is talking about and so have to do some studying.

Maria

 

[gorman64]

I don’t include the latest papal claimants among them. My line of action is: if the member of the Teaching and Ruling Church is not in line with the pope, don’t follow him. Your line of action is: if the member of the Teaching and Ruling Church is not in line with what you know of dogmatic theology, don’t follow him. My rock is Peter; your rock is theology.

Maria:

I understand that you don’t include the last five claimants in this category. Let’s leave that aside.

What about other members of the Teaching Authority…there are some who are unquestionably heretics…do they still have authority over Catholics? If we should just ignore them as you say then by what authority do we ignore them?

You say they still hold office and authority over Catholics…but if a layman can recognize that they are not “in line with the pope”, then exactly how does he do this? Is this not “private judgment”?

Please understand that I do think that one can recognize a heretic before any public declaration of the fact. My problem is with those who say that we need a declaration to establish this fact…but if this is true, we must obey this authority until it is declared illegitimate.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[BobP123]

Exactly. That is why I distinguished between disobeying and disagreeing. I noted (correctly) that it is quite possible to disagree but not to disobey.
Maria

I see. So if you don’t like the Pope’s teaching against watching sports on Sundays, that would be disagreeing with him?

Good, because for a while there, I thought I was disobeying him.

 

[Keightlynn]

No, I don’t. Why do you ask?

Gorman: give me a little time to respond to your last post. I can’t understand half of what Scheeben is talking about and so have to do some studying.

Maria

Are you the OP with a different name? I was asking because Christendom is a very conservative/traditional Catholic college that has the NO in Latin because the dioceses of Arlington is not allowed to do the TLM.