Validity of None-Tridentine Mass

[AJV]

Actually Pope Paul’s signature was on the false definition of the Mass, which he later redefined when convinced of it afterwards. Many still take the first definition at face value, though.

The 1969 GIRM, though hardly a paradigm of doctrine, does in fact state that the Mass is a sacrifice at which a Victim is offered. No. 7 cannot be only taken by itself in isolation. Moreover, it is not exactly a definition…it is not “The Mass is…” but “**At **the Lord’s Supper, or Mass”

 

[SFD]

What does this have to do with reading a document before signing it?

If it’s infallible, it’s always infallible. If the Pope can effectively erase his signature on a document, or someone else erases it for him, then how can it be infallible?

What you are implying is that although the pope is PROTECTED by the charism of infallibility when he speaks on faith and morals (when he promulgates a liturgy)…he may just neglect to fully understand what he is promulgating (or just fail to read what he is signing) and the protection is OFF…he can then make a mistake and promulgate an erroneous liturgy.

This is patently false and the source I provided shows that…maybe you just didn’t read it very carefully.

SFD

 

[AlexV]

Well that’s EXACTLY what happened when Paul signed his name on a liturgy that contained the Arian heresy and later had to be recalled. Bugnini’s memoir is replete with examples of Paul signing things he hadn’t read, sometimes with a note expressing his trust in underlings.

 

[ProVobis]

The 1969 GIRM, though hardly a paradigm of doctrine, does in fact state that the Mass is a sacrifice at which a Victim is offered. No. 7 cannot be only taken by itself in isolation. Moreover, it is not exactly a definition…it is not “The Mass is…” but “**At **the Lord’s Supper, or Mass”

Interesting that the “definition” was changed, though the text was not changed to reflect the greater emphasis of sacrifice. Point is, however, that Paul VI’s signature was on the Mass being a “memorial.” (Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy.)

 

[ProVobis]

… the pope is PROTECTED by the charism of infallibility when he speaks on faith and morals (when he promulgates a liturgy)…

You might be interested in how he “promulgated” the liturgy.

websitetoolbox.com/tool/p…ost?id=1325384

Also, since when is promulgating a liturgy infallible? If it were Quo Primum would be doctrinal and no conciliarist would agree to that.

 

[SFD]

You might be interested in how he “promulgated” the liturgy.

websitetoolbox.com/tool/p…ost?id=1325384

The link does not work…and you are attempting to say that Paul VI didn’t promulgate it correctly; that it was defective. Is that right?

Also, since when is promulgating a liturgy infallible? If it were Quo Primum would be doctrinal and no conciliarist would agree to that.

The Church is infallible. The promulgation of a liturgy is subject to a “secondary” or indirect infallibility. This is all explained in all the treatises on the Church and in the definition of the Vatican Council I.

I’ve posted the relevant passages from the relatio of Bp. Gasser, relator of the faith at Vatican I. I’ve quoted Monsignor Van Noort’s Dogmatic Theology manual, *Christ’s Church *. It’s also found quite easily in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

I can’t however, force you to read these things…that’s why you keep misunderstanding the nature of infallibility.

Moreover, this formula seems most suitable to express both things: "The Roman Pontiff, when he defines a doctrine of faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, enjoys that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith or morals."

…]

Therefore just as everyone admits that to deny the infallibility of the Church in defining dogmas of faith is heretical, so the force of this decree of the Vatican Council makes it no less heretical to deny the infallibility of the supreme Pontiff, considered in itself, when he defines dogmas of faith. However, in respect to **those things about which it is theologically certain - but not as, yet certain “de fide” - that the Church is infallible, these things are also not defined by this decree of the sacred Council as having to be believed “de fide” in respect to papal infallibility. ** With the theological certitude which is had that these other objects, apart from dogmas of the faith, fall within the extension of the infallibility which the Church enjoys in her definitions, so, with that same theological certitude, must it be held, now and in the future, that the infallibility of definitions issued by the Roman Pontiff extends to these same objects.

SFD

 

[AlexV]

No, you read things, SFD, and think you’re qualified to make dramatic pronouncements on what you read. “Infallibility” is far less inclusive than you would have us think, especially in the truly surreal world of Pauline liturgy pronouncements, where a liturgy was OFFICIALLY PROMULGATED that read Pater, tu us solus Deus…only to have to be hastily withdrawn and rewritten (these things can happen with fabricated liturgies the pope entrusts to committees).

 

[ethelzguy]

Who, the priest making the statement or the 5 who held the faith?

The priest making the statement. For a priest to claim that only five priests in an entire archdiocese “hold the faith” strikes me as someone with a very narrow, SSPX-ish view on things.

 

[AlexV]

Yes, the SSPX is the convenient bete noire for Catholicism today.

 

[CradleCath]

No, you read things, SFD, and think you’re qualified to make dramatic pronouncements on what you read. “Infallibility” is far less inclusive than you would have us think, especially in the truly surreal world of Pauline liturgy pronouncements, where a liturgy was OFFICIALLY PROMULGATED that read Pater, tu us solus Deus…only to have to be hastily withdrawn and rewritten (these things can happen with fabricated liturgies the pope entrusts to committees).

Everything the Church does bears **some **relationship to faith and morals, and the liturgy is surely a wonderful example of this. Nonetheless, the liturgy itself is neither more nor less than the particular form of the public worship of the Church as directed by proper authority in a particular time and place. The liturgical directives in force at any given time may tend to illuminate or obscure the fundamental mysteries which the liturgy enshrines, according to the wisdom and prudence (or lack thereof) of the competent authority (usually the Holy See). But liturgical directives remain human laws about how to do things, not definitions of faith and morals. As such, liturgical directives are not protected by the Holy Spirit in the same way that definitions of Faith are.
To put this another way, liturgical directives are matters of policy that affect the Faith, but not matters of Faith themselves. There is no guarantee of infallibility for Church policy. This in no way implies that liturgical directives are “unimportant”. They just aren’t matters of faith in and of themselves; they can, in fact, be good, bad or indifferent.

A moment’s reflection bears this out, for if they were matters of faith, then they would have to be, like the Faith itself, the same in all times.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

The priest making the statement. For a priest to claim that only five priests in an entire archdiocese “hold the faith” strikes me as someone with a very narrow, SSPX-ish view on things.

As usual, you ignored the simple questions that demonstrate the illogical nature of your emotional assertion.

You’re also now insulting a priest yourself. Hmm…

 

[ProVobis]

The link does not work…and you are attempting to say that Paul VI didn’t promulgate it correctly; that it was defective. Is that right?

More like lacked legal scholarship.

Try this one:

ihsv.com/suicide-liturgy.html

 

[ethelzguy]

As usual, you ignored the simple questions that demonstrate the illogical nature of your emotional assertion.

You’re also now insulting a priest yourself. Hmm…

Thank you Paul, for your usual arrogant, boring commentary.

You seem to enjoy following me around. Glad I can provide you with something to do.

I simply answered the question put forth by ProVobis. Sorry that you can’t see that. And yes, a priest that would insult his fellow clergy in that manner does raise an eyebrow.

And, I see by reading another thread, that you are now an expert on what constitutes “lukewarm” as referred to in Revelation. Ah, so typical.

 

[SFD]

No, you read things, SFD, and think you’re qualified to make dramatic pronouncements on what you read. “Infallibility” is far less inclusive than you would have us think, especially in the truly surreal world of Pauline liturgy pronouncements, where a liturgy was OFFICIALLY PROMULGATED that read Pater, tu us solus Deus…only to have to be hastily withdrawn and rewritten (these things can happen with fabricated liturgies the pope entrusts to committees).

AlexV:

No, they cannot…at least not according to sound Catholic theology. The above sounds similar to the Gallican error which was put to rest by the Vatican Council’s definition.

3. **The person endowed with the prerogative of infallibility is the currently-reigning Roman Thus (the Gallican theory says) the individual popes could err, but God would prevent “error from taking deep root” in the Roman see or Roman Church. In other words, God would see to it that an error committed by one pope would be swiftly repaired either by the same pope or at least by his successorpontiff. That is why the Gallican theory could not possibly be squared with the Vatican Council definition. The Gallicans make a distinction between the see and its occupant. **. Obviously this opinion is not reconcilable with the statement of the council that “the Roman pontiff,” is infallible when speaking ex cathedra; nor with the necessary conclusion of the same council: “and consequently definitions made by the same pontiff are of themselves, and not because of the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

The Gallicans wrongly appeal to Leo the Great’s epigram, “Sees are one thing, those who sit upon them another” (Epistula 106. 6). By that saying, Leo simply meant that the rights of a see do not depend upon the holiness of its occupant, “For even though those who occupy sees may differ at times in their merits, still the rights of the sees remain” (Epistula 119. 3).

“Infallibility” is far less inclusive than you would have us think…

What book did you read to learn this? It sounds a bit vague to me…like you don’t really know anything about the subject. Instead of being critical of me for reading and quoting Catholic authorities…you should wish to read these sources as well…and learn from them. A novel idea for many here.

SFD

 

[AlexV]

Go back and read my post about Paul’s “infallible” promulgation of “Pater, tu es solus Deus.”

 

[SFD]

Go back and read my post about Paul’s “infallible” promulgation of “Pater, tu es solus Deus.”

Why? What is your point? I know why you deny Catholic teaching…and at a minimum theologically certain doctrine…in order to mantain your beliefs about a certain papal claimant.

Your best position would be to say Paul VI didn’t promulgate it correctly at all and it’s never been in force in the Church.

SFD

 

[AlexV]

SFD, your problem is you can do nothing but quote documents you’re not qualified to interpret.

As for your “papal claimant” comment, whatever. You like to make assumptions, I know.

Paul VI promulgated a Mass ordinary that contained a heresy that had to be hastily withdrawn and corrected. Bugnini’s memoirs reveal that often Paul would sign his name to folders he hadn’t read through, giving a note to the effect that he “trusted” the committee members.

I don’t “deny Catholic teaching”. I’m just not an internet-educated Catholic.

 

[SFD]

SFD, your problem is you can do nothing but quote documents you’re not qualified to interpret.

As for your “papal claimant” comment, whatever. You like to make assumptions, I know.

Paul VI promulgated a Mass ordinary that contained a heresy that had to be hastily withdrawn and corrected. Bugnini’s memoirs reveal that often Paul would sign his name to folders he hadn’t read through, giving a note to the effect that he “trusted” the committee members.

I don’t “deny Catholic teaching”. I’m just not an internet-educated Catholic.

Neither am I. What we disagree on is whether a true pope can promulgate a false liturgy even for a moment in time…and then correct it later. How he did this does not matter…he can’t do it according to theologically certain teaching.

One need not “interpret” dogmatic theology manuals…they explain the mind of the Church with respect to her teachings. I’ve quoted the official EXPLANATIONS of Catholic doctrines. Though I do agree that one can get into a great deal of trouble interpreting and misapplying the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent.

SFD

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Thank you Paul, for your usual arrogant, boring commentary.

You seem to enjoy following me around. Glad I can provide you with something to do.

I simply answered the question put forth by ProVobis. Sorry that you can’t see that. And yes, a priest that would insult his fellow clergy in that manner does raise an eyebrow.

And, I see by reading another thread, that you are now an expert on what constitutes “lukewarm” as referred to in Revelation. Ah, so typical.

Ethel,

Here are the problems I have with your posts:

1. You very frequently and easily descend into the realm of personal insult.
2. You play fast & loose with words and logic and either ignore the reply (almost always) or get (obviously) very angry when called on it (despite the smileys and passive-aggressive insults). Example: you can’t use a word like ‘schismatic’ to describe something that is obviously nothing of the kind and expect to not get called on it. (As for me following you around - yes, I’ve got the duty. You’re not yet on my ignore list as you are on so many others here.)
3. Related to the above, you constantly engage in the twisting of words and non-sequiturs (this means you draw a conclusion that is not supported by any evidence).

You are here criticizing - slandering - a churchmen that you don’t know. Yet, for weeks here you based your entire position on the vague & loose proposition that it is disobedient to the Church to ever criticize any churchman for anything - every time anybody posted literally anything critical of any churchman, you replied with your little “I’m rolling on the floor laughing cause you so funny you think you’re better than the Church” routine. The clear contradiction - of your entire position, or at least your recent former position - appears to be lost on you.

[When I finally got you to post anything of substance, after many posts of nothing but insults and barbs, your first move was to state your rejection of the Pope’s words as Cardinal Ratzinger regarding the state of the liturgy. You, of course, declined to reply when it was pointed out how ridiculous that was in light of your previous postings.]

Your comment above regarding my quotation of the Revelations “lukewarm” passage brings many of these things into highlight. You’ve made a personal dig, off-topic, and one that is a complete non-sequitur, and illustrates your habit of putting words in people’s mouths to make a point that isn’t there.

If it makes you feel any better, you are getting closer to getting on my ignore list.

Let’s see if you’re still around here posting in a year and how many people are bothering to respond to you.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Ethel, I’d like to extend an olive branch. I’m tired of this.

My response here initially was a little goading. It is uncharitable to bring up the past. This has gotten too personal.

I’ll even let you have the last go.

I’m not saying I’m never going to respond to anything you write here - but I’ll clean the slate.