M
malphono
Guest
David, that is oh so true!!!
- Status
C
Carl_Abbate
Guest
No it was not forbiden in vatican 2 , anyone that can read the document from vat 2 or read ‘‘motu proprio’’ from last year by our present pope would readily see that it was not forbidden. The catholic bishops in the usa totally destroyed the true meaning of vat 2when those documents regarding the liturgy indicated that the venacular can be used in certain parts of the mass but it never indicated the total removal of the LATIN. Our present pope wants to ‘‘reform the reform’’ and that is so very needed today. In our little parish we used to pray a few responses in the mass in latin until they started a liturgy committee last month and then we were told that canon law forbids latin in the mass. So much for a liturgy committee that does not understand the basics of our catholicism…the mass. Why are so many catholics that claim to be well versed in catholicism so unfamiliar with true catholic liturgy and prayers. This new liturgy committee actually stopped our praying of st.michaels prayer that our pope wants to restore at the end of mass.
M
malphono
Guest
Canon Law “forbids” no such thing, and the sooner they in the so-clled “liturgy committee” learn it the better. But are you saying that they are overruling the pastor? Or is it that the pastor just does what they want? If the latter, the pastor has problems, and if so, maybe the bishop can help. (That’s a big “if” and depends on the bishop.)
Whatever, though, the so-called “liturgy committee” is on the wrong track, and the train has left the station. In it’s purest state, the “reform of the reform” of the OF, is ad orientem celebration in Latin. I wouldn’t necessarily expect that from most parish churches, but even a step-by-step approach is a start.
T
Timothysis
Guest
Thank you , Doc!
T
Timothysis
Guest
*"“Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this letter or heedlessly to venture to go contrary to this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult declaration, will decree and prohibition. Should anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.” *
If one had to face the wrath of Almighty God, what would be left to endure when handed over to the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul? This was a conventional legal formula in papal documents of the day. Pope Pius X had no fear when Quod a Vobis included the same warning against changing the Breviary; he did indeed change it in 1911. It isn’t that the latin meaning has changed , it is the intentional hyperbole that need be understood.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Point well taken. But we do confess to them during the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar so Pope Pius V did have a point too.
Hey, come to think of it, these Apostles are also mentioned in EP1. Now you still want to risk the wrath of Sts Peter and Paul?
L
Layman
Guest
opendemocracy.net/article/yes/rediscovering-traditionalism
“(The most popular English Catholic newspaper, The Universe, informed its readers on 26th November that year that `as from this Sunday it is forbidden to offer Mass in the Tridentine rite anywhere in the world.’)”
I read somewhere else that it was this announcement, in this paper, that was a big influence.
Also, I think if you had two Masses available simultaneously, if might lead to unflattering comparisons and trouble for the bishops. So it was clamped down on.
I think the post-Vat. II changes will in time be seen as an iconoclasm, a collective madness. What a response to an increasingly vicious world; do away with a venerable Christian rite!
“(The most popular English Catholic newspaper, The Universe, informed its readers on 26th November that year that `as from this Sunday it is forbidden to offer Mass in the Tridentine rite anywhere in the world.’)”
I read somewhere else that it was this announcement, in this paper, that was a big influence.
Also, I think if you had two Masses available simultaneously, if might lead to unflattering comparisons and trouble for the bishops. So it was clamped down on.
I think the post-Vat. II changes will in time be seen as an iconoclasm, a collective madness. What a response to an increasingly vicious world; do away with a venerable Christian rite!
S
savienu
Guest
There’s a Tridentine Mass in Troy, NY that has been offered, with an indult from the Bishop, since 2000.
T
Timothysis
Guest
Not if the only choice is between crucifixion and beheading!Hey, come to think of it, these Apostles are also mentioned in EP1. Now you still want to risk the wrath of Sts Peter and Paul?
U
una_fides
Guest
When did any pope ever ban the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM)? If you can show me where a pope forbade the use of the TLM, then we can talk about that. Otherwise, those bishops are bound under the rule and laws established by prior popes. That encyclical clearly states and in those times as with ours would have been clearly understood to mean that no one can forbid its use. I’m not entirely sure if a future pope could or could not be bound by the laws set into place by a previous pope, for if a pope–the highest authority in the Church–said that a particular of law is established forever, then how could his equal, a future pope, overrule his decision? It seems to me that only a higher authority could undo a perpetually established law and that an equal authority would not have the ability to do so. I honestly have not studied what the doctors and traditional theologians have commented on that specific matter; nevertheless, such speculation is immaterial to our conversation, since no pope has ever forbid the TLM! Those who have suppressed and forbidden the use of the TLM were mere bishops and priests who did so on a local level. Because they are the subjects of the pope, they are also bound by laws that popes have established universally. Thus, those bishops and priests who acted in disobedience to the clear directives in Quo Primum have merited the wrath of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, meaning that they will be judged harshly for their evil actions.
U
una_fides
Guest
Why in the world anyone would remove prayers invoking the intercession of saints and angels and remove the references to the Mass as a sacrifice makes absolutely no sense to me. “Ecumenical purposes” do not seem to justify by any means the removal of such great helps as the intercession of the saints and the exorcism of catechumens in the baptismal rite. After V2, the influx of modernism into the hierarchy of the Church is nothing short of astounding and most disturbing. Nevertheless, no matter how close Satan gets to destroying the Church, I thank God for His promise that the gates of hell will not ultimately prevail against her. Though she may go through troubled waters and storms, and though many of her crewmen may try to steer her astray, the Ark of salvation, the Church, will reach its eternal destiny, as Christ promised.
I always bear in mind the words of faithful St. Athanasius when he encountered the majority of the world’s bishops endorsing the Arian heresy: “Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ” (AD 373).
Let us pray more fervently than ever and offer up our penance for the bishops and the pope that they will guide the Church in the right direction, suppress the modernist heresies, and stand up for the Truth in the face of great adversity.
I always bear in mind the words of faithful St. Athanasius when he encountered the majority of the world’s bishops endorsing the Arian heresy: “Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ” (AD 373).
Let us pray more fervently than ever and offer up our penance for the bishops and the pope that they will guide the Church in the right direction, suppress the modernist heresies, and stand up for the Truth in the face of great adversity.
L
Layman
Guest
I think it would have been a brave priest who would have asked his bishop for permission to do a TLM. I have the idea it might have ‘marked him down’ so to speak. No one would need to say anything, just ‘an understanding’.
Then when the next generation of priests don’t actually know how to do one anyway, the TLM fades away.
Nothing outright sinister. Just an institution trying not to ‘rock the boat’.
Then when the next generation of priests don’t actually know how to do one anyway, the TLM fades away.
Nothing outright sinister. Just an institution trying not to ‘rock the boat’.
T
Timothysis
Guest
A current pope cannot bind a future pope. The pope, as the supreme head of the Church, is not even subject to Canon law; he can dispense with it if he wishes. The “perpetually established law” that is often referred to has to do with the promulgation of the Tridentine missal. Pope Paul VI, as head of the Church, acted under his authorization to reform the Roman Rite missal, and so we now have the Pauline missal which celebrates Mass according to the reforms of Pope Paul VI. Pope Benedict has declared that the Roman Rite liturgy has two forms; the Ordinary form, as contained in the Missal of Pope Paul VI and the Extraordinary form, as contained in the Tridentine missal, 1962 edition (now there’s a quandary for you!). Perhaps this might clear things a little:
*"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.” *
If a current pope could bind a future pope , then why the need for the papacy? Why not have everything laid down, signed, sealed and delivered once and for all? Because that would be very impractical.
Once again, you assume that Quo Primum has bound bishops and priests. From 1570 on bishops and priests celebrated Mass in the form of the liturgy of the Roman Rite, as established in the Tridentine missal. From 1970 they celebrated Mass in the form of the Missal of Pope Paul VI. Unless a priest is a member of an order that has permission to celebrate Mass with a different liturgy they are obliged to use the current missal. This doesn’t even take into account the fact that Quo Primum only suppressed those liturgies less than 200 years old, so there are any number of liturgies being celebrated in the latin rite.
O
Ottaviani
Guest
We need popes because new heresies arise. This is a common misunderstanding of the working of tradition. Tradition is not only “the way is was” but it is also the organic changes that develop through continued revelation through time. One example would be the Real Presence. Many argue that since that dogma was not established in the early Church, it doesn’t comport with “tradition”. Tradition however accepts new dogmas and revelations, and fixes them for ALL time.
That being said, by your argument a pope could dispense with the whole magisterium. ever heard of an anti-pope? The pope is the supreme head of the church, but cannot usurp the scriptures. The Mass, whose organic tradition PRE DATES THE BIBLE, comes not from any pope, but from Christ himself. The pauline missal dispensed with this organic tradition, and lead to the crisis we now face.
I keep hearing Fulton Sheen’s words on the widely circulated Easter Mass video from 1944 (I think) “the Church never drops from her worship, any of those things that had a place” (I’m paraphrasing) using the example of the cope. this, of course, was before the “new springtime”
T
Timothysis
Guest
I was not advocating the abolishing of the pope nor the magisterium. I said the following in response to the assertion that no future pope could undo what a current pope does:
"If a current pope could bind a future pope , then why the need for the papacy? Why not have everything laid down, signed, sealed and delivered once and for all? Because that would be very impractical."
Please, not again. You have never shown this statement to be true, prefering to tell me to “pull (my) head out of the sand.” The Pauline missal and the document of Vatican II contain the continuous Traditions of the Church, even if YOU don’t like the way they are celebrated.
O
Ottaviani
Guest
hmm… I’m really sure you didn’t understand what I posted, or I simply didn’t express myself clearly enough. That’s ok. You skipped over the heresy part.
and as for my preferences, they’ve nothing to do with it. But I guess placing the Mass of all time into a preferential pigeon hole can be an effective rhetorical tool to the untrained eye. Vatican II “contains traditions” this is true, but they are laden with enough ambiguity to allow for interpreting them in any legion of ways. Which really begs the question, because you’re likely going to give me the “well they shouldn’t abuse the NO” … if they didn’t want the wacky interpretations, why did they use so much ambiguity?
For the record, I RUN whenever I hear something is “open for interpretation”.
oh, and the TLM is, was, and never will be abrogated (in kindness to the original poster). What bugs me is why so many bishops are so adamant about limiting it. It’s like being afraid of your own flesh and blood. weird huh?
P
ProVobis
Guest
When did Christ say this? When did Peter say this? When did ANY Pope say this? Did any council say this? Where do you guys make this stuff up or did some bishop on the west coast convince you?
The Church is the Church and will always be the Church. Popes are there to defend the faith and not to compete with one another in popularity or authority.
Are you saying he is above the law? This is very dangerous thinking.
The need for papacy is to PRESERVE the faith, not to abuse one’s authority. Paul VI had a pastoral mission from God, to promulgate a new Mass for pastoral reasons, clarify moral laws, and that’s it. He had no divine power nor could he change divine law. And he certainly had no authority to abrogate a divine Catholic rite to suit his agenda.
T
Timothysis
Guest
Surely you are just being argumentative. The argument about Quo Primum is always that Pope Pius V established the Tridentine missal “in perpetuity,” with the implication that it can never be revised or replaced. It implies that Pope Pius V established a discipline that no other future pope may change. Canon law itself does not even allow such a circumstance, recognizing in Canon 22 that "if the later law is equally general or equally particular with the former one, a later law repeals the former one, if it contains an explicit statement to that effect, a repealing clause." Did Christ, Peter, ANY pope, council or some “guys” make this stuff up? No, it is embodied in the law of the Church.
Actually, many people here have stated that the pope, as supreme legislator of Canon law, is not bound by these same laws. The pope can waive the law whenever he feels the need to. It has happened in the past. Is it dangerous thinking? Only if the pope has a streak of evil or malignancy in him. But the popes of the past several centuries have been very decent and worthy men. I seriously doubt that they spend the day conniving about circumventing the law.
Agreed.
Wrong. As pope he has every right to reform the missal, just as Pope Pius V had every right to issue his missal, many popes after had the right to reform Pope Pius V’s missal, and Pope Pius X had the right to reform the breviary, even though it contained the same “in perpetuity” clause as Quo Primum. I have no idea what “abrogate a divine Catholic rite” pertains to. If you mean reform the missal, then you are mistaken, and the “agenda” you refer to was the intention of the Second Vatican Council, just like Pope Pius V’s missal was issued by the intention of the Council of Trent.
U
una_fides
Guest
Timothy…
Two things real quick. First, can you please show me the document where Pope Paul VI references the TLM or that you say replaces the Traditional Rite with the Novus Ordo. I have never actually read the document, and I would be interested to see what it actually says rather than what others have commented on it.
Second, you must realize that as you said the Pope is absolutely above canon law, which is by nature temporary. If the pope, however, makes a law and says that it must be in place forever, then can you please tell me when forever ends. That law would therefore be not simply a temporary canon law but would be rather a fixed law that the pope said that no one in the future could abrogate. The fact that a future pope (Benedict XVI) refers to the TLM as the EF and the NO as the OF does not mean that the TLM has been abrogated or replaced, which according to Quo Primum can never happen. Again, I don’t see at all how you refuted my argument that a priest or bishop who refuses to permit the TLM is not bound by a law established as an eternal law by a previous pope. You have not provided the actual text from Paul VI that clearly declares that the TLM was abrogated or officially forbidden by him and even if Paul VI said something like that the question still remains as to whether a pope who is of the same authority as a previous pope can say that a law that a prior pope said would continue forever could be abrogated.
Two things real quick. First, can you please show me the document where Pope Paul VI references the TLM or that you say replaces the Traditional Rite with the Novus Ordo. I have never actually read the document, and I would be interested to see what it actually says rather than what others have commented on it.
Second, you must realize that as you said the Pope is absolutely above canon law, which is by nature temporary. If the pope, however, makes a law and says that it must be in place forever, then can you please tell me when forever ends. That law would therefore be not simply a temporary canon law but would be rather a fixed law that the pope said that no one in the future could abrogate. The fact that a future pope (Benedict XVI) refers to the TLM as the EF and the NO as the OF does not mean that the TLM has been abrogated or replaced, which according to Quo Primum can never happen. Again, I don’t see at all how you refuted my argument that a priest or bishop who refuses to permit the TLM is not bound by a law established as an eternal law by a previous pope. You have not provided the actual text from Paul VI that clearly declares that the TLM was abrogated or officially forbidden by him and even if Paul VI said something like that the question still remains as to whether a pope who is of the same authority as a previous pope can say that a law that a prior pope said would continue forever could be abrogated.
U
una_fides
Guest
Wrong. A current pope can absolutely bind a future pope. Any infallible declaration for example does exactly that. No future pope can contradict sacred Tradition or establish anything contrary. The question is whether a pope can bind a future pope concerning temporal matters. The answer would seem to be that no he could not unless he established a temporal law that he said must endure forever until the end of time and that no one could change it.
- Status