Would you like to see a phasing out of the Novus Ordo Missae leading to a return to only the TLM?

[Aragorn1]

Most modern Catholics are guilty of Papal idolatry.

Straw man (yet again). And who set the trads up in judgment over their inferior modern neo-Catholics? You’re getting dangerously close to integralism.

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, he is not God.

True.

There are limitations to the office.

True, but liturgy is not one of them. The Pope is fallible in some areas but still authoritative. He is the Supreme Authority in the Church.

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the **discipline and government **of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

Was Vatican I indulging in Papal Idolatry?

The Pope is a man. Like any other man, he can use his free will for good or evil.

True.

He can be a great Pope, who follows God’s will, the magisterium, tradition.

True. (Though I don’t like how you continually fail to define “tradition”)

He can also use his free will to be weak or evil.

True.

A Pope can be a bad Pope who teaches error and does not govern.

He cannot teach error infallibly, but other than that, True.

So what’s your point?

 

[Aragorn1]

Ok but if it didnt pertain to Dogma why were the reformers condemned and executed by stake burning? Thats all im gonna aks

I meant that what we’re discussing here (differences between liturgies) does not directly pertain to dogma. The reformers were executed for their heresies regarding dogma, not for proposing liturgical changes.

 

[saint_rafael]

This seems to be an argument over semantics… Very well then, the OF is a different usage of the same rite (in B16’s own words).

It is not a usage of the same rite, but an indult. An indult can be controlled by the local bishop. The OF makes it seem that the N.O. is the “ordinary” Roman Rite, when the TLM is the only Roman Rite. The truth is that the TLM should have been the normal Mass, while the New Mass should have had the restrictions of the 1988 so called “indult”.

No, the OF de facto superseded the EF when it was promulgated (though the latter was never juridically abrogated). B16 granted an indult for the previous usage, which was very generous of him as he did not have to do it (and it disgusts me to see the lack of thanks he gets for it by some trads)

**
That was an error. Quo Primas was an Ex-Cathedra decree that stated that the TLM could never be superceded. No Pope has power to make it an indult. It forever must remain the Roman rite. Pope Benedict in Summorum Pontificum rebuked Pope Paul VI who tried to supercede it. Hoevwer, Pope BXVI also made an error by triyng to put the New mass together with the TLM.**

By what criteria do you reject the OF then? One could just as easily say that the Mass of Paul VI is a Missal and not a different rite, and that the Roman rite has been the same from Trent until 2008! What is the essential difference between the changes in the past and the changes of 1970? The Missal of John XXIII removed the second Confiteor (before Communion). How is that not removing a section of the Mass? How do you define a “section of the Mass”? What objective standards can we use here so that we’re not merely debating semantics?

This is the whole argument.
The Missal of Paul VI was a complete break from the TLM. It was a completely new creation. It was not the Roman rite that Quo Primas said with infallibility, would remain forever. It was a completely New Mass! The name itself says it: Novus Ordo= New Order. It’s a break from traditional Catholic faith.

 

[Aragorn1]

There is no contradiction.

The New Mass was based on a ordinane. The TLM was guaranteed to be the Roman Rite forever by the power of Papal infallibility in Quo Primas. I never said the old Mass was dogma. I said the the document of Quo Primas was a decree rooted in dogma and was an Ex-Cathedra statement.

The Latin Mass is guaranteed to survive as the Roman rite because of an Ex-Cathedra statement that it would be forever.
The Church has used it’s infallibility with the TLM.

Just thought I’d add to everyone else’s counter-arguments against this theory…

From Cardinal Stickler, a favorite among traditionalists:

We have no official prohibition [of the EF] and I think that the Pope would never establish an official prohibition, not because of the words of Pius V, who said this was a Mass forever. Those words of Pius V were common for an important decision of the Pope. He always said, “This is valid forever.” But this was not a theological, it was not a dogmatic statement, this decree of the Pope promulgating his Tridentine Mass order. And so it could be changed by his successors…
In Italian, they say that one pope gives the bull and another takes the bull again, that is, he can change the disposition of his predecessor…

Interview with “Latin Mass Magazine” on the Tridentine Mass (Summer 1995 Issue).

 

[EasterJoy]

Ok but if it didnt pertain to Dogma why were the reformers condemned and executed by stake burning? Thats all im gonna aks

I’d say that the willingness to die for a truth speaks more for it’s capital “T” Truth than a person’s willingness to kill somebody else over it. In addition, we all know that human beings have been willing to die for things which are not True, in the strict sense of being in total agreement with Catholic dogma.

Dogma is to be believed. It is that which has been handed down by the Apostles, as taught to us by those given the authority to do so by the Holy Spirit, by the means and under the circumstances under which the Holy Spirit guarantees that these teachers are to be trusted.

How a man acts, save how Jesus acted: this is not dogma.

 

[Aragorn1]

It is not a usage of the same rite, but an indult. An indult can be controlled by the local bishop. The OF makes it seem that the N.O. is the “ordinary” Roman Rite, when the TLM is the only Roman Rite. The truth is that the TLM should have been the normal Mass, while the New Mass should have had the restrictions of the 1988 so called “indult”.

All you’re doing here is begging the question, when you say the EF is the only Roman Rite.

That was an error. Quo Primas was an Ex-Cathedra decree that stated that the TLM could never be superceded. No Pope has power to make it an indult. It forever must remain the Roman rite. Pope Benedict in Summorum Pontificum rebuked Pope Paul VI who tried to supercede it. Hoevwer, Pope BXVI also made an error by triyng to put the New mass together with the TLM.

No it’s not an error, and if you think it is why don’t you tell him?

About Quo Primas, see the quote by Cardinal Stickler above.

This is the whole argument.
The Missal of Paul VI was a complete break from the TLM. It was a completely new creation. It was not the Roman rite that Quo Primas said with infallibility, would remain forever. It was a completely New Mass! The name itself says it: Novus Ordo= New Order. It’s a break from traditional Catholic faith.

The name proves nothing… this whole argument is turning into a ridiculous semantics game. Maybe instead of pounding the table and asserting over and over again that the OF is a break with tradition in the hope that some of the less critical here will take you at your word, you could try to show us how the OF is a break with tradition.

 

[LilyM]

I see what you are saying and it makes some sense. I was wondering, on the subject of multiple rites, what ever happened to the Medieval liturgies(Sarum, Gallican, Mozarabic, and of course Ambrosian)? I m under the impression that they were abrogated by Trent, becasue the TLM is a hybrid of all of them. But either way that still proves the point. If the NO is celebrated according to the ritual and not stuffed with abuses, then we have pretty much the same situation as the Middle Ages, multiple forms of more or less the same rite. Now obviously, they all had the title of “Rite” but they all were Roman atleast in style and in allegiance to the Pope of course. But does anyone know if these ancient forms are still used in places, legally, i mean?

Absolutely at least some of 'em are and always have been - in fact Trent (IIRC) ONLY supplanted Rites that had sprung up within the two centuries prior to the council, anything earlier than that was still fine to use.

So the Ambrosian is still regularly celebrated in the area of Milan, Italy, and the Mozarabic in the region of Toledo, Spain. Certain orders, such as the Dominicans and Carmelites, have also always had their own traditional Rites, which are celebrated at various places in the world that are under the control of these orders. All with full permission and approval of the Vatican.

 

[Aragorn1]

Those words affect the consecration and transubstantiation.
The Mass would be invalid without the Roman Cannon.
The Roman Cannon has been used since the first and second centuries. The Roman Cannon is the first Eucharistic Prayer. It is hardly used by priests in the New Mass. They used the second prayer because it’s short and not offensive to Protestants.
The fact that the Roman Cannon is preserved in the Missal of Paul VI saved it’s validity.
Without the first Eucharistic prayer in the Missal, the Mass would be invalid.

On what grounds do you distinguish validity of Mass and validity of consecration?

So you think most OF Masses are invalid? And where are you getting your information from? Oh wait, don’t tell me. I already know.

To understand how the sacrafice is deemphasized, just compare the missal of John XXII and Paul VI side by side. It is clear when you compare both of them and look at the prayers.

No, I’m not going to do your research for you. How 'bout you enlighten us with some specific examples? The burden of proof is on you, my friend.

Incidentally, traditionalist apologist Robert Sungenis had the following to say about your theory:

The word “sacrifice” or its equivalents appear over 10 times in the Novus Ordo. There is no “de-emphasis” on the sacrificial. That is a myth propagated by various people with their own agenda. Don’t believe everything you read. Check it out for yourself. The Novus Ordo Mass is a valid and legitimate Mass that confects the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and it is worthy of our attendance. What is not worthy of our attendance is when today’s liberals desecrate the Novus Ordo with all their worldly accretions… [t]here is nothing objectively wrong with the Novus Ordo. Those who say it is sacrilegious and blasphemous are themselves blaspheming a Mass that God has allowed to be practiced in the Church by dogmatic order of the supreme pontiff. If you compare the Traditional Mass with the Novus Ordo, side by side, except for a few places, they are almost the same. I’ve done the study on this and can confirm its accuracy. It is not the Mass that is the problem. It is the people who are the problem. It is people who abuse the Novus Ordo, and until the Vatican puts the clamps on these renegades, we will continue to have the same problems. The Catholic Church, for the last 40 years, has been very lax in disciplining its wayward members. Until that happens, no change will occur.

Source

Now that’s more like it.

 

[Aragorn1]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3585761&postcount=456

I’m still waiting.

 

[saint_rafael]

True, but liturgy is not one of them. The Pope is fallible in some areas but still authoritative. He is the Supreme Authority in the Church.

It’s true that the Pope has jurisdiction over liturgy, but there is the limitation from Quo Primas. All Popes are forever bound and limted by Quo Primas because it was an Ex-Cathedra statement from Pius V and the Church has spoken with an infallible vioce in regards to the TLM. No Pope can ever contradict or remove the decree from Quo Primas.

Vatican I actually defined the Papacy and limited his power. It stated the Pope was to guard and protect the faith. Vatican I stated that the Pope could never invent new dogma and was infallible only with Ex-Cathedra statements.

So what’s your point?

**
My point is that Catholics on this forum and modern Catholics in general, believe that everything Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII, BXVI did, said, does is holy and infallible. That they were guided by the holy spirit in every word and action. That there were no errors.**
**
truth:
We have not had a governing Pope who governed and disciplined the Church effectively since Pius XII. I believe we had had a succession of four extremely weak Papacies. Some of them had doctrinal errors and made numerious blunders.

It is not out of the realm of possibility that a future Pope or Council, 25-100 years from now, will declare one or two of these men as heretics**.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I was curious, is it is the hope of anyone here eventually have the Church totally revert back to pre-Vatican II liturgies, eventually eliminating the newer form of the Mass.

Yes, I pray every night that the Novus Ordo will be done away with.

 

[saint_rafael]

No it’s not an error, and if you think it is why don’t you tell him?
About Quo Primas, see the quote by Cardinal Stickler above…

People have been telling the Vatican about this problem for years. The Popes have been weak and the modernist cardinal mafia has had control of the Vatican for years.

Cardinal Stickler was mistaken. That is his own private opinion. He does not speak for the magisterium. The Popes and Churchmen from Pope Pius V to Pope John XXIII have disagreed with his assessment.

The name proves nothing… this whole argument is turning into a ridiculous semantics game. Maybe instead of pounding the table and asserting over and over again that the OF is a break with tradition in the hope that some of the less critical here will take you at your word, you could try to show us how the OF is a break with tradition.

This is how it is a break from tradition:

fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

 

[holdencaulfield]

Don’t worry the NO will go away. The flames of Hades will not overtake the Church.

 

[EasterJoy]

It is not out of the realm of possibility that a future Pope or Council, 25-100 years from now, will declare one or two of these men as heretics

.

The Pope, declared a heretic by his successor? And on what basis would the succession of the latter be valid, then, since he himself succeeded a heretic? On what basis could he claim his own authority?

“I don’t think so, Tim!”

 

[holdencaulfield]

The Pope, declared a heretic by his successor? And on what basis would the succession of the latter be valid, then, since he himself succeeded a heretic? On what basis could he claim his own authority?

“I don’t think so, Tim!”

I believe that any Pope could deem another as a heretic, that is assuming they were indeed. However I think calling an Ecumenical Council to decide the issue would be more official, however we know how councils go (looks around Vatican II)

 

[EasterJoy]

People have been telling the Vatican about this problem for years. The Popes have been weak and the modernist cardinal mafia has had control of the Vatican for years.

You make it sound as if these Popes were pulled out of a different pond than the rest of the College of Cardinals. Do you think the College of Cardinals–I believe the word you used for that section that you believe held the real power at the Vatican was “mafia”–chose as their heads men whom they knew to be in disagreement with them, but whom they knew to be so weak that they could push them around?

I don’t know the other Popes, but do you also really believe that John Paul II and Benedict XVI were pushed around in their papacies…that the two of them, when they were for over two decades Pope and Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, respectively, were not able to withstand the pressure from those below them to resist doing what they knew to be right?

This theory is all a bit much to believe. What was done or failed to be done in the Vatican in those years, surely these two would take full responsibility, and not blame those under them for any lapses.

 

[EasterJoy]

I believe that any Pope could deem another as a heretic, that is assuming they were indeed. However I think calling an Ecumenical Council to decide the issue would be more official, however we know how councils go (looks around Vatican II)

Charity would preclude taking it as a certainty, but I would suspect any Pope who calls a “Vatican III” in my life time or that of my children might have lost his mind. If several centuries go by before that exercise is tried again, I would not be surprised.

BTW…we have had some truly awful Popes in our long history. I know there were years when there wasn’t a duly elected Pope, but has any of the Popes still considered to be in the official line ever been declared a heretic?

Besides, the present Popes have left it open for their successors to phase out the NO and withhold permission to use it, as a discipline, just as the TLM was. Why a successor would not use that means is beyond me.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The Pope, declared a heretic by his successor? And on what basis would the succession of the latter be valid, then, since he himself succeeded a heretic? On what basis could he claim his own authority?

“I don’t think so, Tim!”

I believe that any Pope could deem another as a heretic, that is assuming they were indeed. However I think calling an Ecumenical Council to decide the issue would be more official, however we know how councils go (looks around Vatican II)

Do you think maybe faith and morals infallibility doctrine plays a part in this.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[saint_rafael]

On what grounds do you distinguish validity of Mass and validity of consecration?

So you think most OF Masses are invalid? And where are you getting your information from? Oh wait, don’t tell me. I already know…

I am not distinguishing. Some people have claimed invalidity because of the consecration formula but that is a separate issue. I agree with you that makes the Mass valid. My point was that without the first Eucharistic prayer, the consecration. wouldn’t matter because it would be invalid.

Whether they say the first prayer or not during Mass is not important. However, the Roman Cannon should be given greater weight and importance.
All N.O. Masses are valid because they put the Roman Cannon in the Missal in 1969. The Cannon is wriiten in all the Missals.

My source:
“Liturgical Shipwreck 25 years of the New Mass” by Michael Davies. 1994 from TAN books.
tanbooks.com/

No, I’m not going to do your research for you. How 'bout you enlighten us with some specific examples? The burden of proof is on you, my friend.
Incidentally, traditionalist apologist Robert Sungenis had the following to say about your theory

I am not about to go line for line from the two Missals here. I don’t have the time to write a book about this here on this forum. If you are interested you can do it.
The Ottaviani Intervention is a better resource. You can read his essay.
fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

Robert Sungenis is great on Biblical studies, science, and creation, but he is all over the place when it comes to tradition and everything else. Robert Sungenis once said that there is no difference between the missals of Popes John XXIII and Paul VI. That is truly delusional. Robert Sungenis is stuck between Novus Ordo land and Tradition.

 

[LilyM]

I am not distinguishing. Some people have claimed invalidity because of the consecration formula but that is a separate issue. I agree with you that makes the Mass valid. My point was that without the first Eucharistic prayer, the consecration. wouldn’t matter because it would be invalid.

Whether they say the first prayer or not during Mass is not important. However, the Roman Cannon should be given greater weight and importance.
All N.O. Masses are valid because they put the Roman Cannon in the Missal in 1969. The Cannon is wriiten in all the Missals.

My source:
“Liturgical Shipwreck 25 years of the New Mass” by Michael Davies. 1994 from TAN books.
tanbooks.com/

I am not about to go line for line from the two Missals here. I don’t have the time to write a book about this here on this forum. If you are interested you can do it.
The Ottaviani Intervention is a better resource. You can read his essay.
fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

Robert Sungenis is great on Biblical studies, science, and creation, but he is all over the place when it comes to tradition and everything else. Robert Sungenis once said that there is no difference between the missals of Popes John XXIII and Paul VI. That is truly delusional. Robert Sungenis is stuck between Novus Ordo land and Tradition.

If my understanding is correct, the Church long ago made up its mind as to what makes for a valid sacrament - and it’s determined by the actual words of consecration (‘this is my body … this is my blood’) and has nothing to do with which Canon or Eucharistic prayer as a whole is used.

There aren’t two separate sacraments confected in the Mass requiring two separate forms. There is only ONE sacrament - the Eucharist - and as long as the words of consecration are correct the Eucharist, and therefore the Mass, are by definition valid. Any other issues of form are issues of licitness, not validity.

Where do you get the idea that the Roman Canon has to be used for the Eucharist or Mass to be valid as opposed to licit?