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

[Aragorn1]

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.

The Pope is only infallible in matters of faith or morals (and then, only when he issues an official statement in his capacity as the Supreme Pontiff and binds all the faithful to his definition). The EF is a matter of liturgy. Liturgy changes, faith and morals do not. And I have yet to see a single sound argument that Quo Primas is irrevokable and binding even on future Popes.

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.

And I showed that I never denied any of the propositions you put forward. Your accusation of “papalolotry” is a straw man argument, plain and simple. You’re painting with an extremely broad brush here.

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

.

You’re drifting dangerously close to sedevacantism here.

And speculating on the future is not pertinent to this discussion. Frankly I don’t care what you think about the next hundred years with respect to past Popes.

 

[saint_rafael]

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!”

**Pope Honorius was declared a heretic for the heresy of Monothelitism.

The Third Council of Constantinople declared him a heretic. This was the Sixth Universisal Ecumenical Church Council.

Pope Leo II later also confirmed this decision by declaring Pope Honorius a heretic.**

 

[holdencaulfield]

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.

A Vatican III would only be worthwhile if it phased out all of the NO, like get rid of the NO all together. That would be preferable. Pope Honorius is an example of a heretic. Pope Leo IX was another example of a near heretic Pope because he randomly excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople for something that he didn’t do. And lastly I believe that Pope Paul VI was a heretic as well for creating the Novus Ordo. The Liturgy of the Catholic Church is Ordinary Magisterium and it goes against good conscience to change it. With that said I still believe that the NO is valid, I just think that it was a poor poor choice. I know that Heresy can’t be valid, I didn’t say the NO is, just the way Pope Paul VI implemented it.

 

[holdencaulfield]

**Pope Honorius was declared a heretic for the heresy of Monothelitism.

The Third Council of Constantinople declared him a heretic. This was the Sixth Universisal Ecumenical Church Council.

Pope Leo II later also confirmed this decision by declaring Pope Honorius a heretic.**

Yes thank you, because Popes are fallible people. Many of these “Neo-Catholics” don’t understand this.

 

[saint_rafael]

You’re drifting dangerously close to sedevacantism here.

And speculating on the future is not pertinent to this discussion. Frankly I don’t care what you think about the next hundred years with respect to past Popes.

All I said is that the last Popes haven’t governed effectively and used their authority to discipline.The future Churchmen will have to decide anything further.

It seems both you and that “group” have the same thing in common: Papal Idolatry. You both deny that a Pope can fall into heresy. The Popes are men so they can fall into heresy and error with their free will.

This has already happened in Church history:

Pope Honorius was declared a heretic for the heresy of Monothelitism.

The Third Council of Constantinople declared him a heretic. This was the Sixth Universisal Ecumenical Church Council.

Pope Leo II later also confirmed this decision by declaring Pope Honorius a heretic.

 

[holdencaulfield]

It seems both you and that “group” have the same thing in common: Papa Idolatry. You both deny that a Pope can fall into heresy. The Popes are men so they can fall into heresy and error with their free will.

Again, you get many Neo-Catholics here who almost worship the Pope. Any Pope can be a heretic, and every Pope is Fallible. Read any Church documents and you will see this. Even the First Vatican Council confirms this. As good Catholics we should question everything the Pope does.

 

[AJV]

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.

cough Quo Primum
(I know you’ll meant it but I love to nitpick)

 

[AJV]

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.

Ah. IIRC, the late Mr. Davies (MHRIP) argument was that the Canon imparts sacrificial meaning to places where some feel there MAY be wriggle room, was it not?

But even without the Canon, this would be there- EP IV contains the phrase “we offer you his Body and Blood” EP III “we offer you in thankgiving this holy and living sacrifice…see the Victim whose death has reconciled…” (I used ICELese here) These significations are equivalent to the signification imparted by the Canon in (for example) the Unde et memores

In any case, even Mr. Davies admitted that with proper intention, a validly ordained priest could consecrate with the words “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood” (which statement he made with regard to a question posed to him on the Anglican Communion service)

 

[holdencaulfield]

Anglican Communion is Invalid. Only Catholic and Orthodox Communion are Valid, however Orthodox Communion is Illicit.

 

[LilyM]

**Pope Honorius was declared a heretic for the heresy of Monothelitism.

The Third Council of Constantinople declared him a heretic. This was the Sixth Universisal Ecumenical Church Council.

Pope Leo II later also confirmed this decision by declaring Pope Honorius a heretic.**

IIRC, the anathema placed on Honorius was wrongly done. Not every action of a Church Council is infallible, otherwise you wouldn’t be criticising Vatican 2, excommunications particularly (being disciplinary measures) are fairly apt to reversal.

St Joan of Arc and Blessed Mary MacKillop are two examples of saintly people who have been excommunicated and those excommunications wrongly done.

Honorius, IIRC, didn’t hold to such heresy himself, although he was criticised for not being tough enough on those who did.

 

[AJV]

**
That is where you are wrong Channy. The New Mass is not associated with Papal infallibility in any way. It was only a governing decision by Pope Paul VI. It has no dogmatic weight. Pope Paul VI did not issue the New Mass as infallible because he didn’t want to. He didn’t believe in papal infallibility. He had the keys but he didn’t use them.**
**
Pope Pius V, on the other hand, issued the Bull “Quo Primas” as infallible. He used his keys to bind up this doctrine forever and binded this for all future Popes. He said that the Tridentine Latin Mass must exist forever:**

“Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other Churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world”

“No one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should anyone dare to contravene it, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

Is this the infallible passage-wording?

 

[saint_rafael]

IIRC, the anathema placed on Honorius was wrongly done. Not every action of a Church Council is infallible, otherwise you wouldn’t be criticising Vatican 2, excommunications particularly (being disciplinary measures) are fairly apt to reversal.

St Joan of Arc and Blessed Mary MacKillop are two examples of saintly people who have been excommunicated and those excommunications wrongly done.

Honorius, IIRC, didn’t hold to such heresy himself, although he was criticised for not being tough enough on those who did.

The ex-communication of Pope Honorius has never been lifted. To this day, no Pope or Church Council has ever lifted his ex-communication. I won’t happen. He was a heretic.
You will notice that Joan of Arc and Mary Mackillop have been canonized and beatified since then.

St. Joan of Arc had her ex-communication lifted before beatification because it was unjustly given by political English bishops. Pope Honorius was treated justly.

By the way, if you want to compare St. Joan of Arc with someone, I suggest Archbishop Lefebvre.

He was treated unfairly and will one day be a saint.

 

[saint_rafael]

Is this the infallible passage-wording?

I believe this is the infallible statement:
“We likewise order and declare … this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law,”

Quo Primum is no “merely ecclesiastical law” (can. 11 [1983]) that can be revoked, but has been enacted into law and declared Ex Cathedra to be irreformable, and is therefore a solemnly defined moral doctrine which is also of itself infallible and irreformable (DB 1829). Quo Primum has been declared to be infallibly declared to be irreformable because the rite of Mass codified in the Tridentine Missal is the “received and approved rite of the Roman Church” that has been “handed down by the Holy Roman Church.” The status of Quo Primum, therefore, pertains to Divine Law insofar as they constitute a particular application of the Divine Law.
–Fr. Paul L. Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div., A Theological
Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism (Nazareth, India:
Apostle Publications, 1997).

 

[EasterJoy]

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

I don’t think the Popes in my lifetime have been heretics, so this is an exercise of the imagination on my part.

We know as an article of faith that, were a heretic to hold the Chair of Saint Peter, he would not cross the line of actually teaching error under the circumstances in which we are guaranteed that the teaching of the Church is free from error. In other words, a Pope might, in theory, personally hold an errant teaching, but he would never officially teach it. The Holy Spirit guards us from that.

I cannot imagine that a Pope would address personal views held by a previous Pope, views that were not official teaching, in order to condemn his successor as a heretic. I think that he would say of a particular errant view “That is not Church teaching and was not nor ever has never been officially taught by the Church” and leave it at that. I do not think he would risk the confusion and scandal that would be caused by accusing a dead Pope of heresy.

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t think the Popes in my lifetime have been heretics, so this is an exercise of the imagination on my part.

We know as an article of faith that, were a heretic to hold the Chair of Saint Peter, he would not cross the line of actually teaching error under the circumstances in which we are guaranteed that the teaching of the Church is free from error. In other words, a Pope might, in theory, personally hold an errant teaching, but he would never officially teach it. The Holy Spirit guards us from that.

I cannot imagine that a Pope would address personal views held by a previous Pope, views that were not official teaching, in order to condemn his successor as a heretic. I think that he would say of a particular errant view “That is not Church teaching and was not nor ever has never been officially taught by the Church” and leave it at that. I do not think he would risk the confusion and scandal that would be caused by accusing a dead Pope of heresy.

**Pope Honorius was declared a heretic for the heresy of Monothelitism.

The Third Council of Constantinople declared him a heretic. This was the Sixth Universisal Ecumenical Church Council.

Pope Leo II later also confirmed this decision by declaring Pope Honorius a heretic.**

I’m sorry that I missed your answer, which preceded my question. That was sloppy of me.

Did Pope Honorius teach the heresy of Monothelitism as a dogma of the Church, or not? Was this heresy imposed upon the faithful in any way? If so, in what way was it imposed?

 

[vocatio]

A Vatican III would only be worthwhile if it phased out all of the NO, like get rid of the NO all together. That would be preferable. Pope Honorius is an example of a heretic. Pope Leo IX was another example of a near heretic Pope because he randomly excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople for something that he didn’t do. And lastly I believe that Pope Paul VI was a heretic as well for creating the Novus Ordo. The Liturgy of the Catholic Church is Ordinary Magisterium and it goes against good conscience to change it. With that said I still believe that the NO is valid, I just think that it was a poor poor choice. I know that Heresy can’t be valid, I didn’t say the NO is, just the way Pope Paul VI implemented it.

 

[vocatio]

That is scandalous.

 

[holdencaulfield]

IIRC, the anathema placed on Honorius was wrongly done. Not every action of a Church Council is infallible, otherwise you wouldn’t be criticising Vatican 2, excommunications particularly (being disciplinary measures) are fairly apt to reversal.

St Joan of Arc and Blessed Mary MacKillop are two examples of saintly people who have been excommunicated and those excommunications wrongly done.

Honorius, IIRC, didn’t hold to such heresy himself, although he was criticised for not being tough enough on those who did.

Good point Lily. I think that everyone would agree that Ecumenical Councils are only Infallible when teaching according to the Ordinary Magisterium.

 

[saint_rafael]

I don’t think the Popes in my lifetime have been heretics, so this is an exercise of the imagination on my part.

We know as an article of faith that, were a heretic to hold the Chair of Saint Peter, he would not cross the line of actually teaching error under the circumstances in which we are guaranteed that the teaching of the Church is free from error. In other words, a Pope might, in theory, personally hold an errant teaching, but he would never officially teach it. The Holy Spirit guards us from that.

I cannot imagine that a Pope would address personal views held by a previous Pope, views that were not official teaching, in order to condemn his successor as a heretic. I think that he would say of a particular errant view “That is not Church teaching and was not nor ever has never been officially taught by the Church” and leave it at that. I do not think he would risk the confusion and scandal that would be caused by accusing a dead Pope of heresy.

A Pope can teach error and heresy to the Church. What he cannot do is teach the heresy using Infallibility.

Pope Leo II did declare the dead Pope Honorius a heretic because he had to. No Pope can get away from teaching heresy as Pontiff. Popes have to protect the office from the stain of error.

For example:
If the Pope decided tomorrow that women could be priests, That would be heresy. A Church Council would have to declare him a heretic and ex-communicate. The next Pope would have to declre him a heretic.
The Pope could not teach this as infallible.
If the Pope decided to make an Ex-Cathdera statement supporting women priests, he would be prevented by the Holy Spirit. God would strike him dead if he tried to make that Ex-Cathedra statement.
No Pope can teach error with infallibility. It’s impossible.

 

[holdencaulfield]

By the way, if you want to compare St. Joan of Arc with someone, I suggest Archbishop Lefebvre.

He was treated unfairly and will one day be a saint.

Hopefully.