H
holdencaulfield
Guest
Pope Honorius wouldn’t have had to have taught anything. Just to hold the beliefs he did were heresy.
Would you like to see a phasing out of the Novus Ordo Missae leading to a return to only the TLM?
- Status
L
LilyM
Guest
Which is fine and true, once you understand what Quo Primum is actually about.
It was about preserving a particular Rite of the Mass for sure, and it was preserved - as John Paul II and Benedict XVI have made clear, the TLM was never abrogated. The mere fact that it is still being said today attests to that.
Did St Paul V say there were no other rites, forms or what have you of the Mass ever to be said APART from the TLM providing the TLM is still being said? Of course not. He himself allowed multiple other Rites to co-exist alongside the TLM. He didn’t envisage it as being exclusive.
Neither could he possibly be denying the authority of future Popes to either modify the TLM itself - Pope Leo added his prayers and many other modifications were made in between Trent and Vatican 2 and no-one complains of those - nor to promulgate other Masses alongside his (as above, it wasn’t intended to be exclusive).
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
Are you sure you are not a Neo-Catholic? I’m just kidding. However Ex Cathedra doesn’t mean Infallible it merely means that the Pope speaks from the Chair of St. Peter. However the First Vatican Council said that when a Pope makes an Ex Cathedra statement that is in accordance to the Ordinary Magisterium it is Infallible. A Pope could make a Ex Cathedra statement that is heresy, however it wouldn’t count as a Infallible statement because it was heresy. So Papal Infallibility is basically a doctrine that was formulated during Italian Unification to show that the Pope is the spiritual leader of the Church. Unless the Pope is speaking in accordance to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, he cannot be Infallible.
J
JReducation
Guest
San Rafael
I believe that you are expending too much energy on something that is not so complicated. Allow me to show you some things.
With what authority do you make such a claim? This raises questions about your legitimacy as a Catholic. Unless you have proof and authority, you have no right to make such a statement about the Pope, other than that which the Constitution of the United States gives you, which has no jurisdiction in the Church.
You also said the following.
You claim that there cannot be a rite with varying forms. However, Catholic tradition proves you wrong.
The Tridentine mass had several forms since the Middle Ages. These were called the “Ritus Romano-Lugdunensis”, “Romano-monasticus”, and so on.
They were different forms of the Roman rite that were permitted to exempt religious orders: Benedictines, Carthusians, Carmelites, Dominicans and Franciscans.
They had different Sacramentary, different Lectionary, different breviaries and different liturgical calendars. They observed some of the feasts and solemnities of the universal Church and had some of their own. They introduced prayers and rituals into the mass that the universal Church did not use and didn’t use others.
For example: Franciscans never preached in Latin. They never used Gregorian chant. They used either plain chant or a form of music created by St. Francis called Laudas, which has nothing to do with the hour of the Divine Office. They recited all the prayers of the mass and the psalms in the Divine Office, no chanting.
The Carmelites actually had different collects and for a long time used the same words of consecration as the Eastern Catholics, but within the Tridentine liturgy.
newadvent.org/cathen/13155a.htm
Today, the monastic and mendicant orders each have their own Sacramentary, Lectionary, and Breviary in both the EF and OF.
As the decrees of St. Pius V, I did a little research and discovered that the Catholic Church has never considered them to be infallible or dogmatic. The Church recognizes them as “real laws; this follows from the definition: they are prescriptions for the good order of external worship in the Catholic Church, they emanate from the highest authority–the sovereign pontiff.”
newadvent.org/cathen/13216a.htm
St. Pius V writing on the Liturgies of the Hours and the Eucharist are not taught as dogmas by the Catholic Church. They are real laws and to be taken seriously. But as we have already said, there is also a rule in the Church that in matters of law, nothing is binding on the Pope except those promises that he makes.
I also noticed that you defend the Tridentine form of the mass and continuously refer to Pius V, but you have completely ignored what Pius V said about the Liturgy of the Hours. Did you forget that the Liturgy of the Hours is also true liturgy and that there is a Novus Ordo for the Divine Office?
Are you only concerned with the part of liturgy that interests you and not the liturgy as a whole unit?
To defend the Tridentine form of the mass and ignore the form of the Divine Office is to split the liturgy of the church in such a way so that one becomes less important than the other, rather than flowing from and into each other as part of the same liturgical experience.
In addition, you have already acknowledged that the Ordinary Form (OF) is valid and licit. So why debate it? Leave it alone. Worship in the Extraordinary Form (EF) if you wish and let others worship in the Ordinary Form (OF).
Stop playing pope. Currently, there is no vacancy in the Holy See.
JR
I believe that you are expending too much energy on something that is not so complicated. Allow me to show you some things.
You are accusing Pope Paul VI of being a heretic. If he didn’t believe in papal infallibility he was no better than Luther. In which case, you must also say that he was not a legitimate pope. For a man to be a legitimate pope he must believe the truths of the Church at the time of his election. Either he came to the papacy believing and then apostatized or he never believed and the election was not valid. He was either a heretic or we had sede vacantis.
With what authority do you make such a claim? This raises questions about your legitimacy as a Catholic. Unless you have proof and authority, you have no right to make such a statement about the Pope, other than that which the Constitution of the United States gives you, which has no jurisdiction in the Church.
You also said the following.
Once again, you publicly declare that another pope is in error. There is a pattern here. Either every pope since 1958 has been in error or you’re in error.
You claim that there cannot be a rite with varying forms. However, Catholic tradition proves you wrong.
The Tridentine mass had several forms since the Middle Ages. These were called the “Ritus Romano-Lugdunensis”, “Romano-monasticus”, and so on.
They were different forms of the Roman rite that were permitted to exempt religious orders: Benedictines, Carthusians, Carmelites, Dominicans and Franciscans.
They had different Sacramentary, different Lectionary, different breviaries and different liturgical calendars. They observed some of the feasts and solemnities of the universal Church and had some of their own. They introduced prayers and rituals into the mass that the universal Church did not use and didn’t use others.
For example: Franciscans never preached in Latin. They never used Gregorian chant. They used either plain chant or a form of music created by St. Francis called Laudas, which has nothing to do with the hour of the Divine Office. They recited all the prayers of the mass and the psalms in the Divine Office, no chanting.
The Carmelites actually had different collects and for a long time used the same words of consecration as the Eastern Catholics, but within the Tridentine liturgy.
newadvent.org/cathen/13155a.htm
Today, the monastic and mendicant orders each have their own Sacramentary, Lectionary, and Breviary in both the EF and OF.
As the decrees of St. Pius V, I did a little research and discovered that the Catholic Church has never considered them to be infallible or dogmatic. The Church recognizes them as “real laws; this follows from the definition: they are prescriptions for the good order of external worship in the Catholic Church, they emanate from the highest authority–the sovereign pontiff.”
newadvent.org/cathen/13216a.htm
St. Pius V writing on the Liturgies of the Hours and the Eucharist are not taught as dogmas by the Catholic Church. They are real laws and to be taken seriously. But as we have already said, there is also a rule in the Church that in matters of law, nothing is binding on the Pope except those promises that he makes.
I also noticed that you defend the Tridentine form of the mass and continuously refer to Pius V, but you have completely ignored what Pius V said about the Liturgy of the Hours. Did you forget that the Liturgy of the Hours is also true liturgy and that there is a Novus Ordo for the Divine Office?
Are you only concerned with the part of liturgy that interests you and not the liturgy as a whole unit?
To defend the Tridentine form of the mass and ignore the form of the Divine Office is to split the liturgy of the church in such a way so that one becomes less important than the other, rather than flowing from and into each other as part of the same liturgical experience.
In addition, you have already acknowledged that the Ordinary Form (OF) is valid and licit. So why debate it? Leave it alone. Worship in the Extraordinary Form (EF) if you wish and let others worship in the Ordinary Form (OF).
Stop playing pope. Currently, there is no vacancy in the Holy See.
JR
J
JReducation
Guest
If you repeat this again, I will file a formal complaint, not with the moderators but with Catholic Answers Inc. I don’t believe that Catholic Answers will appreciate that you are putting their ministry in a compromising position.
This violates CAF rules and is a callous statement.
JR
S
saint_rafael
Guest
The doctrine of Papal Infallibility as desrcibed by Vatican I says that an Ex-Cathdera statement is itself infallible. All Ex-Cathedra statements are infallible and without error.
No Pope can ever give an Ex-Cathedra statement that contains error. God would not allow it. When a Pope speaks from The Chair, it’s infallible. There have been only two since Vatican I.
Ex-Cathdera statements are higher than the ordinay magisterium. These stattements of Papal Infallibility are called the ExtraOrdinary Magisterium.
S
saint_rafael
Guest
Pope Puis V and Quo Primum stated that the TLM was to be the Roman Rite forever. There could never be another Roman Rite. He only allowed the rites that existed before the codification of the TLM to be said and not aything after Trent.
A Pope can modify the TLM, that is what Pope John XXIII did.
What Paul VI did was something else. He got rid of the TLM and came out with something completely new which he had no power to do according to Quo Primum.
J
JReducation
Guest
The Pope is the head of the Magisterium. See Catechism of the Catholic Church. Only those bishops in communion with him are part of the Magisterium, not the other way around. Otherwise, the Pope would be the first among equals, which is not the case.
**100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him. **
JR
L
LilyM
Guest
He didn’t get rid of the TLM - we still have it today, it has been validly said in numerous locations throughout the world ever since the time of Trent without interruption. Even during Paul VI’s pontificate. And according to JPII and Benedict XVI it was never abrogated.
As for ‘there can never be another Roman Rite’ - rot.
"We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal … may freely and lawfully be used. "
May doesn’t mean must! It’s not obligatory to use this Missal for Mass and no other.
S
saint_rafael
Guest
Wow. You are pretty late to the discussion here. Have you read any of the posts today? Let me refute your errors.You are accusing Pope Paul VI of being a heretic. If he didn’t believe in papal infallibility he was no better than Luther. In which case, you must also say that he was not a legitimate pope. For a man to be a legitimate pope he must believe the truths of the Church at the time of his election. Either he came to the papacy believing and then apostatized or he never believed and the election was not valid. He was either a heretic or we had sede vacantis.
Once again, you publicly declare that another pope is in error. There is a pattern here. Either every pope since 1958 has been in error or you’re in error.
You claim that there cannot be a rite with varying forms. However, Catholic tradition proves you wrong.
The Tridentine mass had several forms since the Middle Ages. These were called the “Ritus Romano-Lugdunensis”, “Romano-monasticus”, and so on.
They had different Sacramentary, different Lectionary, different breviaries and different liturgical calendars. They observed some of the feasts and solemnities of the universal Church and had some of their own. They introduced prayers and rituals into the mass that the universal Church did not use and didn’t use others.
St. Pius V writing on the Liturgies of the Hours and the Eucharist are not taught as dogmas by the Catholic Church. They are real laws and to be taken seriously. But as we have already said, there is also a rule in the Church that in matters of law, nothing is binding on the Pope except those promises that he makes.
I also noticed that you defend the Tridentine form of the mass and continuously refer to Pius V, but you have completely ignored what Pius V said about the Liturgy of the Hours. Did you forget that the Liturgy of the Hours is also true liturgy and that there is a Novus Ordo for the Divine Office?
In addition, you have already acknowledged that the Ordinary Form (OF) is valid and licit. So why debate it? Leave it alone. Worship in the Extraordinary Form (EF) if you wish and let others worship in the Ordinary Form (OF).
Stop playing pope. Currently, there is no vacancy in the Holy See.
JR
First of all I only said that Pope Paul VI did not believe in Papal Infallibility because I read that Fr. Malachi Martin had said that. It does not matter.
**
You are inventing things that I do not believe.
I have always said that the Popes are valid. It is up to a future Pope or Council to declare Paul VI a heretic and not me. A man has to be officially declared a heretic before becoming Pope in order for his election to be void. I suggest you stop reading SedeVacantist nonsense. **
Pope John XXIII was not in error about the Mass. Pope Paul VI made the mistake in 1970 and not 1958.
Quo Primum was an Ex-Cathedra statement affecting only the Mass. Of coarse Popes can change calenders, breviaries, and music. Quo Primum only binds future Popes from changing the Roman rite.
Of Coarse the TLM had different uses in the Middle ages. The Mass was officially codified at Trent. Quo Primum allowed the different uses that came before Trent to continue. This uses came out of the Roman Rite. Quo Primum using infallibility stated that hence force There would only be one Roman Rite with one Missal.
Th fact is that the TLM is the Roman Rite. The N.O. should be regulated to the form of an indult to the one true Roman rite, the TLM.
The argument is that the N.O. has been spiritually harmful for the Church and was a mistake. Pope Benedict has already rebuked Pope Paul for tryinh to replace the TLM with a new creation. A future Pope will also fix the mistake of Benedict whotried to put the N.O. together with the TLM.
P
pnewton
Guest
I have found that there is another type of cafeteria Catholic other than the modernist. They are the traditionalist that decide they are qualified to judge Popes and the Magesterium. They just do not get the inherent illogic of acceptinf the Tradition of the Church, then drawing a line in the 60’s where authority stopped. Our last two Popes have been more learned than anyone here, as humble and dedicated to God as a saint, and endowed with authority for the welfare of the Church. Yet still, somehow people here think they know better.If you repeat this again, I will file a formal complaint, not with the moderators but with Catholic Answers Inc. I don’t believe that Catholic Answers will appreciate that you are putting their ministry in a compromising position.
This violates CAF rules and is a callous statement.
JR
J
JReducation
Guest
Why is anyoone who challenges you in error?
And you know what I read, how?
He made a mistake according to whose criteria?
These were not uses. They were forms. You said that you cannot have two forms of the same rite. History says we have had more than two forms until the NO. A Dominican, Carmelite, Benedictine or Carthusian would have your head if you said that their form was a “use”. If I were you, I would not mess with them. They have an excellent history of liturgy.
Check out Church history. Quo Primum spoke of the entire liturgy, not just the mass. You keep leaving out an essential part of the liturgy, the Divine Office. Why?
Second, there is no official recognition on the part of the Church that Quo Primum is an infallible decree. It is liturgical law. An infallible decree is about dogma. If it had made a declaration about the faith of the Church regarding the Eucharist, infalibility could be applied to it. You will not find Quo Primum listed among the infalible declarations of the Church. It does not refer to a truth that was handed down through revelation. St. Pius V was trying to simplify the liturgy at a time when there was much confusion and excessive variation in the liturgy. It has the same infalible weight as Humanae Vitae, which the Sacred Congregation on the faith, under Benedict XVI has said does not have the weight of infalibility in a publication by Cardinal Levada. These are legal decrees that must be observed because they come from the Supreme Pontiff, just as the Motu Proprio comes from the Supreme Pontiff and must be observed, with the EF and OF.
JR
Th fact is that the TLM is the Roman Rite. The N.O. should be regulated to the form of an indult to the one true Roman rite, the TLM.
The argument is that the N.O. has been spiritually harmful for the Church and was a mistake. Pope Benedict has already rebuked Pope Paul for tryinh to replace the TLM with a new creation. A future Pope will also fix the mistake of Benedict whotried to put the N.O. together with the TLM.
L
LRThunder
Guest
To answer the original question, no I don’t think a phasing out is a good idea. The current Mass is a valid Mass and is here to stay as the Ordinary Form.
However, what I would like to see is the increase of the number of Extraordinary Form. Right now, there is only one authorized EF Mass in my diocese and that’s about 200 miles away from me, and only twice a month.
If a parish wishes to regularly schedule one, they should without having to jump through a lot of hoops. The only requirement I think should be is that the priest be trained to celebrate it. If there are priests trained to celebrate it, then there shouldn’t be any further prerequisites to celebrating it.
The current Mass can be celebrated reverently. The Mass (televised on Hallmark every Sunday) at the Basilica of the Sacred Heart at Notre Dame University is an example. And certainly the Papal Masses tend to be very reverent.
However, what I would like to see is the increase of the number of Extraordinary Form. Right now, there is only one authorized EF Mass in my diocese and that’s about 200 miles away from me, and only twice a month.
If a parish wishes to regularly schedule one, they should without having to jump through a lot of hoops. The only requirement I think should be is that the priest be trained to celebrate it. If there are priests trained to celebrate it, then there shouldn’t be any further prerequisites to celebrating it.
The current Mass can be celebrated reverently. The Mass (televised on Hallmark every Sunday) at the Basilica of the Sacred Heart at Notre Dame University is an example. And certainly the Papal Masses tend to be very reverent.
S
saint_rafael
Guest
JR,
I don’t believe in SedeVancantism which you accuse me of. That was the inventions I taled about. Fr. Martin’s remark is a separate issue.
A Pope is a valid Pope once he is installed, however a Pope can fall into heresy. A Pope is human and he has free will which he can use to do good or fall into error. This has happened in Church history.
This was discuused in prior posts by many people. :yawn:
I will recap what I wrote:
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.
A future Pope will have to decide if Pope Paul Vi was a heretic and not the laity
I don’t believe in SedeVancantism which you accuse me of. That was the inventions I taled about. Fr. Martin’s remark is a separate issue.
A Pope is a valid Pope once he is installed, however a Pope can fall into heresy. A Pope is human and he has free will which he can use to do good or fall into error. This has happened in Church history.
This was discuused in prior posts by many people. :yawn:
I will recap what I wrote:
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.
A future Pope will have to decide if Pope Paul Vi was a heretic and not the laity
J
JReducation
Guest
My question is why would you even think that the bishops or Benedict XVI have any inclination to believe that Paul VI was a heretic? He taught no error.
People may disagree with him, but that does not make the man a heretic.
JR
T
TNT
Guest
Actually, they would just “recognize” him as a heretic in a delaration.
One is a heretic ipso facto, pure and simple the moment they posess the necessary attributes of a heretic, regardless of any declaration of recognition.
Honorius was a heretic long before he was declared as one.
However, much later, when more facts came to light, he was reconsituted.
Another example, Sen Ted Kennedy is a heretic if not apostate, even though he was given Communion at the Papal Mass in Washington DC.
He openly denies the Church Doctrine on Abortion and Gay Sexual Unions, and defends same in the public forum.
And just to stay on topic:The TLM is worthless to those who do not hold the Traditional Faith of the Catholic Apostolic Church…So no, not until the Tradtional Catholic Faith is “phased in” would the TLM then be “Phased in” world-wide, and effective for the Church.
S
saint_rafael
Guest
JR,
The issue of Quo Primum was debated in earlier posts today.
For your benefit:
**Statement: **The Mass is simply an ecclesiastical law, a matter of
discipline for the Latin (Western) Church, not of faith and morals;
therefore, no pope can bind a successor in such matters as all popes have equal power.
Reply: Such an argument implies an ignorance of basic theology. Even laymen are
familiar with the priniciple enunciated by Pope St. Celestine I to the bishops
of Gaul (422): to “Lex orandi, lex credendi” [the law of praying (is) the law of believing].
In other words, it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that teaches us our theology, not the other way around. The Mass comprises the Apostolic Tradition of faith and morals in its very essence. Every doctrine essential to the faith is taught in the text of the Mass. The notion that one pope can “overrule” his predecessors in such a matter is in implicit denial of the credal dogma that the Church is Apostolic.
The traditional Roman Mass in all its essentials was passed on by St. Peter, the first pope, to the Church, was according to St. Ambrose elaborated by the Apostles themselves, and reached its complete perfection with Popes St. Damasus (fourth century) and St. Gregory the Great (sixth century). As the great liturgical scholar Fr. Adrian Fortescue wrote, this Mass is “the most venerable in all Christendom, with a history of unbroken use far longer than that of any Eastern rite, there being no doubt that the essential parts of the Mass are of Apostolic origin.”
**
Thus, the Mass that Pope St. Pius V was confirming in Quo Primum was not some new construct like the Novus Ordo Missae, but was essentially the Apostolic Mass of Sts. Peter and Paul at Rome. ** Nor is it the Mass of some particular area of the Church like the Eastern
rites, but it is the UNIVERSAL rite of the Church, the rite of the
Roman See, the Papal See.
**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).**
The issue of Quo Primum was debated in earlier posts today.
For your benefit:
**Statement: **The Mass is simply an ecclesiastical law, a matter of
discipline for the Latin (Western) Church, not of faith and morals;
therefore, no pope can bind a successor in such matters as all popes have equal power.
Reply: Such an argument implies an ignorance of basic theology. Even laymen are
familiar with the priniciple enunciated by Pope St. Celestine I to the bishops
of Gaul (422): to “Lex orandi, lex credendi” [the law of praying (is) the law of believing].
In other words, it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that teaches us our theology, not the other way around. The Mass comprises the Apostolic Tradition of faith and morals in its very essence. Every doctrine essential to the faith is taught in the text of the Mass. The notion that one pope can “overrule” his predecessors in such a matter is in implicit denial of the credal dogma that the Church is Apostolic.
The traditional Roman Mass in all its essentials was passed on by St. Peter, the first pope, to the Church, was according to St. Ambrose elaborated by the Apostles themselves, and reached its complete perfection with Popes St. Damasus (fourth century) and St. Gregory the Great (sixth century). As the great liturgical scholar Fr. Adrian Fortescue wrote, this Mass is “the most venerable in all Christendom, with a history of unbroken use far longer than that of any Eastern rite, there being no doubt that the essential parts of the Mass are of Apostolic origin.”
**
Thus, the Mass that Pope St. Pius V was confirming in Quo Primum was not some new construct like the Novus Ordo Missae, but was essentially the Apostolic Mass of Sts. Peter and Paul at Rome. ** Nor is it the Mass of some particular area of the Church like the Eastern
rites, but it is the UNIVERSAL rite of the Church, the rite of the
Roman See, the Papal See.
**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).**
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
So there you go you are a Neo-Catholic. An Ex Cathedra statement is not Ex Cathedra or Infallible if it is heretical in nature or heterodox. Vatican I also says that these statements cannot contradict Tradition. We should not follow them if they do.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
That was my point.The Pope is the head of the Magisterium. See Catechism of the Catholic Church. Only those bishops in communion with him are part of the Magisterium, not the other way around. Otherwise, the Pope would be the first among equals, which is not the case.
**100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him. **
JR
J
JReducation
Guest
Yes, but what the Church is pointing to is the primacy of Peter. He does not need the bishops to be in communion with him to be infallible. They need him. The Pope can be infallible without them or their consent.
Those bishops in communion with him share in this gift, not the other way around.
It sounded like you were saying that he coulld not act infallibly without the bishops.
JR
- Status