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

[Aragorn1]

Aragorn are you not aware that many of the Liturgical Abuses in the NO are blasphemous. I didn’t say that the Novus Ordo was Invalid or Illicit, however my point was that some of the heretic priests in the Church do make Sacraments received via Novus Ordo Invalid. Do you not understand that many innocent babies have been recently Baptized Invalidly? What if that was your child? Pope Benedict XVI did condemn this practice however it still happened before.

I agree, liturgical abuses are always wrong. And I am well aware of the invalid baptisms. But once again you are confusing the OF itself with how it has been implemented and (oftentimes) abused. I would like to see all available forms of Mass and the sacraments celebrated properly and reverently, according to their prescribed rubrics. That’s where I stand on the issue.

 

[Aragorn1]

Define Faith. Faith means doctrine and dogma. I would well believe that the Mass form has something to do with Faith.

“Something to do with” it, yes, because it is a medium for expressing and transmitting the faith (we’re talking about the Mass form, not the Mass itself, remember). Faith indeed consists of dogma and doctrine, but those things do not change. Liturgical forms do. Ergo, liturgical forms are not dogma or doctrine, and thus a form of liturgy cannot be definitively and infallibly set forth as the perfect and indispensable form of the Mass notwithstanding the declarations of future Popes.

 

[holdencaulfield]

@Aragorn1:

However contained in the Liturgy is Faith. A Pope could make an Infallible statement about the Liturgy as long as it didn’t contradict Magisterium.

 

[Aragorn1]

I see problems with this - a tendency to divorce the Popes from the Magisterium as if they themselves aren’t part of that very Magisterium, and in fact the most important part, since they as individuals DO enjoy the charism of infallibilty and Magisterial authority to a unique degree (for the record, I do not say absolutely).

And binding Popes to previous Popes and Councils as though whoever pronounces first upon an issue or a doctrine is somehow more infallible then their successors who may expand and further refine that doctrine.

With every new Papal pronouncement, unless it be mere repetition of what has been taught by previous Popes and Councils, comes the opportunity to teach heresy, if we believe your view, and anything that can’t be verified against previous Popes and Councils could potentially be heresy, if we are to believe your view. Which is ridiculous - Popes and Councils do and always have taught ‘outside the box’ of their predecessors, and taught infallibly as well.

So how are we to believe 90% of what any Pope purports to infallibly teach, even when they declare it ex cathedra and all the rest?

Exactly. It’s impossible to determine true doctrine in that case, and eventually everyone constructs his own faith on his own interpretation of the Magisterium (as I pointed out before).

Holden, if everything a Pope teaches Ex Cathedra has to be tested against “the Magisterium”, then what of the Popes in the past whose teaching composes the Magisterium against whose teaching the Pope is question is being measured? With whose teachings were their own compared? And so on down the line. By your theory how do we know past popes were not teaching heresy as well? Your argument is a recipe for disaster in the Church.

If a Pope teaches something Ex Cathedra, it is dogma. PERIOD. No ifs, buts, or whys.

 

[LilyM]

Lily,

it seems as if you don’t agree that Popes are bound to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. A Pope is only Infallible when teaching with the Magisterium. Otherwise they are fallible people.

Like I said, as a practical matter there won’t be conflict, the Holy Spirit would prevent it.

But in terms of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, though, the requirements are pretty clear - ex cathedra pronouncement intended to be binding on all the faithful etc etc.

No mention in there of teachings that conflict with previous Popes automatically being null and void.

In cases of apparent conflict (such as some see between Quo Primum and the NO) it’ll be the case that
a) the two statements are not in conflict (eg current teaching on EENS which is an expansion and clarification of rather than a contradiction of previous teachings of EENS, or the NO which sits alongside rather than supplanting the TLM) or
b) one statement won’t meet one of the criteria of infallibility.

As for Pius V intending Quo Primum to be infallible - Popes make statements all the time not expecting or intending them to be infallible. Of course there was a purpose in Pius V promulgating Quo Primum, even if it isn’t infallible.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I understand that Popes are protected from teaching heresy Infallibly, however I still think that a Pope could try to teach heresy via Ex Cathedra

 

[holdencaulfield]

@Lily:

Exactly my point about Pope St. Pius V, however can you somehow prove that it was not Infallible? You can’t regardless of what some people say the Liturgy does have to do with Faith. This doesn’t mean that it is dogma, however it is Faith related, thus Ex Cathedra statements can be made about it.

 

[LilyM]

I understand that Popes are protected from teaching heresy Infallibly, however I still think that a Pope could try to teach heresy via Ex Cathedra

They won’t succeed! It’d be the end of Christ’s promise that the gates of Hell wouldn’t prevail.

There are instances of Popes changing their mind on things once in office - one example was a Pope who was basically installed in the office by a heretic Empress - once he got the papal tuchas on the Chair of Peter he did a complete turn around on his previously heretical views.

And others such as the erroneous Bible translation I mentioned - the Pope died before he could promulgate it.

 

[LilyM]

@Lily:

Exactly my point about Pope St. Pius V, however can you somehow prove that it was not Infallible? You can’t regardless of what some people say the Liturgy does have to do with Faith. This doesn’t mean that it is dogma, however it is Faith related, thus Ex Cathedra statements can be made about it.

Oh I’m not saying Quo Primum isn’t infallible, it might very well be. The promulgation of the NO doesn’t contradict it, however.

 

[holdencaulfield]

@LilyM:

I agree with you that the NO doesn’t contradict Pope St. Pius V however the TLM can never be abolished. I also don’t agree that if a Pope made a Ex Cathedra statement that was heresy, the Church would be destroyed. It could be restored later as long as not the entire Church believed it. But hey I’m learning, I just came back to Catholicism after flirting with Orthodoxy which was dangerous.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Quo Primum is not infallible. The ceremony of the Mass is a disciplinary matter. It only enjoys a negative infallibility, that is to say, there is nothing in it that can lead the faithful astray (all disciplines of the Church enjoy at least that negative infallibility, including the OF of the Mass). The ritual, that which the Mass is cloaked in, can change and has. The form, matter, and intent of the Mass IS a matter of faith and immutable.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

@LilyM:

I agree with you that the NO doesn’t contradict Pope St. Pius V however the TLM can never be abolished. I also don’t agree that if a Pope made a Ex Cathedra statement that was heresy, the Church would be destroyed. It could be restored later as long as not the entire Church believed it. But hey I’m learning, I just came back to Catholicism after flirting with Orthodoxy which was dangerous.

The TLM could very well be abolished or altered. It more than likely will not be abolished, but it is entirely within the authority of the Holy See to do so. It could lawfully and legitimately be altered, if the Pope saw fitting reasons to do so, all of which Quo Primum forbids. A pope, however, cannot bind his succesors in matters of discipline.

 

[Aragorn1]

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…

• Cardinal Stickler.

It is about time I take Cardinal Stickler head on.

Cardinal Stickler is wrong is his statements. He says that the words are not dogmatic or theological. It’s true, but the whole decree is rooted in dogma, Cardinal.

“Rooted in dogma” is hardly the same thing as a dogmatic definition. Most Church documents, fallible or infallible, can likewise be said to be “rooted in dogma”. This is what the Cardinal was saying: that since there was no definition of doctrine in Quo Primum, but only an official promulgation of a Missal, it cannot properly be called infallible.

Quo Primum was dealing with the Mass, the cental aspect of the Catholic faith. The Mass is where we get our theology from.

So what? I fail to see how this makes Quo Primum infallible. Plenty of Church documents “deal with the Mass”; few are infallible.

I challenge you to show me a single official Church document that states that a papal decree is infallible if it (a) is “rooted in dogma” or (b) “deals with the Mass”.

(Though, given the fact that you have repeatedly ignored my challenges and questions on this thread, I have little hope that you will answer this one.)

The Cardinal does not believe it was an Ex-Cathedra because other Popes have used “perpetual” and “forever.” Pope Puis V did intend it to be Ex-Cathdera because he is dealing with the Roman Rite handed down from St. Peter, St. Gregory, and Trent. This is not a liturgical hour, psalm, music, calender, or religious order. It was the central aspect of faith. Pope Pius V spoke from the Chair of Peter even though this dogma was not officially developed or declared official until Vatican I.

Wrong. The Roman Rite of the Mass is not the central aspect of the faith. The Mass is.

Show me a single official Church document that states that a papal decree is infallible if it “deals with” the Roman Rite of the Mass as opposed to “liturgical hour, psalm, music, calender, or religious order”, or to another rite of Mass.

There are many Catholics who are able to understand the difference between Quo Primum and the other fallible documents that used the words “perpetual” and “forever” because those were not spoken from the Chair and did not have the three elements mentioned earlier.

By what criteria do you determine that Quo Primum was spoken “from the Chair”? And what are those three elements?

I posted three points earlier that distinguishes Quo Primum from other fallible documents from the analysis of the theologian Fr. Raymond Dulac, and further analysis by Fr. Kramer, who could set Cardinal Stickler straight if they had talked about it.

Frankly I’m not interested in the “analyses” of your theologians. Show me where your ideas are in Church teaching. Heck, if you could even point out ONE reputable theologian or canon lawyer - if you can’t find much in the way of official teaching - from before Vatican II who agreed with your assessment of Quo Primum (that it is infallible, permanent and irrevokable even for future Popes), then maybe you’d have a case.

Cardianal Stickler was no Archbishop Lefebvre.

Well thank God for that.

 

[saint_rafael]

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.

**Answer: **

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): “Legem credendi, lex statuit supplicandi” [the law of praying
has established the law of believing], often shortened 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.”

The dogma is that the Church has the right to make RUBRICAL and CEREMONIAL changes to the rites THAT SHE HERSELF HAS INSTITUTED, she has no “power”
(Innocent III, Dogmatic Council of Trent, Pope St. Pius X) and no “right” (Pius XI, Pius XII) to change the SUBSTANCE of the Sacraments that are the very words of Christ. “We believe that the form of the words as found in the [traditional]
Canon [of the Mass, which includes the Consecration], the Apostles received from Christ and their successors from them” (Denziger, 415).
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.

 

[saint_rafael]

And what are those three elements?

As to content, the perpetuity is confirmed by three characteristics:

• The aim in view, which is that there should be but one missal so
  that the unity of Faith may be protected and manifested by unity of public
  prayer.
• The method of its establishment, which is neither that of an
  artificial creation devised from a number of possibilities nor even a
  radical reform, but the honest restoration of the ancient Roman Missal:
  the honest restoration of a well-proven past being the best guarantee of a
  tranquil future.
• Its authorship, which is that of a pope acting with all the
  force of his Apostolic authority, in exact conformity with the expresswith of an Ecumenical Council – in conformity with the uninterruptedTradition of the Roman Church – and, so far as concerns the principalparts of the missal, in conformity with the Universal Church.

(Fr.Raymond Dulac, "The Jurisdiction of the Bull Quo Primum of Pope St. PiusV, Supplement to Itineraires No. 162, reproduced in Michael Davies, "PopePaul’s New Mass, pp. 571-580)

By what criteria do you determine that Quo Primum was spoken “from the Chair”?

**
The clear signification of the words in this solemn declaration
leave no room for any positive doubt about what is meant. The
clause, “We likewise order and declare … this present
Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall for ever
remain valid and have the force of law,” expresses a precise and
unequivocal meaning: namely, that the document cannot ever be
revoked or modified – it is an irreformable document.**

 

[saint_rafael]

On what Planet are you Catholic living when you say that the central aspect of our faith, the Mass which contains Faith and Morals within it’s texts is not part of Catholic Faith?

If the Mass is not part of our Catholic faith, then what is it?

 

[saint_rafael]

Finally came uniformity in the old Roman Rite and the abolition of nearly all the medieval variants. The Council of Trent considered the question and formed a commission to prepare a uniform Missal. **Eventually the Missal was published by Pius V by the Bull “Quo primum” (still printed in it) of 14 July 1570. That is really the last stage of the history of the Roman Mass. It is Pius V’s Missal that is used throughout the Latin Church, except in a few cases where he allowed a modified use that had a prescription of at least two centuries. This exception saved the variants used by some religious orders and a few local rites as well as the Milanese and Mozarabic liturgies. Clement VIII (1604), Urban VIII (1634), and Leo XIII (1884) revised the book slightly in the rubrics and the texts of Scripture (see LITURGICAL BOOKS). Pius X has revised the chant (1908.) But these revisions leave it still the Missal of Pius V. There has been since the early Middle Ages unceasing change in the sense of additions of masses for new feasts, the Missal now has a number of supplements that still grow (LITURGICAL BOOKS), but liturgically these additions represent no real change. **

catholicity.com/encyclopedia/m/mass,liturgy_of.html

 

[jsaimon]

Having two rites can be confusing. I would like to see one universial rite one day as there is only one universial Church. The traditional Mass has been reformed over the centuries by many Popes and in the spirit of the Council of Trent. The reforms after Vatican II seem like a new Mass by itself rather than a further reform of the old mass. A true following of Vatican II directive could have arrived at a reformed mass that is directly linked to the old mass.

If I was given the task of refoming the old mass, I would do the following:

• Keep priest and congregation facing same direction
• Keep the Latin for the major prayers to reflect the universial aspects of the Church while using the vernacular in some parts
• Have congregation respond with servers
• Will not change the old vestments
• Keep the original Eucharistic Prayers which will be said in Latin but aloud for everybody to hear and follow along with vernacular translations
• etc.

 

[elt1956]

@Lily:

Exactly my point about Pope St. Pius V, however can you somehow prove that it was not Infallible? You can’t regardless of what some people say the Liturgy does have to do with Faith. This doesn’t mean that it is dogma, however it is Faith related, thus Ex Cathedra statements can be made about it.

Ex Cathedra “statements”? I don’t understand. If statements are made Ex Cathedra, don’t they then become dogma/doctrine??

 

[Spiller]

Having two rites can be confusing. **I would like to see one universial rite one day **as there is only one universial Church. The traditional Mass has been reformed over the centuries by many Popes and in the spirit of the Council of Trent. The reforms after Vatican II seem like a new Mass by itself rather than a further reform of the old mass. A true following of Vatican II directive could have arrived at a reformed mass that is directly linked to the old mass.

If I was given the task of refoming the old mass, I would do the following:

• Keep priest and congregation facing same direction
• Keep the Latin for the major prayers to reflect the universial aspects of the Church while using the vernacular in some parts
• Have congregation respond with servers
• Will not change the old vestments
• Keep the original Eucharistic Prayers which will be said in Latin but aloud for everybody to hear and follow along with vernacular translations
• etc.

What are you going to do about the Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgies?