another should I go to _____ event:" wedding edition

[Nihil Obstat]

The intention of such statements is never to freeze the development in all its particulars at that moment, but rather its existence as a whole, integrated reality in its manifoldness. So Trent never said the Mass can never change whatsoever. It actually said that in its substance, as a complete and venerable Rite, it was to be protected and maintained in perpetuity. Which in a sense is rather a grave and immanent obligation even without being spelled out.

[truthfinder]

​Sorry, have to stop you there. Popes say in official documents all the time phrases that go along the lines of "x shall be this way forevermore". In fact, when a Pope (can't remember his name) liquidated the Jesuits, he said they would be liquidated forevermore, and yet a Pope a few centuries later reinstated them. Not only that, but the Council of Trent said that the Tridentine Mass would remain the Mass forevermore and that there would be no significant alterations, and yet Pope Pius X did make significant changes, so if you're mad about alterations to the Tridentine, look towards the Society's namesake, not Vatican II.

​In the spirit of proper translation, the bull actually said for all eternity (kind of like how eternity replaced 'forever' in OF translations).  And it wasn't centuries.  They were suppressed 1773, and reformed in 1814.  But many Jesuits were able to stick around.  So Canada's last Jesuit died in 1800.  They were barely gone four decades before they came back again in Canada in 1842 under arguably one of the most ultramontane and strict bishops anywhere.  

Edited May 27, 2015 by truthfinder

[Ark]

 

I already explained to you that the Trent canonized the Roman Mass forever is false. Repeating yourself ad nauseam won't make your claim true. In addition, you conveniently forget that Archbishop Lefebvre and the bishops he ordained were not excommunicated just for wanting to say the Tridentine Mass, nor was it the reason why SSPX priests were suspended (and still are -- Pope Benedict XVI made it clear that at this time they exercise NO LEGITIMATE MINISTRY). 
 

Peace be with you, David. The meat of your response regarding the perpetuity of Trent's canonization of the Mass has to do with Quod a Vobis. You contend that the clear reference to the Tridentine Mass's perpetuity and preservation is really a figure of speech, and that in other cases Popes have used similar phrases but were later repealed. The principle being that Popes are equals and no Pope can bind another Pope with regards to discipline, and so no Pope can bind a future Popes legislation concerning the Breviary or a particular Order. With this I agree but I already pointed out that with regards to the Mass we are not merely dealing with discipline but with a Sacrament. A Pope can bind future Popes in terms of the Faith as when Dogma is defined, and several Roman Catholic Scholars have argued that this is precisely what Trent did in Session 7, Canon 13:

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.

I have seen it argued that the Latin translated as "every pastor" is a mistranslation and that the proper statement should be "whomsoever Pastor of the churches," in other words any Pastor including the Pope. By "change" most Romans would understand a significant change. We're not referring to changes in minor rubrics but significant changes to the text and structure of the Roman Mass.

Not all Roman Catholic scholars agree that the Council of Trent went this far, and of course, as someone who defends the radical changes of the Liturgy you yourself must necessarily deny it. Part of the problem, or maybe even the main problem, is that us Latins have a tendency of distinguishing discipline from doctrine and we see discipline as something subordinate. To the Eastern Orthodox the praxis is inseparable, "right worship" and not merely "right belief" is integral. St. Prosper of Acquitaine coined the famous formula lex credenti lex orandi, the law of prayer is the law of belief. Pope Pius XII famously reversed in Mediator Dei, saying that the law of belief is the source of the law of prayer. By this his set the principle that the Mass can be seen as a set of disciplines for the instruction of the people and that a Pope has legislative power to change it. To what extent the Pope has such authority is debatable, I personally lean with our Orthodox brethren in viewing "right worship" as integral. The Mass is not just a set of disciplines that can be done away with, the Mass is the embodiment of living Tradition of which the Pope is responsible for safeguarding.

Pope Paul VI's changes were so radical, so unprecedented, and so contrary to the received Roman tradition that he literally destroyed Roman Mass. Do you think I'm exaggerating? Fr. Joseph Gelineau, one of the Consilum's experts, literally said "The Roman Rite as we knew it, no longer exists. It is gone." Therefore as a *Roman* Catholic, I am compelled to RESIST Pope Paul VI's ABUSE of power in overturning 2,000 years of received Tradition stemming back to the Apostles and Fathers of the Faith. Everyone who is Roman Catholic must do what they can according to their state in life to restore their rite. 

Ultramontanist tendencies . . . sheesh, just as Obama supporters unjustly label anyone as "racist" merely for criticizing or disagreeing with the President's policies, disobedient Catholics unjustly label obedient Catholics as "ultramontanist" for NOT (at least openly) criticizing or disagreeing with the Pope's policies. When you resort to such labels, it shows you have no valid argument.

You obviously view the Pope as an Absolute Monarch, the Source and not merely the guardian of Tradition.  

Whether or not it was a good idea for Blessed Paul VI to promulgate "radical alterations to the Liturgy," he nevertheless had that authority, as I illustrated previously.

I contend that as a Roman Catholic the Pope does not possess the power to destroy the Roman Rite. He can not counter 2,000 years of received tradition by creating a Protestantized Mass that contradicts the very rite his part of. That you and many believe he has such grand authority is a sign just how strong the ultramontanist current was (and is) in the West. To the Eastern Orthodox for a Patriarch to do what Pope Paul VI did is simply unthinkable. 

 

Deal with it. Speaking of authority, you have no authority to proclaim that lawfully approved changes to the liturgy endanger the faith. According to Bishop Rifan, whom I quoted earlier, it's actually heretical to believe such a thing. Do you want to be in heresy and thus endanger your soul?

So what you're saying is I have to force myself to believe that these objectively harmful changes, that dull our notion of the Catholic faith, promote ambiguity concerning the Real Presence and Sacrificial nature of the Mass, are in fact not harmful? Wake up brother. The reference  you are making to is the Mass as it was understood by the Council of Trent and not what was promulgated by Paul VI. Suggestions such as yours make us Roman Catholics seem obtuse. 

Arguments like that remind me of little kids who say stuff like, "No fair! Why doesn't he get in trouble for XYZ while they do?!" At any rate, this statement of yours is an example of the Donatist heresy, which deals with the holiness of the minister. The sacraments work ex opere operato, not ex opere operantis. A validly ordained priest who has faculties validly absolves -- EVEN IF he happens to be a dissident. SSPX priests don't have faculties, no matter how much you try and insist they do or wish they did. 

I was pointing out Fr. Radcliffe's HERESY and not his personal holiness. The fact that such a man is constantly in a position of power and has now been promoted, despite openly defying Roman Catholicism should trouble you. Again, the point being to illustrate to you that we are in a state of emergency, the Faith is in danger. 

Do open formal heretics offer valid sacraments? I imagine in states of emergency even Fr. Radcliffe can validly absolve a penitent of their sins. 

Oh bull, the hierarchy itself doesn't persecute faithful Roman Catholics, and no priest has ever been denied faculties just for being Roman Catholic! Get the chip off your shoulder! While individual priests and bishops have indeed been guilty of persecuting traditional Catholics at times, even just a few folks who constantly play the victim and choose to see persecution behind every tree makes traditional Catholics as a whole look bad and feed into the negative stereotypes about them.

My friend, you have no idea what you're talking about. Try getting a Traditional Latin Mass said in your local Novus Ordo parish, see what happens. That's what I did in my area, and let me tell you, there is persecution and especially for the Priests who try to say it.

 

The Church says Protestants and the Orthodox have valid sacramental marriages; so are you saying Holy Mother Church is "neo-Modernist"? At any rate, yes, it makes perfect sense to me. Protestants and the Orthodox aren't Catholic, so they can't very well be bound by Catholic Church laws. But the SSPX is Catholic, and so they are bound by Church law, which, sadly, they disobey.

So heretics and schismatics possess valid sacramental marriage and absolution of sins but Roman Catholics of the SSPX do not? Think what you are saying here. The irony of this is that if the SSPX are in schism as some like to claim, then their sacraments are valid according to your understanding. 

 

Excuse me?! Where do you get the absurd notion that I, according to you, don't see myself as part of the Church? And yes, the Church has indeed spoken about what constitutes an emergency, but she hasn't said what YOU wanted or expected her to say. If you had read my previous post closely, you would have seen where I cited the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, which addresses that very thing.

By your previous statement you obviously don't see Roman Catholics not in the Hierarchy as part of the Church. The Church has spoken by the grassroots resistance to Papal abuse of power. Just because we are mostly composed of Priests and lay people does not mean the Church has not reacted. I'm sorry you need reminding of this, but the Holy Spirit works through us too. 

 

I already explained to you that Trent did NOT canonize the Tridentine Mass forever. 

No other Mass that the texts could possibly refer to, you say? What about the Eastern rites? What about Church-approved rites that came previously?
 

Sorry, I'm not going to debate OF vs. EF here.

 

No, it's not irrelevant, nor, as I've explained for the umpteenth time, did Quo Primum forbid altering the Mass. If Quo Primum truly canonized the Tridentine Mass as the ONLY form, it wouldn't have even allowed for other previous rites of Mass to be said.

 

First, whether or not the breviary changes were imprudent is a matter of opinion (like debating which flavor of ice cream is better). You don't have to like them or think they were prudent, but I don't see you claiming outright that they LACKED that authority.

Second, as I've already said, an approved liturgical rite of the Church CANNOT INTRINSICALLY be a danger to the faith; if you believe otherwise, then you've placed yourself outside the Church.

As for obedience, your notion of true obedience is flawed. In true obedience, we obey legitimate authority in all things except sin. St. Francis de Sales said it best:

 

He also adds what I just mentioned, namely, that we MUST disobey an order to commit sin. Aside from that, however, the truly obedient person doesn't go astray even when the superior is wrong and commands what is less good than what we ourselves would choose. Then God, to Whom the submission is given and Who sees the heart, rewards this obedience by assuring success. Again, St. Francis de Sales says the following:
 

A lot of the above has already been discussed, even if you believe the Council of Trent contingently preserved the Roman Mass for a temporary time, it still doesn't justify Pope Paul VI's destruction of the Roman Mass.

Obedience to human authority is not an absolute thing. If the Pope under pain of excommunication commanded you to take a hammer and destroyed a tabernacle you do not have to obey, in fact I would hope even an ultramontanist such as yourself would find the will to resist!

 

 

In other words, a superior may err in commanding, but we make no mistake in obeying, a conclusion which emerges just as clearly from the following statement of Pope Leo XIII:
 

 

But what if there are doubts as to the goodness or sinfulness of a given command? In that case, one MUST obey, as the benefit of the doubt ALWAYS goes to the superior -- EVEN in cases where obedience to said command appears to be PROBABLY sinful. In other words, for disobedience to be a good thing, the command must be blatantly, obviously, without-a-doubt sinful. St. Ignatius Loyola elaborates on this:

We must obey God rather than man, dear brother. Obedience is a virtue that we all must exercise but obedience to something that possesses a danger to the faith is not a virtue but a vice. It means that you irrationally give precedence to man than to God or our Holy Religion. Wake up brother. Look around you, will force yourself to believe everything is ok? 

[Ash Wednesday]

I'm really late to the party here (working 2 jobs and battling illness right now) but I've had enough of this thread. It's so OT and riddled with Catholic v. Catholic debate, it's time for it to die.

Again, we do NOT debate Ordinary vs. Extraordinary Form of the mass here on phatmass.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Ash Wednesday