|
Post by homeschooldad on Feb 28, 2023 14:33:53 GMT
www.papalencyclicals.net/pius05/p5quopri.htmThere is at least a probable opinion that this safeguards the Tridentine Missal (1570) forever. "But any Pope can do anything he wants to regarding the Church, he can bind and loose as he pleases, he can change anything as regards the administration of the Church". Okay... can he get up one morning, decide he doesn't like this or that in the Code of Canon Law, and ignore whatever canon he doesn't like? After all, "the Holy See is judged by no one"? Can he decide to abrogate the Eastern Rites and force them to adopt the Novus Ordo? Abolish the College of Cardinals and appoint his own hand-picked successor to assume the papacy the moment he dies? Here's the text. I've added emphasis as needed: Quo Primum Promulgating the Tridentine Liturgy Pope Pius V - 1570 APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION From the very first, upon Our elevation to the chief Apostleship, We gladly turned our mind and energies and directed all our thoughts to those matters which concerned the preservation of a pure liturgy, and We strove with God’s help, by every means in our power, to accomplish this purpose. For, besides other decrees of the sacred Council of Trent, there were stipulations for Us to revise and re-edit the sacred books: the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary. With the Catechism published for the instruction of the faithful, by God’s help, and the Breviary thoroughly revised for the worthy praise of God, in order that the Missal and Breviary may be in perfect harmony, as fitting and proper – for its most becoming that there be in the Church only one appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass – We deemed it necessary to give our immediate attention to what still remained to be done, viz, the re-editing of the Missal as soon as possible. Hence, We decided to entrust this work to learned men of our selection. They very carefully collated all their work with the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and with reliable, preserved or emended codices from elsewhere. Besides this, these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers. When this work has been gone over numerous times and further emended, after serious study and reflection, We commanded that the finished product be printed and published as soon as possible, so that all might enjoy the fruits of this labor; and thus, priests would know which prayers to use and which rites and ceremonies they were required to observe from now on in the celebration of Masses. 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, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women – even of military orders – and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever. This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding. All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.
We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal. Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription – except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing.
It is Our will, therefore, and by the same authority, We decree that, after We publish this constitution and the edition of the Missal, the priests of the Roman Curia are, after thirty days, obliged to chant or read the Mass according to it; all others south of the Alps, after three months; and those beyond the Alps either within six months or whenever the Missal is available for sale. Wherefore, in order that the Missal be preserved incorrupt throughout the whole world and kept free of flaws and errors, the penalty for nonobservance for printers, whether mediately or immediately subject to Our dominion, and that of the Holy Roman Church, will be the forfeiting of their books and a fine of one hundred gold ducats, payable ipso facto to the Apostolic Treasury. Further, as for those located in other parts of the world, the penalty is excommunication latae sententiae, and such other penalties as may in Our judgment be imposed; and We decree by this law that they must not dare or presume either to print or to publish or to sell, or in any way to accept books of this nature without Our approval and consent, or without the express consent of the Apostolic Commissaries of those places, who will be appointed by Us. Said printer must receive a standard Missal and agree faithfully with it and in no wise vary from the Roman Missal of the large type (secundum magnum impressionem). Accordingly, since it would be difficult for this present pronouncement to be sent to all parts of the Christian world and simultaneously come to light everywhere, We direct that it be, as usual, posted and published at the doors of the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, also at the Apostolic Chancery, and on the street at Campo Flora; furthermore, We direct that printed copies of this same edict signed by a notary public and made official by an ecclesiastical dignitary possess the same indubitable validity everywhere and in every nation, as if Our manuscript were shown there. Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. Given at St. Peter’s in the year of the Lord’s Incarnation, 1570, on the 14th of July of the Fifth year of Our Pontificate.
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Feb 28, 2023 14:50:12 GMT
I do believe the pope can exempt himself, or anybody else, from any law. Likewise, he can abrogate or amend existing laws or make new ones. However, the aforementioned applies only to human positive law, i.e. laws the Church has herself enacted. The Holy Father cannot deviate from natural law or divine positive law, i.e. God's law.
Be careful what you wish for. Don't have a pope being able to bind his successors. Tradtiones custodes was poor law and a cruel one. We want Francis' successor to be able to abrogate it.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Feb 28, 2023 15:26:42 GMT
I do believe the pope can exempt himself, or anybody else, from any law. Likewise, he can abrogate or amend existing laws or make new ones. However, the aforementioned applies only to human positive law, i.e. laws the Church has herself enacted. The Holy Father cannot deviate from natural law or divine positive law, i.e. God's law. Be careful what you wish for. Don't have a pope being able to bind his successors. Tradtiones custodes was poor law and a cruel one. We want Francis' successor to be able to abrogate it. So did Pope St Pius V err when he said "forever" and "in perpetuity"?
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Feb 28, 2023 16:01:44 GMT
"Okay... can he get up one morning, decide he doesn't like this or that in the Code of Canon Law, and ignore whatever canon he doesn't like?"
Just about. Canon law is basically a codification of the will of the Pope, and he can apply, interpret, change or ignore it as he sees fit. He is not bound by precedent. The first Vatican council made it just about impossible to override the will of the Pope, at least in theory. In practice, politics, ecclesial and secular, and cash, are the main limits to his power. Oh, and of course, death.
"After all, "the Holy See is judged by no one"?"
Yep, and anybody can be judged solely by the Pope, at his will and whim. He has no obligation to justify or explain his decisions and actions. He is a supreme autocrat.
"Can he decide to abrogate the Eastern Rites and force them to adopt the Novus Ordo?"
Yepper depper. The Eastern particular churches are subject to his will and whim, and he can do whatever he pleases. Of course, the political consequences of doing so would give him pause.
"Abolish the College of Cardinals"
Of course. Think about what the College of Cardinals is. He can dismiss or appoint Cardinals at his sole whim. Same goes for bishops or priests.
"... and appoint his own hand-picked successor to assume the papacy the moment he dies?"
He can try. It's been done before. Of course, when he's dead, his choice no longer matters.
"So did Pope St Pius V err when he said "forever" and "in perpetuity"?"
If he imagined that his will would binding on his successors, yes. "Forever" and "perpetuity" ended with his last breath. Just as he was not bound by his predecessors, he could not bind his successors.
Quo primum is solely of historical interest. It has no binding force on anybody today. Least of all, the reigning Pope.
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Feb 28, 2023 20:22:20 GMT
Hi Dominic. Care to introduce yourself before you just dive right into the controversy pool?
|
|
|
Post by theguvnor on Feb 28, 2023 21:43:54 GMT
Personally, I'm staying out of this sort of stuff nowadays but would like to note, 'yepper depper' sounds like an item from a KFC menu.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 1, 2023 1:06:23 GMT
"Okay... can he get up one morning, decide he doesn't like this or that in the Code of Canon Law, and ignore whatever canon he doesn't like?" Just about. Canon law is basically a codification of the will of the Pope, and he can apply, interpret, change or ignore it as he sees fit. He is not bound by precedent. The first Vatican council made it just about impossible to override the will of the Pope, at least in theory. In practice, politics, ecclesial and secular, and cash, are the main limits to his power. Oh, and of course, death. "After all, "the Holy See is judged by no one"?" Yep, and anybody can be judged solely by the Pope, at his will and whim. He has no obligation to justify or explain his decisions and actions. He is a supreme autocrat. "Can he decide to abrogate the Eastern Rites and force them to adopt the Novus Ordo?" Yepper depper. The Eastern particular churches are subject to his will and whim, and he can do whatever he pleases. Of course, the political consequences of doing so would give him pause. "Abolish the College of Cardinals" Of course. Think about what the College of Cardinals is. He can dismiss or appoint Cardinals at his sole whim. Same goes for bishops or priests. "... and appoint his own hand-picked successor to assume the papacy the moment he dies?" He can try. It's been done before. Of course, when he's dead, his choice no longer matters. "So did Pope St Pius V err when he said "forever" and "in perpetuity"?" If he imagined that his will would binding on his successors, yes. "Forever" and "perpetuity" ended with his last breath. Just as he was not bound by his predecessors, he could not bind his successors. Quo primum is solely of historical interest. It has no binding force on anybody today. Least of all, the reigning Pope. I really find it hard to believe that PSPV had it in mind that "when I say 'forever' and 'in perpetuity', I realize that a future Pope, once I'm gone, whether it is in 40 years or 400 years, can undo this whole thing". He wouldn't have used these words (actually, they were Latin words, I'd have to look them up) unless he had meant them. Whether he could bind all future Popes by this, is a question that has been debated to the moon and back, with arguments that can be made either way. I'm not going to rehash them here, the reader can look them up if desired. Michael Davies would tell you one thing, James Likoudis would tell you another, and I knew both men personally. And if the Pope does have the powers you described --- if they are not just illicit usurpations --- then this means two things: - If he misuses his authority --- as, for instance, abolishing the Eastern Rites would surely be --- he has some serious explaining to do, when he meets His Maker. To use a homely analogy, my mother granted me a power of attorney for her financial affairs when she became so disabled that she could no longer do these things for herself. Legally, I could spend every penny she has. But would I have the moral authority? Obviously not.
- If he imposes something that "a burden too heavy to be borne", or that is unreasonable or harmful to the Church, then it becomes very doubtful that he must be obeyed. For instance, if he bound every Catholic to say the Rosary daily under pain of mortal sin, would that be going too far? To abstain from all meat every day of Lent? (The Orthodox do something very similar.) If he mandated that Mass must last a minimum of four hours on Sunday? (Some cultures in the Global South actually might not mind that, and it would dovetail quite well with their culture and lifestyle.)
May God grant that the next Pope will be a benevolent, gentle leader in the mold of John Paul II or Benedict XVI. I had my issues with both of them (far more JP2 than B16), but in the present circumstances, I miss them in much the same way as I miss my own father, who was benevolent and gentle as well.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Mar 1, 2023 2:58:59 GMT
From Pope Benedict XVI: www.patheos.com/blogs/voxnova/2007/07/07/pope-benedict-xvi-likes-the-novus-ordo/That is, there was a proliferation of liturgies, and the EF was a response to that in the name of uniformity. Also, there was a lot of communal activity, and even acts that are followed today. For example, www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2020/03/holy-communion-in-the-hand-norm-till-500-900-ad.htmlIn time, it was also noted that many did not understand Latin, so adjustments were made across centuries to address that problem, starting with missionary communities: catholiccommonsense.freeforums.net/thread/1866/forbidden-translations-brief-historyGiven all that, plus the need for more exposure to Scriptures, and a growing global Catholic community that spoke different vernacular languages, engaged in communal activities which are similar to those found in early Christian communities, and had little access to not only catechism but even formal education due to poverty and other social issues, the Church decided to implement significant reforms to address these via Vatican II. In relation to TC, consider this: churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/traditionis-custodes-how-did-we-get-here/The gist is that the Church thinks in practical terms, too.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 1, 2023 14:46:58 GMT
From Pope Benedict XVI: www.patheos.com/blogs/voxnova/2007/07/07/pope-benedict-xvi-likes-the-novus-ordo/That is, there was a proliferation of liturgies, and the EF was a response to that in the name of uniformity. Also, there was a lot of communal activity, and even acts that are followed today. For example, www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2020/03/holy-communion-in-the-hand-norm-till-500-900-ad.htmlIn time, it was also noted that many did not understand Latin, so adjustments were made across centuries to address that problem, starting with missionary communities: catholiccommonsense.freeforums.net/thread/1866/forbidden-translations-brief-historyGiven all that, plus the need for more exposure to Scriptures, and a growing global Catholic community that spoke different vernacular languages, engaged in communal activities which are similar to those found in early Christian communities, and had little access to not only catechism but even formal education due to poverty and other social issues, the Church decided to implement significant reforms to address these via Vatican II. In relation to TC, consider this: churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/traditionis-custodes-how-did-we-get-here/The gist is that the Church thinks in practical terms, too. From the Church Life Journal article: As for the actual impact of Traditionis Custodes, however, what Francis plans will not silence the websites, blogs, essays and online videos that preach rejection of Vatican II and the liturgical reform. On the contrary, it pours fuel on the fire, intensifying anti-Francis and anti-conciliar invective, deepening the climate of opposition and division in the short term and for the foreseeable future.
Yep, that's precisely what is going to happen. I do not reject Vatican II (liturgical reform is an ongoing process and the Church needs to consider that any objections are part of that reform), but let's say some attending the TLM do. Do we have "police" at the Novus Ordo attempting to winnow out all of those in attendance who reject Humanae vitae, as well as the Church's traditional teaching on the impossibility of women's ordination and the gravely disordered intrinsic evil of homosexual acts? Those who do not believe in the Real Presence? Obviously not. It's a double standard. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. This isn't 1969. We have the Internet and other means of communication that didn't exist then, so that people can acquaint themselves with the arguments both ways. We have huge numbers of people who have been exposed to the TLM, people who have now grown up with the TLM, who assist at it because they want to, and know why they do what they do. Just as the African and Asian church has people who display great fervor and faith, something laudable to be sure, in the Novus Ordo, so we have people who have equal fervor and faith and who find spiritual sustenance in the TLM. I know this will not convince one who is of a coldly rational mindset and who maintains that "if you find something in the TLM that you don't find in the Novus Ordo, then the problem lies with you, and you need to change", but there is "just something about" the TLM --- and it's not just the Latin, not just the splendid music --- that touches these people just as these Global Southerners are touched by the newer rites. Does Francis want a schism that could take a hundred years even to begin healing? A schism powered by instantaneous mass communications where more and more people speak aloud what was only whispered and grumbled about by a few stalwarts in the 1960s and 1970s? Endless videos showing the inherent beauty and holiness of the TLM, that people will see and wonder "what was so bad about this, that it had to be destroyed?"? TLM adherents are not just going to fold their tents and die. Does he understand this? If the Church, as you say, "thinks in practical terms", this, too, is something to consider.
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Mar 1, 2023 19:13:41 GMT
Thoroughly enjoyed the Church Life Journal article, though I found it hedged a bit on the motivations breakdown. What Pope Francis is certainly more driven by is manifestations like the Williamson fiasco, which contributed to prematurely ending his predecessor's reign, the Priebke funeral at the start of his own reign, the rise of alt-Catholic movements in the US and Europe bypassing the established hierarchy, and the use of the Extraordinary Form as a tool to polarize Catholics into opposing camps that, for all intents and purposes, are incompatible to the point of being different religions altogether. While not yet at the Blues and Greens stage, it is quickly approaching the Guelphs and Ghibellines stage, and promises to be as enduring, and as destructive. www.spiegel.de/international/world/losing-touch-a-german-pope-disgraces-the-catholic-church-a-605542.htmlwww.reuters.com/article/uk-germany-nazi/angry-protests-mark-funeral-of-nazi-war-criminal-in-italy-idUKBRE99E0V920131015balkaninsight.com/2022/12/09/critical-mass-inside-the-polish-far-rights-trad-cath-revival/sojo.net/magazine/march-2019/rise-catholic-rightHe's also aware that this polarization is not confined to the Catholic Church, and has already fractured many branches of Protestantism as well. The recent breakdown of the Anglican Communion confirms that his fears for the continued unity of the Church are well justified. While Catholics on both the right and left both believed that the structural nature of the Catholic Church made it immune to such fragmentation, that belief is now being sorely tested. He has come to the realization that not dealing with this problem early in his papacy was a huge mistake, and that no alternative exists at the present moment, when he aware of how little time may remain to him, than to restore things to the state they were under John Paul II. Better late than never. Or possibly too little, too late. I don't envy him. Like the rhyme goes, "All the king's horses, and all the king's men, couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again". Will his plan work? I'm not counting on it. The schism has been brewing for over a hundred years now, and it's only a matter of time before Octoberfest breaks out. This isn't a schism within the Church, but within Christianity as a whole, on a global scale. At this point, even the Pope is like that lone man standing in front of a line of tanks in Tienanmen Square. Will the Church survive? I believe so. In some form. But things are going to be a lot different for the surviving factions, which are almost certainly going to spin off in their own directions in divergent orbits that rarely intersect, unless it be on the battlefield.
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Mar 1, 2023 21:33:47 GMT
From Pope Benedict XVI: www.patheos.com/blogs/voxnova/2007/07/07/pope-benedict-xvi-likes-the-novus-ordo/That is, there was a proliferation of liturgies, and the EF was a response to that in the name of uniformity. Also, there was a lot of communal activity, and even acts that are followed today. For example, www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2020/03/holy-communion-in-the-hand-norm-till-500-900-ad.htmlIn time, it was also noted that many did not understand Latin, so adjustments were made across centuries to address that problem, starting with missionary communities: catholiccommonsense.freeforums.net/thread/1866/forbidden-translations-brief-historyGiven all that, plus the need for more exposure to Scriptures, and a growing global Catholic community that spoke different vernacular languages, engaged in communal activities which are similar to those found in early Christian communities, and had little access to not only catechism but even formal education due to poverty and other social issues, the Church decided to implement significant reforms to address these via Vatican II. In relation to TC, consider this: churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/traditionis-custodes-how-did-we-get-here/The gist is that the Church thinks in practical terms, too. From the Church Life Journal article: As for the actual impact of Traditionis Custodes, however, what Francis plans will not silence the websites, blogs, essays and online videos that preach rejection of Vatican II and the liturgical reform. On the contrary, it pours fuel on the fire, intensifying anti-Francis and anti-conciliar invective, deepening the climate of opposition and division in the short term and for the foreseeable future. Yep, that's precisely what is going to happen. I do not reject Vatican II (liturgical reform is an ongoing process and the Church needs to consider that any objections are part of that reform), but let's say some attending the TLM do. Do we have "police" at the Novus Ordo attempting to winnow out all of those in attendance who reject Humanae vitae, as well as the Church's traditional teaching on the impossibility of women's ordination and the gravely disordered intrinsic evil of homosexual acts? Those who do not believe in the Real Presence? Obviously not. It's a double standard. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
This isn't 1969. We have the Internet and other means of communication that didn't exist then, so that people can acquaint themselves with the arguments both ways. We have huge numbers of people who have been exposed to the TLM, people who have now grown up with the TLM, who assist at it because they want to, and know why they do what they do. Just as the African and Asian church has people who display great fervor and faith, something laudable to be sure, in the Novus Ordo, so we have people who have equal fervor and faith and who find spiritual sustenance in the TLM. I know this will not convince one who is of a coldly rational mindset and who maintains that "if you find something in the TLM that you don't find in the Novus Ordo, then the problem lies with you, and you need to change", but there is "just something about" the TLM --- and it's not just the Latin, not just the splendid music --- that touches these people just as these Global Southerners are touched by the newer rites. Does Francis want a schism that could take a hundred years even to begin healing? A schism powered by instantaneous mass communications where more and more people speak aloud what was only whispered and grumbled about by a few stalwarts in the 1960s and 1970s? Endless videos showing the inherent beauty and holiness of the TLM, that people will see and wonder "what was so bad about this, that it had to be destroyed?"? TLM adherents are not just going to fold their tents and die. Does he understand this? If the Church, as you say, "thinks in practical terms", this, too, is something to consider. Wait, why would the police only need to show up at the NO Mass for this. I guess anyone going to the TLM must adhere strictly to Church teachings in everything. Please stop with the Holier than Thou. I know you will quote a poll done which shows discrepancies between the NO and TLM attendees of some sort. No one learns their Catechism at a Mass, especially one where they don't understand what is being said or because it has fancy music. Pope Francis is not responsible for any schism that may or may not occur. The people who are part of any schism will be solely responsible for their own behaviors, just like when Lefebvre acted and was responsible for what he did. I know you love the TLM, but if your faith is bound to that form of Mass, I would simply suggest that some introspection take place. My parents grew up with the TLM, from the 20's until the changes after VII. There is not one aspect of their beliefs that changed with the form of Mass. The Mass simply changed, but their adherence to Church teachings remained exactly the same as it had been before.
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Mar 2, 2023 15:58:48 GMT
I do believe the pope can exempt himself, or anybody else, from any law. Likewise, he can abrogate or amend existing laws or make new ones. However, the aforementioned applies only to human positive law, i.e. laws the Church has herself enacted. The Holy Father cannot deviate from natural law or divine positive law, i.e. God's law. Be careful what you wish for. Don't have a pope being able to bind his successors. Tradtiones custodes was poor law and a cruel one. We want Francis' successor to be able to abrogate it. So did Pope St Pius V err when he said "forever" and "in perpetuity"? You know I did not say that and I know you argue much better than that.
The crux of my point was is that a pope cannot bind future popes and not certainly in terms of disciplinary law.
That point leads onto saying a pope's inability to bind his predecessors is a good thing. I believe Pope Francis is not finished with his attempts to get rid of the TLM. If he does we want his successor, God willing, please, to restore it. Therefore, we should be pleased that a pope cannot bind his successors. If Pope Francis were to decree that the TLM were to be abolished "forever" and "in perpetuity" there could be no hope of the next pope restoring it à Benedict XVI.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 3, 2023 15:14:11 GMT
So did Pope St Pius V err when he said "forever" and "in perpetuity"? You know I did not say that and I know you argue much better than that.
The crux of my point was is that a pope cannot bind future popes and not certainly in terms of disciplinary law.
That point leads onto saying a pope's inability to bind his predecessors is a good thing. I believe Pope Francis is not finished with his attempts to get rid of the TLM. If he does we want his successor, God willing, please, to restore it. Therefore, we should be pleased that a pope cannot bind his successors. If Pope Francis were to decree that the TLM were to be abolished "forever" and "in perpetuity" there could be no hope of the next pope restoring it à Benedict XVI.
Thank you for your vote of confidence in my argumentative skills, such as they are. Every little bit helps. No, I know you did not say that, I was just posing the question for the sake of argument (there's that word again!). My questions would then be: (1) When he said this, did he mean to bind successors, or did he have it in mind --- something we'll never know in this life --- "well, yes, I said 'forever' and 'in perpetuity', but if some Pope comes along in 40 years, or 400 years, and decides that this missal needs to be changed, or to go entirely (some would say that this missal still exists, it's just been revised, but that is something else PSPV didn't allow for), then that's okay, because I can't bind my successors?". Or did he think --- again, we can't know in this life --- "well, they could, but that's not going to happen, so not to worry"? (2) And if he did mean to bind his successors, did anyone from 1570 to 1962 ever chime in and say "hey, PSPV can't do that, he can't say that this missal exists inviolate and unchangeable, and that it can always be used 'forever' and 'in perpetuity', it's only a matter of Church discipline, not dogma, doctrine, or morality, he went too far"? (3) And Quo primum was in Latin, not English. What words did he use, that managed to get translated into English as "forever" and "in perpetuity"? I will be right upfront and say that my Latin chops aren't sufficient to read the original Latin and understand every word or meaning. (After 35 years, I've pretty well got the Mass itself down pat, and I can figure out the TLM Scripture readings from context, in that I've read the entire Bible, many parts numerous times, but as for densely worded papal documents, I was out sick that day.) So is there anyone here who actually does know Latin at that level? Bueller? Ferris Bueller? I tried running the Latin version of QP through Google Translate, and all I got was repetitive gibberish. Here's a Latin-English bi-columnar version from a source that is decidedly TLM-partisan: www.theholymass.com/part9.htmBut here's the translation I used in the OP, basically identical to the one on theholymass.com, from a source which, to my knowledge, has no partisan axe to grind: www.papalencyclicals.net/pius05/p5quopri.htmLikewise, if Francis did try to do what you describe --- to abrogate the TLM "forever" and "in perpetuity", one of two things would happen: (1) If PSPV did not, in fact, act ultra vires, then it wouldn't "take", because the matter is settled. (2) But if a Pope may not bind in this matter, then we're back to square one, his ukase would only bind until a successor changed it, regardless of Francis's intent. Either way the TLM is safe, in case (1) regardless, and in case (2) one of Francis's successors rolls back his edict.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 3, 2023 15:49:56 GMT
From the Church Life Journal article: As for the actual impact of Traditionis Custodes, however, what Francis plans will not silence the websites, blogs, essays and online videos that preach rejection of Vatican II and the liturgical reform. On the contrary, it pours fuel on the fire, intensifying anti-Francis and anti-conciliar invective, deepening the climate of opposition and division in the short term and for the foreseeable future. Yep, that's precisely what is going to happen. I do not reject Vatican II (liturgical reform is an ongoing process and the Church needs to consider that any objections are part of that reform), but let's say some attending the TLM do. Do we have "police" at the Novus Ordo attempting to winnow out all of those in attendance who reject Humanae vitae, as well as the Church's traditional teaching on the impossibility of women's ordination and the gravely disordered intrinsic evil of homosexual acts? Those who do not believe in the Real Presence? Obviously not. It's a double standard. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
This isn't 1969. We have the Internet and other means of communication that didn't exist then, so that people can acquaint themselves with the arguments both ways. We have huge numbers of people who have been exposed to the TLM, people who have now grown up with the TLM, who assist at it because they want to, and know why they do what they do. Just as the African and Asian church has people who display great fervor and faith, something laudable to be sure, in the Novus Ordo, so we have people who have equal fervor and faith and who find spiritual sustenance in the TLM. I know this will not convince one who is of a coldly rational mindset and who maintains that "if you find something in the TLM that you don't find in the Novus Ordo, then the problem lies with you, and you need to change", but there is "just something about" the TLM --- and it's not just the Latin, not just the splendid music --- that touches these people just as these Global Southerners are touched by the newer rites. Does Francis want a schism that could take a hundred years even to begin healing? A schism powered by instantaneous mass communications where more and more people speak aloud what was only whispered and grumbled about by a few stalwarts in the 1960s and 1970s? Endless videos showing the inherent beauty and holiness of the TLM, that people will see and wonder "what was so bad about this, that it had to be destroyed?"? TLM adherents are not just going to fold their tents and die. Does he understand this? If the Church, as you say, "thinks in practical terms", this, too, is something to consider. Wait, why would the police only need to show up at the NO Mass for this. I guess anyone going to the TLM must adhere strictly to Church teachings in everything. Please stop with the Holier than Thou. I know you will quote a poll done which shows discrepancies between the NO and TLM attendees of some sort. No one learns their Catechism at a Mass, especially one where they don't understand what is being said or because it has fancy music. Pope Francis is not responsible for any schism that may or may not occur. The people who are part of any schism will be solely responsible for their own behaviors, just like when Lefebvre acted and was responsible for what he did. I know you love the TLM, but if your faith is bound to that form of Mass, I would simply suggest that some introspection take place. My parents grew up with the TLM, from the 20's until the changes after VII. There is not one aspect of their beliefs that changed with the form of Mass. The Mass simply changed, but their adherence to Church teachings remained exactly the same as it had been before. [edited from an earlier version to refine the discussion and to make it more precise]It is not "holier than thou" to take issue with those who dissent from a matter of faith or morality upon which the Church has definitively spoken. There is, as I am sure you know, a difference between refusing to believe a teaching of faith or morality, and admitting that the teaching is correct, just that I can't/won't/don't live up to it right now, or that my human intellect can't comprehend it, but I will accept it anyway, even if I'm not living by it. Al Capone insisted upon having access to a priest in case he should die suddenly. He did not, so far as I am aware, say that the Church is wrong to teach against stealing, embezzlement, and so on. As the TLM grows (and it will), you may eventually have people start coming to it, who (for instance) don't trust God enough not to use contraception, but they admit it is a mortal sin, realize that they could go to hell for using it, are just gambling that they don't die suddenly in the meantime (before they have achieved their goal of not having another child at this time) before they can get to confession, and stay away from communion. That's called "being a sinner" and we're all like that. To say, OTOH, "this isn't wrong, the Church is wrong, and I have nothing to repent of", is something totally different. There's no need to quote a poll. At this time, the TLM serves as a magnet for those who adhere to, and accept, traditional Catholic faith and morality in its fullness. As it grows, that may change. I see it even now, people who are new to the TLM, or just happen to "blow in" one Sunday out of curiosity, or to fulfill their obligation (it's the only Mass they could get to this Sunday). You can tell by their dress, deportment, or just general cluelessness --- women not wearing a head covering (at my diocesan TLM, there is absolutely no judgment about this), people furiously trying to page through the complimentary booklet missals because they're used to following along word-by-word, people chatting with one another during the Mass because they know no better. Where are they in terms of doctrinal orthodoxy? I don't know. I'd have to ask each one individually. No one judges them. In fact, we're just happy to have them there. If their comprehension of traditional, orthodox Catholicism is a little "off", most likely through no fault of their own, correction can come in time, as they take our good literature, hear our solidly orthodox sermons (our priest even spoke one Sunday against contraception and how it was an impediment to receiving communion, I could have died of joy right then and there --- finally we hear from the pulpit what needs to be said!). They may have never heard these things before. Milk before meat, as it were. Perhaps "schism" is too strong a word. As long as a TLM group does not deny being in communion with their diocesan bishop, and does not try to create bishops without canonical mandate, then they are merely being disobedient --- setting up shop within a bishop's diocese without his permission --- and that is something different than being schismatic. (Many TLM groups, including the SSPX, insert the name of the bishop in whose diocese they are "squatting", and that is as it should be. It's not unheard of for diocesan bishops to allow the SSPX to use their churches. Yes, you heard that right.) The SSPX was never called "schismatic" until they consecrated the four bishops, and even then, the excommunication was eventually lifted, and the Church acknowledged that there was no schism, disobedience, yes, schism, no. And if the Church does eventually disallow newly ordained priests from saying the TLM (that, too, is covered by Quo primum, assuming it has perpetually binding force), as time goes by, then, as in 1988, the SSPX (or even other groups) may invoke an "emergency" --- the way Archbishop Lefebvre justified consecrating the four bishops --- in that the older bishops are dying, and new bishops are needed to ordain priests to offer the TLM, because diocesan bishops won't do it. But that hasn't happened yet. My faith is not "bound to the TLM". I could attend the Novus Ordo the rest of my life, and nothing would change as regards my faith. And if, as you well point out, nothing about the Faith changes with the form of Mass one attends, then there is no reason to fear the older catechisms (Baltimore et al), no reason to shun them, as there is nothing in them that is contrary to the Faith. (One might protest "but what do which catechism you use, and which form of Mass you offer, have to do with one another?". Fair question, but as a practical matter, they go hand in one another, and I don't hear, for instance, the FSSP, pleading with people to chuck that old Baltimore Catechism, and to dive deeply into the CCC. As a side point, it would be helpful for reprints of the BC to have footnotes for changes in purely disciplinary matters, such as the size of the College of Cardinals or fees for marriage dispensations, but this is something around which one can easily navigate.) But, yes, I do believe that it is positively harmful to the Church to abandon the TLM, and to deny it to future generations, to let it be forgotten. The Church went entirely too far in whittling the Mass down into what became the Novus Ordo, and I can only say (1) go to the TLM, not just one Sunday, but give it a chance, "come and see", and (2) compare the two missals side by side, vernacular translation, Latin if you can read it, your call, and ask yourself the question "is the Mass better because it was changed?". And as to the objection "but it had to be changed because it didn't resonate with Global Southerners" --- which seems to be the litmus test for anything we do in the Church these days, because they're growing by leaps and bounds while Westerners are falling away, and their fervor and faith cannot be denied (just look at those videos!) --- why couldn't the TLM have been translated into their vernaculars, and allow them to supply whatever "inculturation" might demand? Yes, the Mass would be long, but just from the anecdotal evidence, they don't mind that, Mass could last all day and they'd be good with that. In short, what was wrong with the prayers? The reference in Sacrosanctum concilium and elsewhere to accretions and redundancies that had attached over time, and a need for a "noble simplicity", is merely a pastoral observation, not doctrine, and enjoys no claim of infallibility, and besides, if the Mass did not change at all in the 400 years from QP to Vatican II, then when did those things creep in?
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Mar 4, 2023 6:14:34 GMT
From Pope Benedict XVI: www.patheos.com/blogs/voxnova/2007/07/07/pope-benedict-xvi-likes-the-novus-ordo/That is, there was a proliferation of liturgies, and the EF was a response to that in the name of uniformity. Also, there was a lot of communal activity, and even acts that are followed today. For example, www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2020/03/holy-communion-in-the-hand-norm-till-500-900-ad.htmlIn time, it was also noted that many did not understand Latin, so adjustments were made across centuries to address that problem, starting with missionary communities: catholiccommonsense.freeforums.net/thread/1866/forbidden-translations-brief-historyGiven all that, plus the need for more exposure to Scriptures, and a growing global Catholic community that spoke different vernacular languages, engaged in communal activities which are similar to those found in early Christian communities, and had little access to not only catechism but even formal education due to poverty and other social issues, the Church decided to implement significant reforms to address these via Vatican II. In relation to TC, consider this: churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/traditionis-custodes-how-did-we-get-here/The gist is that the Church thinks in practical terms, too. From the Church Life Journal article: As for the actual impact of Traditionis Custodes, however, what Francis plans will not silence the websites, blogs, essays and online videos that preach rejection of Vatican II and the liturgical reform. On the contrary, it pours fuel on the fire, intensifying anti-Francis and anti-conciliar invective, deepening the climate of opposition and division in the short term and for the foreseeable future.
Yep, that's precisely what is going to happen. I do not reject Vatican II (liturgical reform is an ongoing process and the Church needs to consider that any objections are part of that reform), but let's say some attending the TLM do. Do we have "police" at the Novus Ordo attempting to winnow out all of those in attendance who reject Humanae vitae, as well as the Church's traditional teaching on the impossibility of women's ordination and the gravely disordered intrinsic evil of homosexual acts? Those who do not believe in the Real Presence? Obviously not. It's a double standard. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. This isn't 1969. We have the Internet and other means of communication that didn't exist then, so that people can acquaint themselves with the arguments both ways. We have huge numbers of people who have been exposed to the TLM, people who have now grown up with the TLM, who assist at it because they want to, and know why they do what they do. Just as the African and Asian church has people who display great fervor and faith, something laudable to be sure, in the Novus Ordo, so we have people who have equal fervor and faith and who find spiritual sustenance in the TLM. I know this will not convince one who is of a coldly rational mindset and who maintains that "if you find something in the TLM that you don't find in the Novus Ordo, then the problem lies with you, and you need to change", but there is "just something about" the TLM --- and it's not just the Latin, not just the splendid music --- that touches these people just as these Global Southerners are touched by the newer rites. Does Francis want a schism that could take a hundred years even to begin healing? A schism powered by instantaneous mass communications where more and more people speak aloud what was only whispered and grumbled about by a few stalwarts in the 1960s and 1970s? Endless videos showing the inherent beauty and holiness of the TLM, that people will see and wonder "what was so bad about this, that it had to be destroyed?"? TLM adherents are not just going to fold their tents and die. Does he understand this? If the Church, as you say, "thinks in practical terms", this, too, is something to consider. Only non-Catholics reject Vatican II.
|
|