|
|
Post by tth1 on Mar 6, 2023 16:49:09 GMT
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. Unfortunately, I certainly cannot help with the Latin.
Furthermore, I do not know what was Pius V's intent. Perhaps it was simply grandiose language to declare how important he thought his decree was.
All I am saying is that is my understanding no pope can bind his predecessors. We have many examples of popes changing things. Also the Mass was changed, granted not i huge ways, but it was changed at times prior to Vatican II.
As Pius V decreed that other rites of the Mass with a provenance of 200+ years had to continue in use he cannot have been trying to bring into force the Roman Rite only.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 6, 2023 23:42:04 GMT
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. Unfortunately, I certainly cannot help with the Latin.
Furthermore, I do not know what was Pius V's intent. Perhaps it was simply grandiose language to declare how important he thought his decree was.
All I am saying is that is my understanding no pope can bind his predecessors. We have many examples of popes changing things. Also the Mass was changed, granted not i huge ways, but it was changed at times prior to Vatican II.
As Pius V decreed that other rites of the Mass with a provenance of 200+ years had to continue in use he cannot have been trying to bring into force the Roman Rite only.
We cannot know in this life, and there was no EWTN with Raymond Arroyo able to ask PSPV "do you mean this in an absolute sense, and if so, how is a Pope able to bind his successors in such a fashion?". Again, I'd be interested to know if anyone prior to Vatican II questioned this, or indeed, when various minor changes were made, how they justified this in the light of QP, which was right there on the very first pages of the Missale Romanum. I'd also be interested to know if such absolutist language existed in any other papal documents, and if, indeed, it was simply an orotund rhetorical style that wasn't meant to be taken literally, or indeed something that was meant to be understood in a literal sense. As to "grandfathering in" rites of 200+ years provenance, he specifically made an exception, and in any event, gave those following these rites the option of either continuing to do so, or to adopt the Tridentine Missal. |
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Mar 7, 2023 7:25:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Mar 7, 2023 14:58:16 GMT
As to "grandfathering in" rites of 200+ years provenance, he specifically made an exception, and in any event, gave those following these rites the option of either continuing to do so, or to adopt the Tridentine Missal. He allowed rites with 200+ years provenance to continue to be used. Indeed, he commanded they be retained. Rites which were not that old had to be replaced by the Roman Rite.
In places where their own right could be retained the switch could only be made to the Roman Rite by the bishop with the consent of his chapter.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 7, 2023 15:22:11 GMT
As to "grandfathering in" rites of 200+ years provenance, he specifically made an exception, and in any event, gave those following these rites the option of either continuing to do so, or to adopt the Tridentine Missal. He allowed rites with 200+ years provenance to continue to be used. Indeed, he commanded they be retained. Rites which were not that old had to be replaced by the Roman Rite.
In places where their own right could be retained the switch could only be made to the Roman Rite by the bishop with the consent of his chapter.
I don't think we disagree on this. Rites existing for more than 200 years could stay they way they were, but if they wished to use the Tridentine Missal, they could do so, with permission of the competent ecclesiastical authority. I have to wonder what it would have been like, if the Tridentine missal and the Novus Ordo (I'm using here the commonly used terms of the time, viz. 1970s) had been allowed side-by-side, with the faithful able to choose according to their preferences, at least in places large enough to have several Masses on a Sunday. This is similar to what the Episcopal Church does with "Rite 1" and "Rite 2", and to my knowledge, this provision by itself has not sowed dissension among them (though there are some who hew strictly to the 1928 BCP and have split from PECUSA over this and other issues, viz. women's ordination and same-sex marriage, so after a fashion they, too, have their versions of SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, and so on). |
|
