FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Yeah, I know it's an old argument but it can deserve our consideration...
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Quote:Did Pope Paul VI have the authority to repeal the Apostolic Constitution, Quo Primum? Technically, he did not abrogate the Roman Missal, but he did replace it by the new revised Roman Missal and derogated the use of the older Missal. Pope Paul VI possessed the same papal authority as Pope St. Pius V. The principle is explicitly recognized by the Code of Canon Law. Canon 22 states that "if the later law is equally general or equally particular with the former one" - and both Quo Primum and Missale Romanum are equally Apostolic Constitutions dealing with exactly the same subject matter of the former law. A later law repeals the former one, "if it contains an explicit statement to that effect, a repealing clause." Pope Paul VI's Missale Romanum did exactly that. It both mentions Quo Primum and says that what he is promulgating is promulgated "notwithstanding, as far as is necessary, Apostolic Constitutions and Ordinances issued by our Predecessors and other prescriptions worthy of special mention and derogation." (Whitehead, 58, 59)

http://jloughnan.tripod.com/defensem.htm
Okay, so on that Pope Benedict has declared that the Tridentine Mass was never replaced by the "Pauline", doesn't it make sense that the later law is neither "equally general or equally particular with the former one". We know that the Tridentine Missal was meant to be side-by-side with the new missal. So it stands to reason that the new missal is neither equally general or equally particular in itself. Therefore it is not protected by the Church's defectibility. The new missal was not made an universal law, but was only given as an alternative in an Apostolic Constitution. Furthermore, if the Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum can be changed (and thus not infallible) then why cannot the new one be? The new missal can be suppressed, and ought to be because it has harmed the Church. It's not even followed anyways by most. So why not come out with a new Apostolic Constitution that suppresses the new missal and gives permission for the Tridentine in vernacular?
Infallibility only concerns Faith and Morals.

Look at the original Nicene Creed. It did not contain the Filioque and the Council used similar language that Pius V did when it said no one can change it.

And yet the Church has added the Filioque even though the Orthodox don't and accuse us of being anti-Traditional. Sound familiar?

No pope or Council can bind a future pope or Council. They can only bind the rest of the Church which was meant by the decrees of Nicea and Pius V.

Paul VI was just as much pope as Pius V and the both of them had equal right and authority when it came to revising the mass.

Now, whether or not Paul VI's actions were prudent or good for the Church is another matter.
Catholicmilkman Wrote:So why not come out with a new Apostolic Constitution that suppresses the new missal and gives permission for the Tridentine in vernacular?

I don't think that the Tridentine in the vernacular would be such a good idea.
Catholicmilkman Wrote:So why not come out with a new Apostolic Constitution that suppresses the new missal and gives permission for the Tridentine in vernacular?

Because that isn't the issue :)

There is nothing in VII which made the vernacular the default for the mass and in fact it stated that greater knowledge of Latin was to be encouraged. The use of vernacular in the Mass was not the intent of VII.

The original Pauline mass was in Latin and did not contain the most common elements of NO masses today. People think VII had the vernacular as default, facing the people, altar girls, and lay participation in almost ever facet of the mass, but it did not at all. It has a new missal, a rearrangement of the prayers and some other changes. The mass would have been barely different from the TLM if it were followed to the letter, instead of "interpretting" it to mean different things.
LaRoza Wrote:There is nothing in VII which made the vernacular the default for the mass and in fact it stated that greater knowledge of Latin was to be encouraged. The use of vernacular in the Mass was not the intent of VII.
Duh! But what you're going to do to immediately heal the Church when 99% of priests don't know Ecclesiastical Latin?

Quote:The original Pauline mass was in Latin and did not contain the most common elements of NO masses today.
There is no "original" "Pauline" Mass, there were merely just four alternative evil "Eucharistic prayers".
Quote:People think VII had the vernacular as default, facing the people, altar girls, and lay participation in almost ever facet of the mass, but it did not at all.
You don't think I know that?

Quote:It has a new missal, a rearrangement of the prayers and some other changes.
Quite a mistake I said. Don't fix what isn't broken! The people were broken, not the Roman Missal. Rubrics were broken, but NOT the MISSALE ROMANUM!

Quote:The mass would have been barely different from the TLM if it were followed to the letter, instead of "interpretting" it to mean different things.
You make me laugh. Not one of the Eucharistic prayers were close to the Tridentine Catholic Offertory and Canon. They barely even have any Offertory. A Jewish Seder meal prayer is not an Catholic Offertory. Please!
didishroom Wrote:Infallibility only concerns Faith and Morals.
And what does Indefectibility concern?

Quote:Look at the original Nicene Creed. It did not contain the Filioque and the Council used similar language that Pius V did when it said no one can change it.

And yet the Church has added the Filioque even though the Orthodox don't and accuse us of being anti-Traditional. Sound familiar?
The Filioque in the correct understanding is a Catholic Dogma declared by the Council of Florence.

Quote:No pope or Council can bind a future pope or Council. They can only bind the rest of the Church which was meant by the decrees of Nicea and Pius V.
Sacred Dogma binds FOREVER. Dogma is Truth. Therefore the TRUTH binds FOREVER! Is/was the new missal good for the Church? Does it support the Divine Faith as it ought? I rest my case.

Quote:Paul VI was just as much pope as Pius V and the both of them had equal right and authority when it came to revising the mass.
To have a right do something is not to do it rightly. And authority cannot be separated from the truth. Authority leaves a person in an objectively evil command or decree. It leaves him maybe only in that specific command. It does not mean he leaves his office either. The President does not lose his Office for telling you to kill another who you know is innocent. He can by impeechment but he doesn't automatically. The Office of Papacy is no different, for it is also an Office that is influenced by our fallen human nature.


  
Quote:
There is no "original" "Pauline" Mass, there were merely just four alternative evil "Eucharistic prayers".
Ok, yes there is an original Pauline Mass, which does contain 'options' for the priest to say the mass. In of themselves they are not evil. If you are going to accuse the Supreme Pontiff of making 'evil prayers' then state your reasons!We have become way too lax in our respect for the popes since the Council.

 
Quote:You don't think I know that?
He didn't say you didn't. Cut the attitude.




  
Who was the person who said that fisheaters was being overrun by neo-trads?
Catholicmilkman Wrote:Duh! But what you're going to do to immediately heal the Church when 99% of priests don't know Ecclesiastical Latin?
I believe that all priests are taught to say the mass in Latin. They may be rusty on Latin, but it isn't something you need to speak fluently to celebrate mass.



Quote:There is no "original" "Pauline" Mass, there were merely just four alternative evil "Eucharistic prayers".
I am a member of the Catholic Church of which there are no evil elements.

Quote:You make me laugh. Not one of the Eucharistic prayers were close to the Tridentine Catholic Offertory and Canon. They barely even have any Offertory. A Jewish Seder meal prayer is not an Catholic Offertory. Please!

It is still the mass and the Body and Blood of Christ are present during the mass. The fact I prefer the TLM does not diminish this.
Catholicmilkman Wrote:Who was the person who said that fisheaters was being overrun by neo-trads?

What is a neo-trad?

I'm Catholic. There is nothing else.
Pages: 1 2