FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae (/showthread.php?tid=64572)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11


Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - 2Vermont - 08-19-2013

(08-19-2013, 05:03 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: The main debate was on the degree of change necessary to do this. 

I'll agree with you there.  And the degree of change was drastic, a "striking departure" as Ottaviani so aptly described it.


Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - Sant Anselmo - 08-19-2013

(08-19-2013, 06:31 PM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 05:48 PM)Sant Anselmo Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 04:44 PM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 01:45 PM)Sant Anselmo Wrote: For someone to believe that the Mass of Paul VI is invalid, they must also believe that millions of Catholics have not really been receiving the Eucharist since its promulgation. 

Not true if you consider it valid, but illicit.  I know that is not what I originally suggested, but I think I see the NO more like I see the Orthodox Church's liturgy. The OC liturgy may be valid, but it is illegitimate.  I think this would better express my latest feelings about it.

I'm not following your reasoning on this.  Others have already responded in basically the same way I was considering, so I will look to your response to their posts. 

I guess my point was if valid, but illicit, the Eucharist is still confected.  I know that most here don't question either the validity or the licitness, but I was just pointing out that the results would be different if only illicit (ie. people would have been receiving the Eucharist since its promulgation).

Whether something in the Church is licit or illicit is a function of Canon Law.  While the claim that no pope can bind another in terms of doctrine would certainly be false, in terms of Canon Law I believe it to be quite true.  To my understanding, the Pope can interpret, alter, or suspend Canon Law how and when he chooses.  I do not see how your argument vis-a-vie the Mass of Paul VI being illicit can be squared with Popes saying it is not illicit.  This is of course unless we go back to the idea of all of the post-conciliar popes being liars or not really pope to begin with, in which case we are back to square one.  The only other option I can see is if Popes cannot in fact alter or suspend Canon Law as they choose.  However, we know Canon Law has been revised and re-written multiple times in the history of the Church, so that doesn't make sense either, 

Your arguments have implications far beyond the Eucharist and its validity or legality.  It also impacts the truth of whether or not every priest, bishop, and deacon ordained under the NO Mass is valid and/or licit, as well as potentially religious consecrations.  This of course impacts the sacrament of confession, confirmation, anointing of the sick, and so on. 


Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - 2Vermont - 08-19-2013

(08-19-2013, 06:42 PM)Melchior Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 05:12 PM)2Vermont Wrote: And the Council of Trent:

"If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema."

I'm pretty sure those with legitimate authority can enact changes.  That, along with a nice hat, is a benefit of being to the Successor of Peter

From QuoPrimum:

Now therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us; this ordinance to apply to all churches and chapels, with or without care of souls, patriarchal, collegiate, and parochial, be they secular or belonging to any religious Order, whether of men (including the military Orders) or of women, in which conventual Masses are or ought to be sung aloud in choir or read privately according to the rites and customs of the Roman Church; to apply, moreover, even if the said churches have been in any way exempted, whether by indult of the Apostolic See, by custom, by privilege, or even by oath or Apostolic confirmation, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them in any other way whatsoever, saving only those in which the practice of saying Mass differently was granted over 200 years ago simultaneously with the Apostolic See's institution and confirmation of the church, and those in which there has prevailed a similar custom followed continuously for a period of not less than 200 years; in which cases We in no wise rescind their prerogatives or customs aforesaid. Nevertheless, if this Missal which We have seen fit to publish be more agreeable to these last, We hereby permit them to celebrate Mass according to its rite, subject to the consent of their bishop or prelate, and of their whole Chapter, all else to the contrary notwithstanding. All other churches aforesaid are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be wholly and entirely rejected; and by this present Constitution, which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein.


Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - Melchior - 08-19-2013

(08-19-2013, 06:58 PM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 06:42 PM)Melchior Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 05:12 PM)2Vermont Wrote: And the Council of Trent:

"If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema."

I'm pretty sure those with legitimate authority can enact changes.  That, along with a nice hat, is a benefit of being to the Successor of Peter

From QuoPrimum:

Now therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us; this ordinance to apply to all churches and chapels, with or without care of souls, patriarchal, collegiate, and parochial, be they secular or belonging to any religious Order, whether of men (including the military Orders) or of women, in which conventual Masses are or ought to be sung aloud in choir or read privately according to the rites and customs of the Roman Church; to apply, moreover, even if the said churches have been in any way exempted, whether by indult of the Apostolic See, by custom, by privilege, or even by oath or Apostolic confirmation, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them in any other way whatsoever, saving only those in which the practice of saying Mass differently was granted over 200 years ago simultaneously with the Apostolic See's institution and confirmation of the church, and those in which there has prevailed a similar custom followed continuously for a period of not less than 200 years; in which cases We in no wise rescind their prerogatives or customs aforesaid. Nevertheless, if this Missal which We have seen fit to publish be more agreeable to these last, We hereby permit them to celebrate Mass according to its rite, subject to the consent of their bishop or prelate, and of their whole Chapter, all else to the contrary notwithstanding. All other churches aforesaid are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be wholly and entirely rejected; and by this present Constitution, which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein.

The key word in the section you quoted is "unlawful". Unless it's a sin against natural law, the Pope can unbind items within law, per the role his office carries. 


Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - SaintSebastian - 08-19-2013

(08-19-2013, 05:12 PM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 05:03 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: I don't get how the "illicit" conclusion follows. The supreme legislator has declared it licit:

Pius XII, Mediator Dei Wrote:58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.
 

And the Council of Trent:

"If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema."

This doesn't contradict the principle expressed by Pius XII.  Not any pastor whatsoever has the authority to change the rites, but the Pope does.  The Council of Trent says the same thing about this power in the Church in general (the Pope exercises the full power in the Church):

Council of Trent, Session 21, Chapter 2 Wrote:It declares furthermore, that in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, the Church may, according to circumstances, times and places, determine or change whatever she may judge most expedient for the benefit of those receiving them or for the veneration of the sacraments; and this power has always been hers. The Apostle seems to have clearly intimated this when he said: Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God;[10] and that he himself exercised this power, as in many other things so in this sacrament, is sufficiently manifest, for after having given some instructions regarding its use, he says: <The rest I will set in order when I come.>[11]

This is why your other quote of St. Pius V's Quo Primum doesn't really apply to whether the NO could be issued or whether restrictions could be placed on the TLM.  If he were actually intending to create some sort of immutable law, he would be violating the principle that these things are not immutable and that the Church always retain the power to make changes--St. Pius V could not destroy this power in the Church, nor did he intend to do so.  His decree is directed to his subordinates, not his equals. This is why in the quote above Pius XII does not say "except those codified by St. Pius V."  St. Pius X made radical changes to the breviary and imposed it outright in the Latin Church without exception, even though the same language in Quo Primum was used by St. Pius V to make changes to the breviary. That being said, whether the law in Quo Primum has been formally "muted" is another question altogether.


Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - Sant Anselmo - 08-19-2013

(08-19-2013, 08:19 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 05:12 PM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 05:03 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: I don't get how the "illicit" conclusion follows. The supreme legislator has declared it licit:

Pius XII, Mediator Dei Wrote:58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.
 

And the Council of Trent:

"If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema."

This doesn't contradict the principle expressed by Pius XII.  Not any pastor whatsoever has the authority to change the rites, but the Pope does.  The Council of Trent says the same thing about this power in the Church in general (the Pope exercises the full power in the Church):

Council of Trent, Session 21, Chapter 2 Wrote:It declares furthermore, that in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, the Church may, according to circumstances, times and places, determine or change whatever she may judge most expedient for the benefit of those receiving them or for the veneration of the sacraments; and this power has always been hers. The Apostle seems to have clearly intimated this when he said: Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God;[10] and that he himself exercised this power, as in many other things so in this sacrament, is sufficiently manifest, for after having given some instructions regarding its use, he says: <The rest I will set in order when I come.>[11]

This is why your other quote of St. Pius V's Quo Primum doesn't really apply to whether the NO could be issued or whether restrictions could be placed on the TLM.  If he were actually intending to create some sort of immutable law, he would be violating the principle that these things are not immutable and that the Church always retain the power to make changes--St. Pius V could not destroy this power in the Church, nor did he intend to do so.  His decree is directed to his subordinates, not his equals. This is why in the quote above Pius XII does not say "except those codified by St. Pius V."  St. Pius X made radical changes to the breviary and imposed it outright in the Latin Church without exception, even though the same language in Quo Primum was used by St. Pius V to make changes to the breviary. That being said, whether the law in Quo Primum has been formally "muted" is another question altogether.

Well reasoned. 

Thanks,


Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - 2Vermont - 08-20-2013

(08-19-2013, 08:19 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 05:12 PM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 05:03 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: I don't get how the "illicit" conclusion follows. The supreme legislator has declared it licit:

Pius XII, Mediator Dei Wrote:58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.
 

And the Council of Trent:

"If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema."

This doesn't contradict the principle expressed by Pius XII.  Not any pastor whatsoever has the authority to change the rites, but the Pope does.  The Council of Trent says the same thing about this power in the Church in general (the Pope exercises the full power in the Church):

Council of Trent, Session 21, Chapter 2 Wrote:It declares furthermore, that in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, the Church may, according to circumstances, times and places, determine or change whatever she may judge most expedient for the benefit of those receiving them or for the veneration of the sacraments; and this power has always been hers. The Apostle seems to have clearly intimated this when he said: Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God;[10] and that he himself exercised this power, as in many other things so in this sacrament, is sufficiently manifest, for after having given some instructions regarding its use, he says: <The rest I will set in order when I come.>[11]

This is why your other quote of St. Pius V's Quo Primum doesn't really apply to whether the NO could be issued or whether restrictions could be placed on the TLM.  If he were actually intending to create some sort of immutable law, he would be violating the principle that these things are not immutable and that the Church always retain the power to make changes--St. Pius V could not destroy this power in the Church, nor did he intend to do so.  His decree is directed to his subordinates, not his equals. This is why in the quote above Pius XII does not say "except those codified by St. Pius V."  St. Pius X made radical changes to the breviary and imposed it outright in the Latin Church without exception, even though the same language in Quo Primum was used by St. Pius V to make changes to the breviary. That being said, whether the law in Quo Primum has been formally "muted" is another question altogether.

This session and chapter was talking about a specific piece of the liturgy...the administration of the Eucharist under one species vs two.  This change doesn't change the essence of the Mass.  It does not authorize the complete overhaul of the Roman Missae which is what Quo Primum discusses.  The Mass is the main prayer of the Church. It isn't just "Canon Law".  Lex orandi, lex credendi.  Pius V understood this.   


Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - 2Vermont - 08-20-2013

(08-19-2013, 07:22 PM)Melchior Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 06:58 PM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 06:42 PM)Melchior Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 05:12 PM)2Vermont Wrote: And the Council of Trent:

"If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema."

I'm pretty sure those with legitimate authority can enact changes.  That, along with a nice hat, is a benefit of being to the Successor of Peter

From QuoPrimum:

Now therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us; this ordinance to apply to all churches and chapels, with or without care of souls, patriarchal, collegiate, and parochial, be they secular or belonging to any religious Order, whether of men (including the military Orders) or of women, in which conventual Masses are or ought to be sung aloud in choir or read privately according to the rites and customs of the Roman Church; to apply, moreover, even if the said churches have been in any way exempted, whether by indult of the Apostolic See, by custom, by privilege, or even by oath or Apostolic confirmation, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them in any other way whatsoever, saving only those in which the practice of saying Mass differently was granted over 200 years ago simultaneously with the Apostolic See's institution and confirmation of the church, and those in which there has prevailed a similar custom followed continuously for a period of not less than 200 years; in which cases We in no wise rescind their prerogatives or customs aforesaid. Nevertheless, if this Missal which We have seen fit to publish be more agreeable to these last, We hereby permit them to celebrate Mass according to its rite, subject to the consent of their bishop or prelate, and of their whole Chapter, all else to the contrary notwithstanding. All other churches aforesaid are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be wholly and entirely rejected; and by this present Constitution, which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein.

The key word in the section you quoted is "unlawful". Unless it's a sin against natural law, the Pope can unbind items within law, per the role his office carries. 

What exactly in the Mass relates to "natural law"?  And if nothing in the Mass relates to "natural law" then Pope Pius V must have been referring to something else otherwise he wouldn't have used the word unlawful.  Notice he also specifically mentions even if there is an indult by the Apostolic See.  So apparently there are limits to the power of the Pope in regards to the Mass.  Pope Pius V is talking about something much more than minor changes to the Mass that do not change the meaning or essence of the Mass.  Paul VI completely overhauled the Mass by making it more palatable to the Protestants.  Protestants.  Pope Pius V codified the Latin Rite as a counter attack to Protestantism.  I can't get this out of my head.


Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - Melchior - 08-20-2013

(08-20-2013, 08:39 AM)2Vermont Wrote: What exactly in the Mass relates to "natural law"?  And if nothing in the Mass relates to "natural law" then Pope Pius V must have been referring to something else otherwise he wouldn't have used the word unlawful.  Notice he also specifically mentions even if there is an indult by the Apostolic See.  So apparently there are limits to the power of the Pope in regards to the Mass.  Pope Pius V is talking about something much more than minor changes to the Mass that do not change the meaning or essence of the Mass.  Paul VI completely overhauled the Mass by making it more palatable to the Protestants.  Protestants.  Pope Pius V codified the Latin Rite as a counter attack to Protestantism.  I can't get this out of my head.

Sincere question here; do you believe that as the Successor of Peter, that whatever the Pope binds and looses on Earth will be bound and loose in Heaven?  I'm getting the sense here that you might not.


Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - 2Vermont - 08-20-2013

(08-20-2013, 08:52 AM)Melchior Wrote:
(08-20-2013, 08:39 AM)2Vermont Wrote: What exactly in the Mass relates to "natural law"?  And if nothing in the Mass relates to "natural law" then Pope Pius V must have been referring to something else otherwise he wouldn't have used the word unlawful.  Notice he also specifically mentions even if there is an indult by the Apostolic See.  So apparently there are limits to the power of the Pope in regards to the Mass.  Pope Pius V is talking about something much more than minor changes to the Mass that do not change the meaning or essence of the Mass.  Paul VI completely overhauled the Mass by making it more palatable to the Protestants.  Protestants.  Pope Pius V codified the Latin Rite as a counter attack to Protestantism.  I can't get this out of my head.

Sincere question here; do you believe that as the Successor of Peter, that whatever the Pope binds and looses on Earth will be bound and loose in Heaven?  I'm getting the sense here that you might not.

I agree with it in matters other than faith and morals.  We know that the Pope can not bind and loose anything he wants.  He can not contradict doctrine.  Even the Pope has limits.  The Mass is the greatest prayer of the Church for hundreds and hundreds of years.  It is not mere Canon Law.  It has more to do with doctrine than discipline (lex orandi, lex credendi).  Pope Paul VI radically changed it.  This is unprecedented.

I found this and thought it was a good explanation of what we are talking about here (and I'm pretty sure these guys are not sedes, so I think it is okay to post):

http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/E032_QuoPrimum.htm