Licit to attend weekly NO Masses with abuses?
(04-24-2009, 10:24 PM)DrBombay Wrote: I might remind you, friend, that it won't stand to your benefit if you are wrong in advising someone not to attend a validly promulgated Rite of the Church.

...Nonsense , I have theological certitude based on reason  - not emotions, that attending the New Mass is a sin, so therefore on my judgment the only thing I should be afraid of is if I dont try and get as many people amongst my family and friends and others going to the True Mass, the true sacraments.

You have however have only just now provided some quotes or evidence to support your claim which I will address in a moment.

(04-24-2009, 10:24 PM)DrBombay Wrote: I can document trawl too.  c.f.: The Catechism of Pope Pius X: 

5 Q. What is the form of the sacrament of the Eucharist?
A. The form of the sacrament of the Eucharist consists of the words used by Jesus Christ Himself: "This is My Body: This is My Blood."

So you seek to discredit quotations ive provided, based on the fact that I found some of them on the internet? That is a truly the mark of a dishonest debater, a bit of an argumentum ad hominem...for shame

As for this venerable reference you have provided, I believe it is also the opinion of St.Thomas Aquinas, which is a very good argument to bring up. However you should know and probably should have mentioned that this only applies to the intrinsic form of the sacrament it doesnt address the rite surrounding it - after all do they not also have this form at a black mass? Doesnt say anything about the prayers surrounding it.
Not to mention that youve totally skipped over (conveniently) my reference to Dei Defectibus, which would seem to offer another obstacle to validity, in the changing of the meaning of the consecration. Which people argue that the removal of mysterium fidei and the pro multis issue casts doubt on the validity. So basically we have two opposing views there, one the totality of the consecration and two the intrinsic form. Perhaps they are not opposing?

(04-24-2009, 10:24 PM)DrBombay Wrote: The Catholic Encyclopedia:

The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i.e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching.


From the disciplinary infallibility of the Church, correctly understood as an indirect consequence of her doctrinal infallibility, it follows that she cannot be rightly accused of introducing into her discipline anything opposed to the Divine law;

You know of course this is only a theological opinion, I have quoted the conditions for infallibility to you and they are truly indisputable, this however is quite disputable as the very source you provided explains:

"It is quite permissible, however, to inquire how far this infallibility extends, and to what extent, in her disciplinary activity, the Church makes use of the privilege of inerrancy granted her by Jesus Christ when she defines matters of faith and morals.
.....Infallibility is directly related to the teaching office (magisterium), and although this office and the disciplinary power reside in the same ecclesiastical authorities, the disciplinary power does not necessarily depend directly on the teaching office. Teaching pertains to the order of truth; legislation to that of justice and prudence.

But INPEFESS has provided a wealth of information of the liceity of the New Mass which i will steal some from right now. (We can take this to that forum if you so desire)

“According to the Axiom: lex dubia non obligat, a doubtful law does not bind. But a law is doubtful when there is a solidly probable opinion against it. Hence it is lawful to follow a solidly probable opinion in favor of liberty. (cf. Tanquerey, Theologia Fundamentalis, n. 409)”

And a very important reference which indeed clearly cast serious doubt on the above theological opinion you quoted:

1. The Papal Coronation Oath:

"I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach, to alter (change), or to permit any innovation therein.
  "To the contrary, with glowing affection as Her truly faithful steward and successor, (I vow) to reverently safeguard the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort.
  "To cleanse all that is in contradiction with canonical order that may surface.

  "To guard the holy canons and decrees of our Popes likewise as Divine Ordinance of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, Whose place I take through the grace of God, Whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy Divine tribunal over all that I confess.

    ''If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful day of Divine Justice.

.......clearly the Pope CAN do something like this, otherwise there would have been no need for this oath!

    "Accordingly, without exclusion, we subject to the severest excommunication anyone----be it our self or be it another----who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion, or [who] would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or [who] would concur with those who undertake such blasphemous venture."

[liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, P. L 105, S. 54]

"...This sacred oath was taken religiously for 1300 years up until October 1978. The question must be asked: Why then, did John Paul II not follow his predecessors and take this sacred papal coronation oath? He is the first since the 7th century and before to not do so."

Pope Saint Pius X wrote in his Encyclical Against [url=" Target="_blank]Modernism[/url]:
  "But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicaea, where it condemns those 'who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind . . . or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow anyone of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church' . . . Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: 'I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church'." [Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi, Encyclical against [url=" Target="_blank]Modernism[/url], 1908, para. #42.]
[b]Saint Peter Damian, another Doctor of the Church, teaches, "It is unlawful to alter the established customs of the Church . . . Remove not the ancient landmarks which the fathers have set."

Citing the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, Torquemada continues:
  "Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states [De Consuetudine] that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself, does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, 'he need not be followed' . . . " [Cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.D., M. Div. (2nd edition, St. Francis Press, India) p. 29.

[The full quotation from Cardinal Torquemada reads, "By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent on its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding something that is against the Divine or natural law. By doing so, the Pope separates himself from the body of the Church because the body is itself linked to Christ by obedience. In this way the Pope could, without doubt, fall into schism . . . Especially is this true with regard to the Divine liturgy as for example, if he did not wish personally to follow the universal customs and rites of the Church. . . Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states (De Consuetudine) that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, 'he need not be followed . . . "]


.............Or how about St.Athanasius? Surely you know about the whole thing between him and pope Liberius, where the Pope subjected the church to a very grave danger by signing the ambigous profession of faith - that could be interpreted to deny the divinity of Christ? St. Athanasius was excommunicated for resisting the Pope in this 'disciplinary action' he was made a Saint of the Catholic Church for resisting!

(04-24-2009, 10:24 PM)DrBombay Wrote: But wait!  There's more!  How about a another Pope quote?  Pope Gregory XVI in Quo Graviora:

The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth -- all of which truth is taught by the Holy Spirit. Should the church be able to order, yield to, or permit those things which tend toward the destruction of souls and the disgrace and detriment of the sacrament instituted by Christ?

The Church is infallible in her disciplinary norms and cannot promulgate something that is detrimental to the faith, certainly not a liturgical rite.  It is a negative and indirect infallibility.  Your opinion to the contrary puts you far outside the mainstream of Traditionalism and is a position that not even the SSPX adopts.

May I answer the beautiful and venerable question of Gregory XVI.......No the church cannot, but certain members of the church including Pontiffs can
People should stop confusing the eternal Church, the spotless bride of Christ with the members of the Church, - churchmen!!

Your statement about the Church being infallible in disciplinary norms is not baseless, but sadly and quite unfortunate for us, is wrong.

One simply has to read Quo Primum, to understand that the New Mass may not be said because of Quo Primum, it still stands, the language and terminology used forbids the use of any other rite or Mass.
In order for a Priest to say the New Mass, Pope Paul 6th would have had to abrogate the decrees of St.Pius V, which at no point in his missale romanum did he!!

He merely presents the New Mass - he 'wishes for it to be said'.

"The recent Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, in promulgating the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, established the basis for the general revision of the Roman Missal: in declaring "both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify";(4) in ordering that "the rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, can be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful can be more easily accomplished";(5) in prescribing that "the treasures of the Bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God's Word";(6) in ordering, finally, that "a new rite for concelebration is to be drawn up and incorporated into the Pontifical and into the Roman Missal." - Missale Romanum

he then goes on to talk about what is going to be included in the book, what will be changed and ommited:

"Let us show now, in broad lines, the new composition of the Roman Missal. First of all, in a General Instruction, which serves as a preface for the book, the new regulations are set forth for the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, concerning the rites and the functions of each of the participants and sacred furnishings and places.

The major innovation concerns the Eucharistic Prayer. If in the Roman Rite, the first part of this Prayer, the Preface, has preserved diverse formulation in the course of the centuries, the second part, on the contrary, called "Canon of the Action," took on an unchangeable form during the fourth and fifth centuries; conversely, the Eastern liturgies allowed for this variety in their anaphoras. In this matter, however, apart from the fact that the Eucharistic Prayer is enriched by a great number of Prefaces, either derived from the ancient tradition of the Roman Church or composed recently, we have decided to add three new Canons to this Prayer. In this way the different aspects of the mystery of salvation will be emphasized and they will procure richer themes for the thanksgiving. However, for pastoral reasons, and in order to facilitate concelebration, we have ordered that the words of the Lord ought to be identical in each formulary of the Canon. Thus, in each Eucharistic Prayer, we wish that the words be pronounced thus: over the bread: ACCIPITE ET MANDUCATE EX HOC OMNES: HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, QUOD PRO VOBIS TRADETUR; over the chalice: ACCIPITE ET BIBITE EX EO OMNES: HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI, QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM. HOC FACITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIONEM. The words MYSTERIUM FIDEI, taken from the context of the words of Christ the Lord, and said by the priest, serve as an introduction to the acclamation of the faithful.

Concerning the rite of the Mass, "the rites are to be simplified, while due care is taken to preserve their substance."(8) Also to be eliminated are "elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage,"(9) above all in the rites of offering the bread and wine, and in those of the breaking of the bread and of communion.

Also, "other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the earlier norm of the Holy Fathers"(10): for example the homily,(11) the "common prayer" or "prayer of the faithful,"(12) the penitential rite or act of reconciliation with God and with the brothers, at the beginning of the Mass, where its proper emphasis is restored.

According to the prescription of the Second Vatican Council which prescribes that "a more representative portion of the Holy Scriptures will be read to the people over a set cycle of years,"(13) and of the readings for Sunday are divided into a cycle of three years. In addition, for Sunday and feasts, the readings of the Epistle and Gospel are preceded by a reading from the Old Testament or, during Paschaltide, from the Acts of the Apostles. In this way the dynamism of the mystery of salvation, shown by the text of divine revelation, is more clearly accentuated. These widely selected biblical readings, which give to the faithful on feast days the most important part of Sacred Scripture, is completed by access to the other parts of the Holy Books read on other days.

All this is wisely ordered in such a way that there is developed more and more among the faithful a "hunger for the Word of God,"(14) which, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, leads the people of the New Covenant to the perfect unity of the Church. We are fully confident that both priests and faithful will prepare their hearts more devoutly and together at the Lord's Supper, meditating more profoundly on Sacred Scripture, and at the same time they will nourish themselves more day by day with the words of the Lord. It will follow then that according to the wishes of the Second Vatican Council, Sacred Scripture will be at the same time a perpetual source of spiritual life, an instrument of prime value for transmitting Christian doctrine and finally the center of all theology.

In this revision of the Roman Missal, in addition to the three changes mentioned above, namely, the Eucharistic Prayer, the Rite for the Mass and the Biblical Reading, other parts also have been reviewed and considerably modified: the Proper of Seasons, the Proper of Saints, the Common of Saints, ritual Masses and votive Masses. In all of these changes, particular care has been taken with the prayers: not only has their number been increased, so that the new texts might better correspond to new needs, but also their text has been restored on the testimony of the most ancient evidences. For each ferial of the principal liturgical seasons, Advent, Christmas, Lent and Easter, a proper prayer has been provided.

Even though the text of the Roman Gradual, at least that which concerns the singing, has not been changed, still, for a better understanding, the responsorial psalm, which St. Augustine and St. Leo the Great often mention, has been restored, and the Introit and Communion antiphons have been adapted for read Masses."

However the next bit is the reason why the New Mass is not permitted to be said - because it does NOT ABROGATE the decrees of the Quo Primum:

"In conclusion, we wish to give the force of law to all that we have set forth concerning the new Roman Missal(which was what exactly? -only that certain things should be incuded/excluded in it it! Not that it should abrogate the old missal!). In promulgating the official edition of the Roman Missal, Our predecessor, St. Pius V, presented it as an instrument of liturgical unity and as a witness to the purity of the worship the Church. While leaving room in the new Missal, according to the order of the Second Vatican Council, "for legitimate variations and adaptations,"(15) [u]we hope nevertheless that the Missal will be received by the faithful as an instrument which bears witness to and which affirms the common unity of all[[/u]/b].(he 'hopes' that it will be received) [b]Thus, in the great diversity of languages, one unique prayer will rise as an acceptable offering to our Father in heaven, through our High-Priest Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit.

We order that the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect November 30th of this year, the first Sunday of Advent.
(what prescriptions? about the New Missal?? Its content??)

We wish that these Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by Our predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation." (No abrogation of Quo Primum)

...the decrees of Quo Primum or some of them at least:

"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."

"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,"

very importantly:

"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"

"Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."


Messages In This Thread
Re: Licit to attend weekly NO Masses with abuses? - by tradmaverick - 04-25-2009, 10:39 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)