What was the point of Quo Primum if a later Pope can just abolish it?
#11
(07-17-2012, 12:27 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
Quote:I am willing to acknowledge the Novus Ordo as flawed, deficient or problematic

How flawed, how deficient, and how problematic?

I am on record as wanting the NO abrogated.  I consider it sufficiently flawed, deficient and problematic that it needs to be scrapped.
Reply
#12
A fine question. I wonder how often Quo Primum is read in seminary these days, or taught in Catholic schools or universities. I'm not holding my breath for a big number.

(07-17-2012, 12:27 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
Quote:I am willing to acknowledge the Novus Ordo as flawed, deficient or problematic

How flawed, how deficient, and how problematic?

At least in how much wiggle room it allows for disrespect to be shown to the Real Presence and for heretics and the lukewarm to advertise their heresies or lukewarmness to others and thereby threaten their own Faith.

Of course, you're aware of this, but I had to get that out there at least for new folks who read FE posts but don't post themselves. It's a flag we can't raise or salute enough.

For my part, I also would love to see it abolished, as much as an ineffective firearm is quickly replaced with a superior model when it fails to perform as it ought. If for no other reason than versus populum the NO has to go.
Reply
#13
(07-17-2012, 12:27 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
Quote:I am willing to acknowledge the Novus Ordo as flawed, deficient or problematic

How flawed, how deficient, and how problematic?

You left out the important part: "I reject claims that it is not Catholic."

To say otherwise is itself as problematic as the Novus Ordo itself.
Reply
#14
Quo Primum is a Law established by Pope St. Pius V which remains in effect in perpetuity (forever) - because of that, it may be purposely ignored and forgotten as the NO proves, but it can never be abolished.

The language of Quo Primum was strong for a very specific reason, namely. to bind all future hierarchy regardless of rank - up to and including, if that were possible, not just "another pope", but all popes till the end of time. Proof of this is written here: Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated.......

To put it another way, Pope Pius V did everything he could to bind all future popes to this law so that we would not end up with a NO like we have today.
In the V2 days, the law was actually broken by the hierarchy officially because the TLM was banned - these days, the NO has SP, so don't forget to say:  hooray!

It's like the lock on your car, it only keeps out honest people and the amateur thieves - but does not even slow down real thieves.




Reply
#15
(07-17-2012, 12:32 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 12:27 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
Quote:I am willing to acknowledge the Novus Ordo as flawed, deficient or problematic

How flawed, how deficient, and how problematic?

I am on record as wanting the NO abrogated.  I consider it sufficiently flawed, deficient and problematic that it needs to be scrapped.

But you go to it anyway so the truth of the matter is that it really does not matter one iota that you want it abrogated, or that you say it is flawed, deficient and problematic and that it needs to be scrapped.

Not one iota.
Reply
#16
Jayne, how can you defend your choice to assist at a rite you wish was scrapped?  I know how.  Badly, that's how.  Listen to Stubborn.  Don't let what happened to Vetus happen to you.
Reply
#17
(07-17-2012, 01:37 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: Jayne, how can you defend your choice to assist at a rite you wish was scrapped?  I know how.  Badly, that's how.  Listen to Stubborn.  Don't let what happened to Vetus happen to you.

Complete non sequitur.  Vetus had the exact opposite opinion as Jayne regarding assisting at the N.O.  If anything, your point would support the proposition that refusing to admit the lawfulness of the N.O. leads to spiritual shipwreck.
Reply
#18
(07-17-2012, 01:18 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 12:27 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
Quote:I am willing to acknowledge the Novus Ordo as flawed, deficient or problematic

How flawed, how deficient, and how problematic?

You left out the important part: "I reject claims that it is not Catholic."

To say otherwise is itself as problematic as the Novus Ordo itself.

I left that out because to suggest that the Church gave a flawed, defective, but "still Catholic" rite is problematic.
Reply
#19
(07-17-2012, 01:43 PM)Dusty_Bottoms Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 01:37 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: Jayne, how can you defend your choice to assist at a rite you wish was scrapped?  I know how.  Badly, that's how.  Listen to Stubborn.  Don't let what happened to Vetus happen to you.

Complete non sequitur.  Vetus had the exact opposite opinion as Jayne regarding assisting at the N.O.  If anything, your point would support the proposition that refusing to admit the lawfulness of the N.O. leads to spiritual shipwreck.

I meant that by arguing against reason a person can lose the faith.
Reply
#20
(07-17-2012, 01:48 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 01:18 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 12:27 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
Quote:I am willing to acknowledge the Novus Ordo as flawed, deficient or problematic

How flawed, how deficient, and how problematic?

You left out the important part: "I reject claims that it is not Catholic."

To say otherwise is itself as problematic as the Novus Ordo itself.

I left that out because to suggest that the Church gave a flawed, defective, but "still Catholic" rite is problematic.
That goes without saying.
Shocked
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)