What was the point of Quo Primum if a later Pope can just abolish it?
#21
(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.

Exactly.  I go the the TLM whenever possible and to the NO when it is necessary to fulfill my obligations because I accept the authority of the Magisterium.   Vetus ended up going months on end without attending Mass because he preferred his own judgment to that of the Magisterium.  He then moved to placing his judgment first in questions like Marian dogmas.  Deprived of spiritual nourishment and rejecting Church authority, his fall is hardly surprising.
Reply
#22
In any case, even reading posts by people who don't make sense can be beneficial.
Reply
#23
(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.

The reason that Quo Primum was issued was because there were flawed, defective and problematic but still Catholic Masses being celebrated by the Church.  It happened then so there is no reason to think it is not happening now.
Reply
#24
(07-17-2012, 01:48 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: I left that out because to suggest that the Church gave a flawed, defective, but "still Catholic" rite is problematic.

I find it problematic to suggest that the Catholic Church could give a "non-Catholic" rite.
Reply
#25
Who here is against the current practice of communion in the hand? Those who question it or believe it is incorrect are already "questioning the current Magisterium."

The same goes for Missa versus populum, lay ministers of communion, altar girls, etc.

The "current Magisterium" approved all of this. To dislike is to place preference over their authority.
Reply
#26
(07-17-2012, 02:04 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(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.

The reason that Quo Primum was issued was because there were flawed, defective and problematic but still Catholic Masses being celebrated by the Church.  It happened then so there is no reason to think it is not happening now.

A majority of clergy can celebrate a Mass that is defective due to abuses, their own sloppiness, etc.

However, you said that the Novus Ordo Missae is flawed and defective. If the text of the Mass of Paul VI is flawed and defective per se, this is hugely problematic.

(07-17-2012, 02:04 PM)cgraye Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 01:48 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: I left that out because to suggest that the Church gave a flawed, defective, but "still Catholic" rite is problematic.

I find it problematic to suggest that the Catholic Church could give a "non-Catholic" rite.

Exactly. How can the Catholic Church, the pillar and ground of truth, give a flawed, defective rite? It cannot.
Reply
#27
(07-17-2012, 02:05 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Who here is against the current practice of communion in the hand? Those who question it or believe it is incorrect are already "questioning the current Magisterium."

The same goes for Missa versus populum, lay ministers of communion, altar girls, etc.

The "current Magisterium" approved all of this. To dislike is to place preference over their authority.

Has anyone said that no Catholic may question the Magisterium?  It is not my position.  One may not reject the Magisterium but that does not preclude questioning it in a respectful way.  Disliking and disobeying are acts with very different moral consequences.  You should not conflate them.
Reply
#28
The sound quality is not the greatest but, as usual, Fr. Wathen explains and goes into detail as regards Quo Primum and the new mass.

http://www.fatherwathen.com/558.html
Reply
#29
(07-17-2012, 02:08 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 02:04 PM)JayneK Wrote: The reason that Quo Primum was issued was because there were flawed, defective and problematic but still Catholic Masses being celebrated by the Church.  It happened then so there is no reason to think it is not happening now.

A majority of clergy can celebrate a Mass that is defective due to abuses, their own sloppiness, etc.

However, you said that the Novus Ordo Missae is flawed and defective. If the text of the Mass of Paul VI is flawed and defective per se, this is hugely problematic.

I'm saying that many of the Masses, as in the text of Mass, that Quo Primum removed were flawed and defective per se yet still Catholic.  It did not mean that the Church was not the Church or the Pope was not the Pope.  It meant that the flawed Masses needed to be abrogated and they were.
Reply
#30
(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.

If it is that sufficiently flawed, deficient and problematic then is it really Catholic?  I scream a resounding NO!  The very essence of the rite proves that it is not Catholic (being almost a complete copy of an already condemned rite) - but the rotten fruits prove it even more so. 

Too many people fall under the false belief that as long as there is a (seemingly) valid consecration, then it is Catholic.  This is utter foolishness.  The same people who fall for this faulty belief would agree that Satanic Black Masses, with valid consecrations, are not Catholic.  The same people would agree that EO Masses, with valid consecrations, are not Catholic - but they won't believe that a Mass that teaches Protestantism, Humanism and Modernism is not Catholic.  Foolishness.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)