Urge Catholic Answers to retract!
#31
(07-15-2013, 02:18 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: Could it be that when Paul VI changed all the rites of the Roman Rite, despite the perennial Church saying that this cannot be done that Paul VI essentially established a new (small "c") church? How else can one explain the fact that the Roman Rite has two sets of "rites" now? Fr. Gregory Hesse covers this in a talk here: 


Who said it could not be done? Pius XII taught in the encyclical Mediator Dei that the Pope has the right to modify any rites or to introduce new rites.

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.
Reply
#32
Watch the video I posted, Sebastian. Canon Hesse addresses your point. The conclusion is that the NO "rites" are not the "Roman Rite". Pius XII was speaking about the Roman Rite at that time. It has been proven (at least to me) that the NO rites are part of a "new rite" (Novus Ordo/Conciliar church) set up by Paul VI. Pope Paul VI, according to Hesse's argument, "broke" with the Roman Rite, which could not be abrogated (or changed into all new ones). Canon Hesse's presentation is very compelling.


I read that lengthy thread already when it was originally posted, Scrip. Your arguments were not persuasive to me.
Reply
#33
(07-16-2013, 11:59 AM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: Watch the video I posted, Sebastian. Canon Hesse addresses your point. The conclusion is that the NO "rites" are not the "Roman Rite". Pius XII was speaking about the Roman Rite at that time. It has been proven (at least to me) that the NO rites are part of a "new rite" (Novus Ordo/Conciliar church) set up by Paul VI. Pope Paul VI, according to Hesse's argument, "broke" with the Roman Rite, which could not be abrogated (or changed into all new ones). Canon Hesse's presentation is very compelling.


I read that lengthy thread already when it was originally posted, Scrip. Your arguments were not persuasive to me.

The rites are not "all new". They are very widely revised, (probably the widest revision ever,) but they are not wholly new. At the moment I don't have time to listen to the audio, but I imagine it is much of what my former priest would say, since he was ordained by Stickler, and Hesse was in that group as well. This is probably the Quo Primum argument, which is quite weak. The plain fact is that rites can be changed, new rites can be proposed, immemorial custom notwithstanding. They don't even have to be organically derived, but can be new formulations. BXVI said that the 1962 Missal was never abrogated, but he did not say whether it could in theory. (This is a debate about could, not should.) That is a great debate. Be that as it may, there have been many variations in the Roman Rite. It is plain that the 1962 Missal was shifted to a permitted use, while the Pauline Missal is the normative rite. Hence, BXVI's terminology. The Pauline reform went just like any other. The new edition comes out and the old one is suppressed. That was not surprising. And if you read Sacrosanctum Concilium carefully, you'll see that the Pauline Missal is quite in tune with what they declared.
Reply
#34
(07-16-2013, 12:34 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(07-16-2013, 11:59 AM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: Watch the video I posted, Sebastian. Canon Hesse addresses your point. The conclusion is that the NO "rites" are not the "Roman Rite". Pius XII was speaking about the Roman Rite at that time. It has been proven (at least to me) that the NO rites are part of a "new rite" (Novus Ordo/Conciliar church) set up by Paul VI. Pope Paul VI, according to Hesse's argument, "broke" with the Roman Rite, which could not be abrogated (or changed into all new ones). Canon Hesse's presentation is very compelling.


I read that lengthy thread already when it was originally posted, Scrip. Your arguments were not persuasive to me.

The rites are not "all new". They are very widely revised, (probably the widest revision ever,) but they are not wholly new. At the moment I don't have time to listen to the audio, but I imagine it is much of what my former priest would say, since he was ordained by Stickler, and Hesse was in that group as well. This is probably the Quo Primum argument, which is quite weak. The plain fact is that rites can be changed, new rites can be proposed, immemorial custom notwithstanding. They don't even have to be organically derived, but can be new formulations. BXVI said that the 1962 Missal was never abrogated, but he did not say whether it could in theory. (This is a debate about could, not should.) That is a great debate. Be that as it may, there have been many variations in the Roman Rite. It is plain that the 1962 Missal was shifted to a permitted use, while the Pauline Missal is the normative rite. Hence, BXVI's terminology. The Pauline reform went just like any other. The new edition comes out and the old one is suppressed. That was not surprising. And if you read Sacrosanctum Concilium carefully, you'll see that the Pauline Missal is quite in tune with what they declared.

Maybe someone knows here:

When was the last time that such significant changes occurred in the rites ?  And what was the reason that it happened?
Reply
#35
Scrip, I asked you fairly recently in a PM if you were familiar with Canon Hesse and you said no. Now you're assuming you know what he's arguing without watching the presentation. If you want to assume something, fine. I think the argument is compelling, not "weak". It's amazing how people will dismiss a canon who is trained to interpret these things, especially one who was the secretary of a Cardinal that was part of the commission that JPII created to investigate whether the old mass had been abrogated.


The Pauline reform did not go "just like any other". Historically, when a new missal comes out, it replaces (abrogates) the previous one. Canon Hesse historically shows this. The Pauline missal was the first to not have the verbage of supplanting the previous accepted rite. I agree that SC in tune with what Paul VI did, but I have a feeling that you and I will disagree as to it's benefits.


Reply
#36
(07-16-2013, 01:11 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: Scrip, I asked you fairly recently in a PM if you were familiar with Canon Hesse and you said no. Now you're assuming you know what he's arguing without watching the presentation. If you want to assume something, fine. I think the argument is compelling, not "weak". It's amazing how people will dismiss a canon who is trained to interpret these things, especially one who was the secretary of a Cardinal that was part of the commission that JPII created to investigate whether the old mass had been abrogated.

The Pauline reform did not go "just like any other". Historically, when a new missal comes out, it replaces (abrogates) the previous one. Canon Hesse historically shows this. The Pauline missal was the first to not have the verbage of supplanting the previous accepted rite. I agree that SC in tune with what Paul VI did, but I have a feeling that you and I will disagree as to it's benefits.

I made my statement based on what I think his "school" of thought was being associated with Card. Stickler. That's why I said "but I imagine it is much of what my former priest would say". I imagined. I didn't know. I called the Quo Primum argument weak because I have researched it in depth. It's primary weakness is displayed in the twin document Quod a Nobis, which, if we accept the Quo Primum argument, St Pius X violated with his breviary reform. And by the way, his reform caused a big stir, and there were people who said they would not accept it at that time. This is documented by Reid in his book on organic development. Reid said he violated the organic development of the breviary, the first such breech, and which became a kind of paradigm for further reforms.

As for the precedent of the Pauline reform, you are right that the Missal was not abrogated, since there were permissions given for certain people over the decades. But there was a very wide requirement, almost universal, that the new Missal be used "immemorial custom notwithstanding". Now the nature of this deep reform did make it unique. What I mean by "just the same", though, is that the Pope enforced his reform. It was not special that the Pope came out a required practically the whole of the Roman Rite to celebrate and attend the newly reformed rites. The way this was done is historically interesting, and thank God it kept a way open for SP and what we're exploring now. I don't know what the future holds for the Roman Rite, but a priest using Quo Primum to outright resist the New Missal and go AWOL has no support. Paul VI specifically closed that gap. The Pope was within rights to enforce his Missal. But it should also be granted that the way things were done was harsh, and in retrospect a disaster.
Reply
#37
I'm at 53 minutes, and this is pretty standard fare, though his theory is pretty wacky in my opinion. Right off the bat he has a typical view that the Pope "cannot change the rites". He cites session 7, canon 13 (DS1613/D856):

Quote:If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be disdained or omitted by the minister without sin and at pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones: let him be anathema.

Si quis dixerit, receptos et approbatos Ecclesiae catholicae ritus in sollemni sacramentorum administratione adhiberi consuetos aut contemni, aut sine peccato a ministris pro libito omitti, aut in novos alios per quemcumque ecclesiarurn pastorem mutari posse: an. s.

He makes a big deal that "quemcumque" refers to pastors whomsoever they may be, and that it was a big "that means you" to the Pope. (As though any Pope then would allow this, but I go on.) I am afraid this is rather facile. I wonder how he reconciles that notion with this later declaration of the Council:

Session 21, Pius IV/Council of Trent, DS 1728/D931 Wrote:It [the Council] declares furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the sacraments, preserving their substance, she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for the benefit of those who receive them or for the veneration of the sacraments, according to the variety of circumstances, times, and places.

Praeterea declarat, hanc potestatem perpetuo in Ecclesia fuisse, ut in sacramentorum dispensatione, salva illorum substantia, ea statueret vel mutaret, quae suscipientium utilitati seu ipsorum sacramentorum venerationi, pro rerum, temporum et locorum varietate, magis expedire iudicaret.

There is no qualification here about tradition or anything, just the substance. And it is in accord with other later statements (given below). So then we must ask how he reconciles the contradiction? Was the Council of Trent ambiguous? No, of course not. What the Council of Trent was decreeing against were the abuses in their time, which are abuses in our time -- namely, priests and bishops (and Protestants and Modernists) changing the rite of Mass on their own authority either by not observing the rubrics, or changing the text.

Super Quibusdam, Clement VI, DS 1061/D570m Wrote:In the tenth place, if you have believed and still believe that the Roman Pontiff regarding the administration of the sacraments of the Church, can tolerate and even permit different rites of the Church of Christ, in order that they may be saved, provided that those matters are always preserved which belong to the integrity and necessity of the sacraments.

si credidisti et adhuc credis, Romanum Pontificem circa administrationem sacramentorum Ecclesiae, salvis semper illis, quae sunt de integritate et necessitate sacramentorum, posse diversos ritus ecclesiarum Christi tolerare, et etiam concedere, ut serventur.

Ex Quo, Pius X, DS3556/D2147a Wrote:... the Catholic doctrine on the most Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist is not left untouched when it is taught inflexibly that the opinion can be accepted which maintains that among the Greeks the words of consecration do not produce an effect unless preceded by that prayer which they call epiclesis, although, on the other hand, it is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments ...

Sed nec... intacta relinquitur catholica doctrina de sanctissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento, cum praefracte docetur, sententiam suscipi posse, quae tenet, apud Graecos verba consecratoria effectum non sortiri, nisi iam prolata oratione illa, quam epiclesim vocant, cum tamen compertum sit, Ecclesiae minime competere ius circa ipsam sacramentorum substantiam quidpiam innovandi ...

Sacramentum Ordinis, Pius XII, DS3857/D2301 Wrote:And for these sacraments instituted by Christ the Lord in the course of the ages the Church has not, and could not substitute other sacraments, since, as the Council of Trent teaches, the seven sacraments of the New Law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord, and the Church has no power over the "substance of the sacraments," that is, over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign.

Neque his a Christo Domino institutis Sacramentis Ecclesia saeculorum cursu alia Sacramenta substituit vel substituere potuit, cum, ut Concilium Tridentinum (cf. DS 1601 1728) docet, septem Novae Legis Sacramenta sint omnia a Iesu Christo Domino Nostro instituta et Ecclesiae nulla competat potestas in 'substantiam Sacramentorum', id est in ea quae, testibus divinae revelationis fontibus, ipse Christus Dominus in signo sacramentali servanda statuit.

And others.

Going on he talks about pro multis, which is a moot point, though I believe he is wrong on this point also. He really touches on this topic in a general way anyways. But as we go on we see he is simply a "practical sedevacantist" of the "recognize and resist" groups. I am amazed at the things he says about the Church -- "quote unquote Church", "that sect", "the so-called Catholic Church", "the counterfeit Church", "the new church", "the Novus Ordo Church". What an effing mess! It's like sedevacantism without the balls to make the leap into that abyss. What a poisonous doctrine this man serves up as truth and guiding light in our time.

He calls Paul VI a heretic because he says "the Mass has the character of a meal". This is, of course, not heresy. If he said it only had the character of a meal, then yes, but that is not the Canon's quote. The Mass is renewal of the sacrifice of Calvary, it is a memorial of our Lord's passion, death, and resurrection, and it is a sacrament in which our Lord is eaten, which means it also is a memorial of the Last Supper. The same with the altar. The altar is a table and an altar. An altar because of the sacrifice, and a table because of the sacrament, the consuming of our Lord. The two are unified. So Fr. is quite wrong to state this calumny against the Pope. Any short perusal of the postcommunions of the traditional Roman Rite can dissolve this statement of accusing heresy:

5th Sun aft Easter
Grant to us, O Lord, that filled with strength from this heavenly table, we may both desire what is right, and obtain that which we desire.
Tribue nobis, Domine, caelestis mensae virtute satiátis: et desiderare quae recta sunt, et desideráta percipere.

Thur after 3rd Sun Lent
May the heavenly table of which we have partaken, hallow us, O Lord; and cleansing us from all errors, render us worthy of Thy heavenly promises.
Sanctificet nos, Domine, qua pasti sumus, mensa caelestis: et, a cunctis erroribus expiátos, supernis promissionibus reddat accéptos.

St. Hyginus, Jan. 11
Refectione sancta enutritam guberna, quaesumus Domine, tuam placatus Ecclesiam: ut potenti moderatione directa, et incrementa libertatis accipiat et in religionis integritate persistat.
O Lord, we beseech Thee, graciously govern Thy Church, which Thou hast fed with a holy meal; so that, directed by a mighty wisdom, she may progress in liberty, and persist in the integrity of faith.

2nd Sun of Adv

Repleti cibo spiritualis alimoniae, supplices te, Domine, deprecamur: ut huius participatione mysterii, doceas nos terrena despicere, et amare caelestia.
Filled with the food of spiritual nourishment, we humbly entreat Thee, O Lord, that by our partaking of this Mystery, Thou wouldst teach us to despise the things of earth, and to love those of heaven.

etc. etc. ...


And for giggles:

Prayer of St. Ambrose (Before Mass) (in the Roman Missal)
Lord Jesus Christ, I approach your banquet table in fear and trembling, for I am a sinner, ...
Ad mensam dulcíssimi convivii tui, pie Domine Iesu Christe, ego peccator ...



May get to the rest later. Let Fr. Cekada teach you, though, that the Quo Primum argument is weak weak weak:

http://www.fathercekada.com/2007/05/17/quo-primum/
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/...&catname=8

Sede-ism is not the answer, and this schism non-sense from Fr Hesse is not the answer.
Reply
#38
Although Mr. Coffin's blog posts about the show in question was really inflammatory and unnecessary, in my opinion, I actually listened to it on the Internet the other day, and didn't hear anything objectionable.

I thought many of the answers Coffin and Staples gave were lame, but it's just a radio show.



Reply
#39
(07-18-2013, 09:46 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: May get to the rest later. Let Fr. Cekada teach you, though, that the Quo Primum argument is weak weak weak:

http://www.fathercekada.com/2007/05/17/quo-primum/
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/...&catname=8

So you want me to use a sede to correct someone else? I have great respect for Fr. Cekada, but really??

Think about what you're saying here, Scrip. Fr. Cekada is saying that it's iron clad; the New Mass was lawfully promulgated, and as such, supplanted the Tridentine Mass. Historically, every time the Church produces a new missal, it supplants the previous one. That's why Lefebrve insisted on the 1962 and not some earlier one, despite the Good Friday liturgy controversy. If what Fr. Cekada is correct (and I'm assuming you are saying so, or why else would you link him on this discussion), then we have a major dilemma. Why would Benedict XVI's motu proprio (and for that matter, JPII's commission confirming that the TLM was never abrogated) state that the TLM was never abrogated? Did Paul VI not complete the task in what he decreed? Did it not have the normal full force of his Apostolic authority? Fr. Cekada, if you are buying into his claim that Qui Primum argument is weak, is showing that it carried the same language and force of what Pope St. Pius V decreed, and therefore, based on the ecclesiastical tradition of the Church, replaced the previous Mass. Then, we have JPII's findings through his commission (comprised of Stickler and Ratzinger), and his subsequent promulgation of Summorum Pontificum, and Benedicts own motu proprio saying that the opposite of what Paul VI intended to do.  Huh?

The implications of this are very, very troubling.....
Reply
#40
(07-18-2013, 03:38 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote:
(07-18-2013, 09:46 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: May get to the rest later. Let Fr. Cekada teach you, though, that the Quo Primum argument is weak weak weak:

http://www.fathercekada.com/2007/05/17/quo-primum/
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/...&catname=8

So you want me to use a sede to correct someone else? I have great respect for Fr. Cekada, but really??

Think about what you're saying here, Scrip. Fr. Cekada is saying that it's iron clad; the New Mass was lawfully promulgated, and as such, supplanted the Tridentine Mass. Historically, every time the Church produces a new missal, it supplants the previous one. That's why Lefebrve insisted on the 1962 and not some earlier one, despite the Good Friday liturgy controversy. If what Fr. Cekada is correct (and I'm assuming you are saying so, or why else would you link him on this discussion), then we have a major dilemma. Why would Benedict XVI's motu proprio (and for that matter, JPII's commission confirming that the TLM was never abrogated) state that the TLM was never abrogated? Did Paul VI not complete the task in what he decreed? Did it not have the normal full force of his Apostolic authority? Fr. Cekada, if you are buying into his claim that Qui Primum argument is weak, is showing that it carried the same language and force of what Pope St. Pius V decreed, and therefore, based on the ecclesiastical tradition of the Church, replaced the previous Mass. Then, we have JPII's findings through his commission (comprised of Stickler and Ratzinger), and his subsequent promulgation of Summorum Pontificum, and Benedicts own motu proprio saying that the opposite of what Paul VI intended to do.  Huh?

The implications of this are very, very troubling.....

Oh dear, confused again here.  I get this very strong feeling that what you just wrote is very important and I'm just not following.

More confusion, yay.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)