Council of Trent
#21
(07-20-2018, 10:08 PM)Old World Order Wrote: And? What is your point?

Very similar language to Quo primum. If Quo primum is unchangeable, so is Quod a nobis. Yet St Pius X ignored it when he changed the Breviary. So did St John XXIII when he promulgated the Breviary most of the traditional orders, including the SSPX, use.
Reply
#22
(07-21-2018, 12:34 AM)Paul Wrote:
(07-20-2018, 10:08 PM)Old World Order Wrote: And? What is your point?

Very similar language to Quo primum. If Quo primum is unchangeable, so is Quod a nobis. Yet St Pius X ignored it when he changed the Breviary. So did St John XXIII when he promulgated the Breviary most of the traditional orders, including the SSPX, use.

"Similar" does not mean "the same". Quo Primum states plainly...

"this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force"

In other words Quo Primum (the document ITSELF) cannot be revoked or modified. There is no such statement in Quod a Nobis. There's more, but I'll let you address this first.
Reply
#23
(07-21-2018, 10:09 AM)Old World Order Wrote:
(07-21-2018, 12:34 AM)Paul Wrote:
(07-20-2018, 10:08 PM)Old World Order Wrote: And? What is your point?

Very similar language to Quo primum. If Quo primum is unchangeable, so is Quod a nobis. Yet St Pius X ignored it when he changed the Breviary. So did St John XXIII when he promulgated the Breviary most of the traditional orders, including the SSPX, use.

"Similar" does not mean "the same". Quo Primum states plainly...

"this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force"

In other words Quo Primum (the document ITSELF) cannot be revoked or modified. There is no such statement in Quod a Nobis. There's more, but I'll let you address this first.
Reply
#24
(07-20-2018, 05:17 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(07-20-2018, 12:40 PM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(07-20-2018, 10:55 AM)Old World Order Wrote:
(07-20-2018, 09:39 AM)Paul Wrote:
(07-20-2018, 08:31 AM)Old World Order Wrote: Which means that a Pope cannot even say that the received and approved rites customarily used can be omitted or changed.

St Pius X did.

St. Pius X did no such thing.

He most certainly did, by abolishing the traditional Roman psalter and forbidding its use. And St Pius V before him (and after Trent!) made an alteration to the Roman psalter, too, by moving several psalms from Sunday Prime to weekdays.

The reforms of the Breviary by Pope St. Pius X were so "revolutionary" that it is nearly as impossible to take a pre-1911 breviary and use it as it would be to take a Novus Ordo Latin Missal and try to say the traditional Mass with it. 

One can change the breviary without changing the the formula and the substance of the Mass. Pope St. Pius X changes were done primarily to restore Sundays to their rightful place in the liturgy. Many saints had been added to the calendar since Trent and they were out-ranking Sundays in too many cases. There was nothing "revolutionary" about what Pope St. Pius X did. Neither Trent nor Quo Primum forbade the adding of new saints to the missal by future Popes. Popes could still revise the calendar. Since, however, Trent did forbid Popes from changing the customary rites and ceremonies in the solemn administration of the sacraments, it made the "exception of the calendar" clear, because the Council Fathers knew there might me some confusion in this matter (as has been shown on this very thread). Pope Benedict XIV explains...

"Everyone knows the provisions of Popes St. Pius and St. Victor and of the Council of Nicea concerning the proper celebration of Easter., All likewise are aware that the Council of Trent reserved to the Pope the question of revising the calendar and that finally the matter was resolved in all its details in the time of Pope Gregory XIII." (ALLATAE SUNT-Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on July 26, 1755)


It would have been pointless for the Council of Trent to reserve anything to the Pope, if a Pope had complete power in regards to the Mass. Trent obviously addressed Popes in her canons regarding the codification of the Mass and therefore Trent had to make clear that the prohibitions did not extend to the revision of the calendar.
Reply
#25
Rearranging the Roman Psalter that had been in place for over a millennia IS revolutionary. Pius X had his reasons for wanting to restore Sundays to their rightful place but there is nothing particularly ancient or traditional in the new psalter arrangement. That he also expressly forbade under pain of mortal sin those that wanted to use the older breviary show that he was far less traditional than many modern trads would like to think other than in using papal fiat to bludgeon people into obedience.  

If you can rearrange the immemorial psalter in the Roman Breviary and,in Pius XII's case,basically do away with the clementine vulgate by opening up protestant style historical critical scholarship and the use of the Masoretic text ,as well as  play with the Holy Week Liturgy than the era preceding Vatican II (Reformation 2.0) set dangerous precedents that unfortunately we all see around us today. If neither Holy Week nor the Breviary is safe from papal tinkering than nothing is safe. Oh,and didn't Pius XII pretty much put the pope in charge of the liturgy in Mediator Dei? 

I say the Novus Orfo, Vatican II and what became a papal dictatorship really took off after the unfortunate Papal Infallibility dogma came into play and allowed for the popes to start playing with things. There's this rapid disintegration of Western Catholicism that seemed to escalate after Vat I. No doubt two world wars and rapid social changes helped this along but im still convinced the pandoras box was opened with Vatican I saying after almost 2000 years that one man was ever infallible under any circumstances.
Walk before God in simplicity, and not in subtleties of the mind. Simplicity brings faith; but subtle and intricate speculations bring conceit; and conceit brings withdrawal from God. -Saint Isaac of Syria, Directions on Spiritual Training


"It is impossible in human terms to exaggerate the importance of being in a church or chapel before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. I very seldom repeat what I say. Let me repeat this sentence. It is impossible in human language to exaggerate the importance of being in a chapel or church before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. That sentence is the talisman of the highest sanctity. "Father John Hardon
Reply
#26
Well said FB, liturgical change goes back way farther than the Novus Ordo, alot of trads have this false pious idea that the Mass stayed static universally for 2000 years until the 1960s changes came out of the blue. The truth is that the liturgical movement and - to a lesser degree - the Novus Ordo have a strong historical precedent. 

Old World Order, to see the extent of Pius X's revisions go here: http://divinumofficium.com/ you can view the various versions of the Divine Office side by side, and it's alot more than making Sundays to outrank the majority of feasts, neither was this simple additions to the calendar, but to the texts themselves. And remember, the Divine Office, the Mass and Sacraments together are the Roman liturgy, not just the ceremonies of the eucharist.
"If your heart comes to feel a natural hatred for sin, it has defeated the causes of sin and freed itself from them. Keep hell’s torments in mind; but know that your Helper is at hand. Do nothing that will grieve Him, but say to Him with tears: ‘Be merciful and deliver me, O Lord, for without Thy help I cannot escape from the hands of my enemies.’ Be attentive to your heart, and He will guard you from all evil."

- St. Isaias the Solitary

"Constant action overcomes cold; being still overcomes heat. Purity
and stillness give the correct law to all under heaven."

- Tao Te Ching 45
Reply
#27
(07-21-2018, 01:09 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Rearranging the Roman Psalter that had been in place for over a millennia IS revolutionary. Pius X had his reasons for wanting to restore Sundays to their rightful place but there is nothing particularly ancient or traditional in the new psalter arrangement. That he also expressly forbade under pain of mortal sin those that wanted to use the older breviary show that he was far less traditional than many modern trads would like to think other than in using papal fiat to bludgeon people into obedience.  f you can rearrange the immemorial psalter in the Roman Breviary and,in Pius XII's case,basically do away with the clementine vulgate by opening up protestant style historical critical scholarship and the use of the Masoretic text ,as well as  play with the Holy Week Liturgy than the era preceding Vatican II (Reformation 2.0) set dangerous precedents that unfortunately we all see around us today. If neither Holy Week nor the Breviary is safe from papal tinkering than nothing is safe. Oh,and didn't Pius XII pretty much put the pope in charge of the liturgy in Mediator Dei?

As I said, there is nothing revolutionary in what Pope St. Pius X did. The breviary and the missal must be in harmony. Making significant calendar changes requires breviary changes as well. If you want to argue otherwise, be my guest. My main point is that what he did was not forbidden by Trent nor Quo Primum. The rites and ceremonies customarily used in the administration of the sacraments were not changed or omitted. What Pius XII is VERY questionable indeed as you pointed out. A future Catholic Pope would have to decide on whether his actions were orthodox (if we are lucky enough to have one). In my fallible opinion they were not. Pius XII was instrumental in laying the groundwork for the conciliar Church. Benedict XV and Pius XI did some contributing as well.


Quote:II say the Novus Orfo, Vatican II and what became a papal dictatorship really took off after the unfortunate Papal Infallibility dogma came into play and allowed for the popes to start playing with things. There's this rapid disintegration of Western Catholicism that seemed to escalate after Vat I. No doubt two world wars and rapid social changes helped this along but im still convinced the pandoras box was opened with Vatican I saying after almost 2000 years that one man was ever infallible under any circumstances.

It was a misinterpretation of Vatican I that caused the problem, unlike Vatican II in which the documents (themselves) are the problem.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Old World Order's post:
  • Bonaventure
Reply
#28
(07-21-2018, 01:25 PM)Florus Wrote: Well said FB, liturgical change goes back way farther than the Novus Ordo, alot of trads have this false pious idea that the Mass stayed static universally for 2000 years until the 1960s changes came out of the blue. The truth is that the liturgical movement and - to a lesser degree - the Novus Ordo have a strong historical precedent.

I never argued that the Mass was completely static. As I said, calendar adjustments were excepted by Trent. Changing a minor rubric here or there would also not violate Trent or Quo Primum. Once, the traditional formula of the ceremonies and rites in the administration of the sacraments are compromised, however, then we have a problem. Then we no longer have the Roman Rite, but a human invention. I know you are not accusing Pope St. Pius X of this. Pius XII is another story in my opinion (as I stated above).
[-] The following 1 user Likes Old World Order's post:
  • Bonaventure
Reply
#29
(07-21-2018, 04:06 PM)Old World Order Wrote: As I said, there is nothing revolutionary in what Pope St. Pius X did. The breviary and the missal must be in harmony. Making significant calendar changes requires breviary changes as well.

St Pius X's changes to the Breviary had nothing to do with the Missal, and they went far beyond the calendar. The heart of the Breviary is the Psalter, and he abolished the old Psalter and introduced a new arrangement of the Psalms, including divided Psalms, which was completely new to the Roman Rite.

And who decides how much change is allowed? Quo primum doesn't allow any change to the Missal, but Clement VIII and Urban VIII made changes not long after. There's nothing in Quo primum that says little changes are allowed. It says no change is to be made.

"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, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure."
[-] The following 1 user Likes Paul's post:
  • MagisterMusicae
Reply
#30
(07-22-2018, 08:56 AM)Paul Wrote:
(07-21-2018, 04:06 PM)Old World Order Wrote: As I said, there is nothing revolutionary in what Pope St. Pius X did. The breviary and the missal must be in harmony. Making significant calendar changes requires breviary changes as well.

St Pius X's changes to the Breviary had nothing to do with the Missal, and they went far beyond the calendar. The heart of the Breviary is the Psalter, and he abolished the old Psalter and introduced a new arrangement of the Psalms, including divided Psalms, which was completely new to the Roman Rite.

Did he introduce a new translation of the Psalms which were not Catholic? No. If he did that, then you might have a point. Arranging or dividing them a certain way to coincide with the Missal does not in any way change the Roman Rite into a different rite (such as the Novus Ordo). As far as the Breviary having nothing to do with the Missal, Pope Pius V would disagree with you wholeheartedly...

"With the Catechism published for the instruction of the faithful, by God’s help, and the Breviary thoroughly revised for the worthy praise of God, in order that the Missal and Breviary may be in perfect harmony, as fitting and proper" (Pope Pius V-Quo Primum).


Quote:And who decides how much change is allowed? Quo primum doesn't allow any change to the Missal, but Clement VIII and Urban VIII made changes not long after. There's nothing in Quo primum that says little changes are allowed. It says no change is to be made.

Did you actually read what Clement VIII and Urban VIII said regarding their "changes". If you did, you would not have posted the above. The changes they made were to restore the Missal in obedience to Trent and Quo Primum, because errors had crept into Missals. Pope Clement VIII said...


"Not only have the Roman Pontiffs, Our Predecessors, always desired, and for a long time greatly striven to achieve, this aim, but above all Pope Pius V of happy memory undertook, in accordance with the decree of the Council of Trent, to bring the Roman Missal into conformity with the old and purer pattern and to have it printed in Rome. Although he very severely forbade under many penalties that anything should be added to it, or that anything for any reason be removed from it, nevertheless, in the course of time, it has come to pass that, through the rashness and boldness of the printers, or of others, many errors have crept into the missals which have been produced in recent years. That very old (Latin) version of the Holy Bible, which even before St. Jerome's time was held in honor in the Church, and from which almost all the [i]Introits, Graduals, and Offertories of the Masses had been taken, has been entirely removed; the texts of theEpistles and Gospels, which hitherto were read during the celebration of the Mass, have been disturbed in many places; different and utterly unusual beginnings have been prefixed to the Gospel texts; and finally many things have been here and there arbitrarily altered. All these changes seem to have been introduced under the pretext of conforming everything to the standard of the Vulgate edition of Holy Writ, as if it were allowable to anyone to do so on his own authority, and without the advice of the Apostolic See. Having considered these innovations, in Our pastoral solicitude which induces us to earnestly protect and preserve in everything and especially in the sacred rites of the Church the best and old norm, We have ordered in the first place that the above mentioned printed Missals, so corrupted, be banned and declared null and void and that their use be disallowed in the celebration of the Mass, unless they be entirely and in everything emended according to the original text published under Pius V We have also entrusted some of Our Venerable Brethren, Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, versed in Holy Writ and skilled in ecclesiastical antiquity, with the business of restoring the Missal to its primitive and purest form. In their loyalty to Us, and in their piety and devotion to the Church, these Cardinals, employing also other learned men trained in ecclesiastical scholarship and having searched for, and diligently examined, old Missals and other books bearing upon the subject, have endeavored to restore the Roman Missal to its original purity and to confirm and attest the painstaking care and diligence of Pius V and of those appointed by him." (Cum Sanctissimum-Clement VIII, July 7, 1604)


Pope Urban VIII said...


"If there is anything Divine among man's possessions which might excite the envy of the citizens of Heaven (could they ever be swayed by such a passion), this is undoubtedly the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, by means of which men, having before their eyes and taking into their hands the very Creator of Heaven and earth, experience, while still on earth, a certain anticipation of Heaven. How keenly then, must mortals strive to preserve and protect this inestimable privilege with all due worship and reverence and be ever on their guard lest their negligence offend the angels who vie with them in eager adoration! In view of this consideration, following in the footsteps of the Supreme Pontiffs, Our Predecessors, Pius V and Clement VIII, who undertook to review and restore most diligently the rite and prayers pertaining to the celebration of this sacred Mystery, We have ordered that these be again examined and that if by chance anything, as often happens, has been corrupted in the course of time, it shall be restored to its former standard.


No “liturgical movement” here.  We see words such as preserve, protect and guard.
 
Wherefore, just as We have recently achieved the reform of the Breviary for the greater splendor of the Divine Office, so also, following this example, We have ordered that the Missal be corrected with a view to bestowing greater beauty and luster upon the Divine Sacrifice.
And since it is highly becoming that the wings, as it were, of the liturgy which the priest, like the cherubim of the old Mystical Tabernacle, daily spreads over the true Mercy seat of the world, should be twofold and fashioned exactly in the same shape and form, We have entrusted this task to learned and pious men who have carried it out so carefully as to leave nothing to be desired. The rubrics which had been allowed to gradually degenerate from the old usage and rite, have been restored to their former pattern; those which did not seem to be easily intelligible to the readers, have been more clearly stated; and moreover, having compared the pertinent texts with the Vulgate edition of Holy Writ, the differences which had crept into the Missal have been emended according to this standard and norm." (Si Quid Est- Pope Urban VIII, September 2, 1634)[/i]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)