Council of Trent
#31
(07-22-2018, 10:06 AM)Old World Order Wrote: 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.

Really ...

So in 34 years (1570-1604) there had been introduced such significant errors that the Tridentine standard needed to be restored? It was that bad that they couldn't even follow an allegedly unchangeable document within a single generation!

And not only that, but then another 30 years after this (1634), everyone bungled it up so badly that another restoration was needed?

How can we then trust that everything was indeed handed down to us correctly, if they got it so horrifically wrong within a generation of the restoration?

Let's take Clement's 1604 changes (thanks to a 1994 article by Paul Cavendish) and see how they were not merely a few simple "restorations", but true changes :

Quote:1570: Upon entering, the priest is to kneel and recite from Ps. 65: Introibo in domum tuam; in holocaustis reddam tibi vota mea, quae distinxerunt labia mea, then the Ne reminiscaris and five psalms in preparation for Mass.
1604: The Introibo in domum tuam is suppressed.

1570: The prayer Summe Sacerdos is not divided into parts.

1604: Summe Sacerdos is divided into sections for various days of the week.

1570: The rubrics are not numbered, and do not mention of ringing a bell, incense or torchbearers.

1604: The rubrics are numbered and instruct on ringing a bell, incense and torchbearers, and now include rubrical additions such as those describing the preparation required for the altar.

1570: The absolution rite includes : Misereatur...omnibus peccatis; Indulgentiam ...omnium peccatorum

1604: The words “omnibus peccatis” and "omnium peccatorum" are supressed.

1570: While incensing the altar each time Dirigatur Domine ... is to be said by the celebrant.

1604: The incensation prayers before the Introit are surpressed.

1570: The Emperor or King is named in the Canon.

1604: The Emperor or King is not to be names in the Canon.

1570: The words Haec quotiescumque are said while the celebrant elevates the chalice.

1604: The rubrics order this said after the elevation instead of during.

1570: After a Solemn Mass, the celebrant give the triple blessing, once at the Epistle corner, once in the Center, and once again at the Gospel Corner.

1604: This is suppressed, and the priest gives a single blessing at center and only recited, never sung, and the triple blessings, always given at the center is reserved for prelates.

Not insignificant changes, and certain not a "restoration". Many of these are actual changes to what was set out in 1570, and not an effort to merely correct some errors that crept in.

If you don't like that, perhaps Fr. Cekada's Q&A on the subject are of interest (much as I otherwise disagree with the man) :

Quote:Quo Primum: Could a Pope Change It?
QUESTION: During a recent argument with a Novus Ordo friend, she told me that (according to her priest) popes can change whatever they want, as long as it is not dogmatic. We were discussing Quo Primum. I told her that it was forever, but she said that even if the pope said forever another pope can change it. What would you say to that?

REPLY: On this point, shes right.

A (true) pope is the supreme legislator for ecclesiastical law and has the power to change ecclesiastical laws enacted by his predecessors. Quo Primum was an ecclesiastical law, and a true pope did indeed have the power to abrogate it or modify any of its provisions.

The forever clause was merely a type of legal boilerplate common in all sorts of papal legislation.

In the 1960s faithful Catholics seized upon this language as a justification for disobeying the new liturgical legislation while simultaneously recognizing Paul VI as a true pope. This was unfortunate, because anyone who knows a bit about canon law can refute the argument very easily.

The argument also obscures the real reason for adhering to the traditional Mass and rejecting the New Mass: The old rite is Catholic. The new rite is evil, inimical to Catholic doctrine (on the Real Presence, the priesthood, the nature of the Mass, etc.) and a sacrilege.

If you send me your postal address, though, Ill send you a consolation prize: some copies of a booklet I wrote, Welcome to the Traditional Latin Mass, that compares the old Mass and the New Mass.

Give a copy to your friend and tell her to give it to her priest. That should keep him busy for quite awhile!

QUESTION: So you are saying that a real pope can change a Papal Bull decree that another pope has made in perpetuity? Why would a pope decree something for all time, if another pope could change it?

REPLY: If it was a disciplinary Bull (establishing a church law), yes, another pope could change it.

The language was simply a standard formula in church legislation that referred to one of the qualities a law is supposed to have: stability.

Frequent changes in laws harm the common good because people do not know how to act — hence, laws are supposed to be relatively stable. But a human legislator (unlike God) cannot foresee all future circumstances, so his successor has the power to change existing laws if he decides the circumstances warrant it.

This reflects a general principle in law: An equal does not have power over another equal. No pope who used perpetuity in his disciplinary decrees understood the term to mean that no future pope could ever amend or replace his legislation.

And popes did in fact change some of the provisions of Quo Primum, even before Vatican II. In 1604, for instance, Pope Clement VIII issued new regulations for the Blessing at Mass, and in 1634 Pope Urban VIII changed the wording of the Missals rubrics and hymn texts.

Traditionalists should stop using the Quo Primum argument. It’s a canon law urban legend — as in “alligators in the sewers,” rather than Urban VIII!
Reply
#32
(07-22-2018, 09:33 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(07-22-2018, 10:06 AM)Old World Order Wrote: 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.

Really ...

Yes, really. So, you only believe what a Pope says, when it suits your own beliefs? When it doesn't, you go searching for fallible priests and lay people to support your opinion. Ok, I get it. Go back and read what the Popes actually said, regarding their changes. They made sure that they did nothing in opposition to Trent or Quo Primum. They knew that there were boundaries infallibly set by their predecessors and made it clear that they were remaining within those bounds. Also, you fail to understand Quo Primum, and the Canons of Trent. They were never meant to be interpreted as rigorously as it's opponents (such as yourself do), who believe that even a calendar change violates them.

Quote:So in 34 years (1570-1604) there had been introduced such significant errors that the Tridentine standard needed to be restored? It was that bad that they couldn't even follow an allegedly unchangeable document within a single generation!

And not only that, but then another 30 years after this (1634), everyone bungled it up so badly that another restoration was needed?


Yes. You speak as if I made this up. I GAVE YOU THE VERY WORDS OF THE POPE HIMSELF. This is how hardened you are in your opinion, that you make the Pope out to be a LIAR


Quote:How can we then trust that everything was indeed handed down to us correctly, if they got it so horrifically wrong within a generation of the restoration?


That's a good question and I'm not arguing that. Clerics and lay people were working together to corrupt texts since the beginning of the Church. I believe Popes Clement VIII and Urban VIII, however, that they had a true copy of the 1570 Missal and were doing what they said they were doing. You don't. You would rather believe fallible Paul Cavendish and Father Cekada. Oh well.


Quote:Let's take Clement's 1604 changes (thanks to a 1994 article by Paul Cavendish) and see how they were not merely a few simple "restorations", but true changes :

Even if the lay person you quote had geniune 1570 and 1604  Roman Missals to compare (which I doubt---they could have been corrupted copies), none of the changes below changes the Roman Rite into a different Rite (such as the Novus Ordo). Please be aware that both clerics and lay people in the Church were wanting a Protestant type Novus Ordo service even at that time. This is not a recent development of the last 150 years. I wouldn't trust anything but the original Missals, which I'm sure Clement VIII, and Urban VIII had access to.


Quote:
Quote:1570: Upon entering, the priest is to kneel and recite from Ps. 65: Introibo in domum tuam; in holocaustis reddam tibi vota mea, quae distinxerunt labia mea, then the Ne reminiscaris and five psalms in preparation for Mass.
1604: The Introibo in domum tuam is suppressed.

1570: The prayer Summe Sacerdos is not divided into parts.

1604: Summe Sacerdos is divided into sections for various days of the week.

1570: The rubrics are not numbered, and do not mention of ringing a bell, incense or torchbearers.

1604: The rubrics are numbered and instruct on ringing a bell, incense and torchbearers, and now include rubrical additions such as those describing the preparation required for the altar.

1570: The absolution rite includes : Misereatur...omnibus peccatis; Indulgentiam ...omnium peccatorum

1604: The words “omnibus peccatis” and "omnium peccatorum" are supressed.

1570: While incensing the altar each time Dirigatur Domine ... is to be said by the celebrant.

1604: The incensation prayers before the Introit are surpressed.

1570: The Emperor or King is named in the Canon.

1604: The Emperor or King is not to be names in the Canon.

1570: The words Haec quotiescumque are said while the celebrant elevates the chalice.

1604: The rubrics order this said after the elevation instead of during.

1570: After a Solemn Mass, the celebrant give the triple blessing, once at the Epistle corner, once in the Center, and once again at the Gospel Corner.

1604: This is suppressed, and the priest gives a single blessing at center and only recited, never sung, and the triple blessings, always given at the center is reserved for prelates.

Not insignificant changes, and certain not a "restoration". Many of these are actual changes to what was set out in 1570, and not an effort to merely correct some errors that crept in.

Again, when you say there were significant changes (outside the bounds of Trent and Quo Primum) and there was not a restoration, you argue not with me, but with what the Popes said out of their own mouths; and you do this using a fallible study of a lay person and the Q&A of a fallible priest whom you yourself disagree with on certain matters. In making statements such as this you make yourself look foolish.

Even if genuine Missals were compared (which I doubt), none of the above violates the canons of Trent or Quo Primum. The main problem you are having is in the interpretation of the document Quo Primum. You (and some others on this thread) are under the false impression that nothing at all can be added or taken away from the 1570 Missal for all time, and that anything (even a Saint's feast day or a rubric cannot be added or changed). This is completely wrong and not what Quo Primum says. Nor is it what Trent said (as I posted earlier). I guess you are not reading what I post. I'm giving you Popes and Councils and you are responding with lay people, fallible priests and your own opinion. Let the readers decide. Here is where the majority of Quo Primum detractors (such as yourself) err...

"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."

Most people (such as yourself) believe that this means the 1570 Missal should now be frozen at this point forever. Never can another Saint be added to the calendar and never again can even one rubric be changed. But when read closely, we see that this applies only to the Missal recently published, and that the displeasure would be his own, meaning in his lifetime. He is also most likely not referring to himself, since Trent allowed for certain changes in the Missal by a Pope. The document itself, however, can never be revoked or modified. Within Quo Primum it says...

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


and we read within the document that it is the formula of the Mass that must remain forever...

"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"

One can change certain rubrics and feast days without compromising the basic formula of the Roman Rite. None of the so called "changes" by Clement VIII, Urban III and Pius X compromised this formula.  The Novus Ordo Mass is a completely new formula, however. If you can't see the difference, between the Novus Ordo Rite (a new formula), and the restorations and lawful changes made by the Popes I just mentioned (that fall within the bounds of Trent and Quo Primum) then there is not much I can do to help you.

Quote:If you don't like that, perhaps Fr. Cekada's Q&A on the subject are of interest (much as I otherwise disagree with the man) :

No, Father Cekeda's fallible Q&A does not interest me. Nor does the fallible study of Paul Cavendish interest me. What the Popes and Councils have said does interest me, however. Unfortunately they don't interest you, since you would rather quote these fallible men (even those you disagree with in many matters).
[-] The following 2 users Like Old World Order's post:
  • Bonaventure, Some Guy
Reply
#33
OWO,

You might want to drop the hyperbole, as it makes reasonable discussion pretty difficult. I get the sense from the fondness for underline, emboldened ALL CAPS, that reasonable discussion is possibly not what you're interested in here, rather in asserting your own personal opinion of the matter at hand, despite whatever argumentation may arise.

If my impression is incorrect, my apologies, but from a long time on the forum, if the shoe fits ...

(07-23-2018, 09:01 AM)Old World Order Wrote: Yes, really. So, you only believe what a Pope says, when it suits your own beliefs? When it doesn't, you go searching for fallible priests and lay people to support your opinion.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Both you and I are interpreting the words of the Pope. Your opinion of them is at variance with my own and that of others, but your opinion of them is just that, your own interpretation and opinion.

To see who is right in their reading of said Popes, we have to look at more than just words. We have to see how in reality the Popes acted, what history shows and how those with far higher pay grades than you or I interpreted these words. Like the Supreme Court looking at the Constitution and trying to decide a case, one has to look at more than just the words of the text, and also consider what the person who wrote the text actually meant.

(07-23-2018, 09:01 AM)Old World Order Wrote: They knew that there were boundaries infallibly set by their predecessors and made it clear that they were remaining within those bounds.

Infallibility deals with revelation. One of the conditions for infallibility is that the Pope intends to bind all of the Catholic Faithful to accept a certain thing as revealed. (Cf. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. (1974) Rockford, Ill. : Tan Books and Publishers, p.286; Catholic Encyclopaedia, "Infallibility" )

It is worth noting that Quo Primum only is directed towards a very limited part of the Church (the Latin West) and even then exempts all rites older which can show their existence come from before 1370 and usage continued. That is hardly binding all Catholics.

The rite of Mass (of which there are dozens of variations, especially in the Catholic East, but even then several in the Catholic West) is not a matter of revelation, so it does not seem like infallibility can apply to a directive which instructs only certain priests to use a certain rite of Mass, but allows others to continue using another rite, and then even completely leaves out another section of the Church,

(07-23-2018, 09:01 AM)Old World Order Wrote: Also, you fail to understand Quo Primum, and the Canons of Trent. They were never meant to be interpreted as rigorously as it's opponents (such as yourself do), who believe that even a calendar change violates them.

And how do you know that you are interpreting these correctly or understanding these correctly? Are not you the one being rigorist by asserting that a decree which does not even oblige every Latin Catholic to use the 1570 Missal, and which does not touch on a final definition in the realm of Faith and Morals is an infallible decree?

Also, BTW, I am not an "opponent" of Quo Primum, if you read anything here with my view of the Novus Ordo, you should see that I think it, as Archbishop Lefebvre called it a "bastard rite".

(07-23-2018, 09:01 AM)Old World Order Wrote: Yes. You speak as if I made this up. I GAVE YOU THE VERY WORDS OF THE POPE HIMSELF. This is how hardened you are in your opinion, that you make the Pope out to be a LIAR

How is expressing a single opinion "hardened"?

And no, I don't think theses Popes are liars, rather that they were "restoring" things that the 1570 Missal failed to fully restore or correcting mistakes. For instance, from my reading the "all sins" in the Indulgentium seems to be a mistake, so the "restoration" was to remove the mistake.

(07-23-2018, 09:01 AM)Old World Order Wrote: Clerics and lay people were working together to corrupt texts since the beginning of the Church. I believe Popes Clement VIII and Urban VIII, however, that they had a true copy of the 1570 Missal and were doing what they said they were doing. You don't. You would rather believe fallible Paul Cavendish and Father Cekada. Oh well.

I have a copy of the 1570 Missal also. I also have a copy of the 1604 and 1634. The changes mentioned come directly from those Missals, and I can confirm them.

The problem is if, as you assert, clerics and laymen alike were in the business of corrupting things so badly within a single generation, then how can we even be sure that they did not also corrupt the Papal decrees you cite, or the Council of Trent?

Your seeming assertion that corruption was so rife means we have to be skeptical about everything, which means we can hardly make such definitive arguments as you suggest. Your premise undermines your whole argument.

(07-23-2018, 09:01 AM)Old World Order Wrote: Even if the lay person you quote had geniune 1570 and 1604  Roman Missals to compare (which I doubt---they could have been corrupted copies), none of the changes below changes the Roman Rite into a different Rite (such as the Novus Ordo). Please be aware that both clerics and lay people in the Church were wanting a Protestant type Novus Ordo service even at that time. This is not a recent development of the last 150 years. I wouldn't trust anything but the original Missals, which I'm sure Clement VIII, and Urban VIII had access to.

Exactly the point. This attitude means that we also cannot be sure of the Papal decrees and the Council of Trent documents you want to hold onto as de fide. If we can't be sure of the Missal, how can we be sure of Urban VIII's decree?

Did you look at the original decree in the Secret Archives of the Vatican, or did you quote from the beginning of the Missal where these documents are found? If the latter, if clerics and laymen alike were corrupting the rest of the missal, how can we be sure they did not change this.

If corruption was so rife in the 64 years from Quo Primum to 1634, how can we be sure that things were not changed after 1634, and in fact we now have a totally corrupted rite, and papal documents?

You have to have certainty with something, but your skepticism not only has no basis in reality or history, but undermines the very point you are trying to make.

(07-23-2018, 09:01 AM)Old World Order Wrote: Even if genuine Missals were compared (which I doubt), none of the above violates the canons of Trent or Quo Primum. The main problem you are having is in the interpretation of the document Quo Primum. You (and some others on this thread) are under the false impression that nothing at all can be added or taken away from the 1570 Missal for all time, and that anything (even a Saint's feast day or a rubric cannot be added or changed). This is completely wrong and not what Quo Primum says.

Really?

See, I thought I read : "they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal."

It would seem that introducing a new Saints feast day precisely does introduce a new prayer.

If the rubrics can be significantly changed, then is that not a new ceremony? Was not the introduction of the 40 hours devotion a new ceremony? How about the Christ the King procession (since outside of Corpus Christi a Eucharistic Procession was never held in 1570)? What of the creation of new Masses for the profession of religious?

I too, agree that these don't violate Quo Primum, and these are foreseen changes, and consonant with that rite, but the problem is that if you read the latter section as literal and strict so it is somehow binding on all Popes in the future, then you cannot read this section in a wide way. You have to be consistent in the interpretation, which undermines your whole point.

If you interpret Quo Primum to be infallible and binding on all (even though it clearly gives exceptions), then you also have to rigidly adhere to its other provisions. Thus, my argument is an argumentum ad absurdam, if we take your opinion and take it to its logical conclusion then there can be no changes whatsoever, but there are changes.

(07-23-2018, 09:01 AM)Old World Order Wrote: No, Father Cekeda's fallible Q&A does not interest me. Nor does the fallible study of Paul Cavendish interest me. What the Popes and Councils have said does interest me, however. Unfortunately they don't interest you, since you would rather quote these fallible men (even those you disagree with in many matters).

I think they probably have read the same Popes as you and I have, so I doubt you can really say they don't care about what the Popes and Councils have said. The question isn't what the popes say, but what you and I think they are saying. We're all interpreting what we think the popes are saying.

The question is whose interpretation is correct. Yours is at least as fallible as Fr Cekada, mine or Paul Cavendish.

Your appeal to the infalliblity of Popes and Councils does not work either, because you're not appealing to their argumentation, but taking what they say and applying your interpretation. That interpretation is not infallible, hence the problem.

Generally I think I'll trust a priest and someone whose done a pretty extensive study on the matter over someone on an internet forum with thin skin enough to make the kind of sweeping ad hominums and ungentlemanly accusations of this interlocutor.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Florus
Reply
#34
(07-23-2018, 09:14 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
Quote:OWO,

You might want to drop the hyperbole, as it makes reasonable discussion pretty difficult. I get the sense from the fondness for underline, emboldened ALL CAPS, that reasonable discussion is possibly not what you're interested in here, rather in asserting your own personal opinion of the matter at hand, despite whatever argumentation may arise.

If my impression is incorrect, my apologies, but from a long time on the forum, if the shoe fits ...

Why not just focus on the content and not the style? I am interested in a reasonable discussion, but a discussion goes both ways. You have to actually read what I post. If you did, you wouldn't post some of the things you do. Or would you?
(07-23-2018, 09:01 AM)Old World Order Wrote: Yes, really. So, you only believe what a Pope says, when it suits your own beliefs? When it doesn't, you go searching for fallible priests and lay people to support your opinion.


Quote:Pot. Kettle. Black.

Both you and I are interpreting the words of the Pope. Your opinion of them is at variance with my own and that of others, but your opinion of them is just that, your own interpretation and opinion.

I'm not doing any interpreting. I am merely presenting the Popes own words to you. Therefore if the Pope says he is restoring the Missal to that of Pius V because errors crept in, I believe the words he wrote, without interpretation. You see I emphasized that point because I'm interested in a reasonable discussion. Anyone with an iota of reason will realize that the words of the Pope need no interpretation in this case. They are plain.



Quote:To see who is right in their reading of said Popes, we have to look at more than just words. We have to see how in reality the Popes acted, what history shows and how those with far higher pay grades than you or I interpreted these words. Like the Supreme Court looking at the Constitution and trying to decide a case, one has to look at more than just the words of the text, and also consider what the person who wrote the text actually meant.

In reality you don't know exactly how the Popes acted. Even if what you presented is true, nothing you posted constitutes a new formula, such as the Novus Ordo.


(07-23-2018, 09:01 AM)Old World Order Wrote: They knew that there were boundaries infallibly set by their predecessors and made it clear that they were remaining within those bounds.


Quote:Infallibility deals with revelation. One of the conditions for infallibility is that the Pope intends to bind all of the Catholic Faithful to accept a certain thing as revealed. (Cf. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. (1974) Rockford, Ill. : Tan Books and Publishers, p.286; Catholic Encyclopaedia, "Infallibility" )

Infallibility is when the Pope decides to bind the whole Church to doctrine concerning faith and morals. Read Vatican I. Generally these doctrines have been fully revealed, but it is not absolutely necessary for this to be the case. 

(07-23-2018, 09:01 AM)Old World Order Wrote: Also, you fail to understand Quo Primum, and the Canons of Trent. They were never meant to be interpreted as rigorously as it's opponents (such as yourself do), who believe that even a calendar change violates them.


Quote:And how do you know that you are interpreting these correctly or understanding these correctly? Are not you the one being rigorist by asserting that a decree which does not even oblige every Latin Catholic to use the 1570 Missal, and which does not touch on a final definition in the realm of Faith and Morals is an infallible decree?

Yes. Did you read my last post? As I said you're not interested in a discussion. Rather you are interested in proving your opinion to be Church teaching even to the point of using the study of a lay person against a Popes clear words. The document Quo Primum itself addresses the whole Church in doctrine concerning faith and morals. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Mass of all-time given to the Apostles, by God Himself most certainly concerns faith and morals. The formula is also part of revelation, although as I said, it is not absolutely necessary that something was fully revealed before the death of the last Apostle, for the Pope to make an infallible declaration. The liturgy throughout the world concerns faith and morals.


Quote:Also, BTW, I am not an "opponent" of Quo Primum, if you read anything here with my view of the Novus Ordo, you should see that I think it, as Archbishop Lefebvre called it a "bastard rite".

Ok, then you know a bastard rite cannot be the Roman Rite, correct? Therefore we most certainly have a violation of Quo Primum and Trent. Would you say the Western Rite from Clement VIII through the Missal of Pius X were bastard rites. I hope your answer here would be no. If so, then what are we really discussing? In actuality your belief contradicts what you post.


(07-23-2018, 09:01 AM)Old World Order Wrote: Yes. You speak as if I made this up. I GAVE YOU THE VERY WORDS OF THE POPE HIMSELF. This is how hardened you are in your opinion, that you make the Pope out to be a LIAR


Quote:How is expressing a single opinion "hardened"?

If there was ambiguity in what the Pope said you may have a point. His words were very clear, however. If we have to interpret the clear words of a Pope to the whole Church then Catholicism is a sham. Why bother to have unity through the head of the Church as Christ intended? Let's just have a protestant free-for-all, where anything goes. Let's take all the clear infallible words of the Popes and Councils and interpret them the way we please. I guess we can always find something in a word or action of someone, somewhere to call the clear words of a Pope or Council into question. Even if it's a layman!



Quote:And no, I don't think theses Popes are liars, rather that they were "restoring" things that the 1570 Missal failed to fully restore or correcting mistakes. For instance, from my reading the "all sins" in the Indulgentium seems to be a mistake, so the "restoration" was to remove the mistake.

You say, "from my reading the "all sins" in the Indulgentium seems to be a mistake" and that you think "the 1570 Missal  failed to fully restore". What I am telling you, is that in saying that you make the Popes out to be liars. Pope Clement himself said errors crept in to recent Missals and that he was restoring it to the Missal of Pius V and to its original purity. Just the opposite of what you are saying. Pope Urban desired to restore the Missal to the standard of Pius V and Clement VIII. Do I have to post their explicit clear quotes to you again? There is nothing to interpret. It is much more likely that the lay person you look up to had corrupted copies of one or both of the Missals, then Popes Clement or Urban were mistaken or worse (had lied).


(07-23-2018, 09:01 AM)Old World Order Wrote: Clerics and lay people were working together to corrupt texts since the beginning of the Church. I believe Popes Clement VIII and Urban VIII, however, that they had a true copy of the 1570 Missal and were doing what they said they were doing. You don't. You would rather believe fallible Paul Cavendish and Father Cekada. Oh well.


Quote:I have a copy of the 1570 Missal also. I also have a copy of the 1604 and 1634. The changes mentioned come directly from those Missals, and I can confirm them.

Exactly. You have a copy. So did the layperson you quoted. The originals are probably buried somewhere in the Vatican, or there are imposter copies in some museum or library somewhere claiming to be the originals.


Quote:The problem is if, as you assert, clerics and laymen alike were in the business of corrupting things so badly within a single generation, then how can we even be sure that they did not also corrupt the Papal decrees you cite, or the Council of Trent?

Nothing is impossible. The reasons I can quote them confidently are twofold. Number one, because corruptions were/are solely meant to take the flock slowly down the broad road to destruction. They are not meant to keep the flock steadfast in tradition. Number two, because common sense should tell you that the Sacred Liturgy has boundaries set upon it by God Himself. Honestly, I don't need Trent and Quo Primum to tell me that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not the play-toy of the Pope for him to do with as he pleases. The Mass directly concerns the faith. Change the Mass and you can change the faith of the people (no declaration needed).


Quote:Your seeming assertion that corruption was so rife means we have to be skeptical about everything, which means we can hardly make such definitive arguments as you suggest. Your premise undermines your whole argument.

Not so, as I said above. Why would the enemy want the faithful to hold fast to the traditions. Answer, "he wouldn't". In fact the Church Fathers had a saying..."Is it Tradition? Ask no more!" So I say to you, do the documents of Trent and Quo Primum urge the flock to hold fast to tradition? I hope your response would be yes. If so, then ask no more.

(07-23-2018, 09:01 AM)Old World Order Wrote: Even if the lay person you quote had geniune 1570 and 1604  Roman Missals to compare (which I doubt---they could have been corrupted copies), none of the changes below changes the Roman Rite into a different Rite (such as the Novus Ordo). Please be aware that both clerics and lay people in the Church were wanting a Protestant type Novus Ordo service even at that time. This is not a recent development of the last 150 years. I wouldn't trust anything but the original Missals, which I'm sure Clement VIII, and Urban VIII had access to.


Quote:Exactly the point. This attitude means that we also cannot be sure of the Papal decrees and the Council of Trent documents you want to hold onto as de fide. If we can't be sure of the Missal, how can we be sure of Urban VIII's decree?

See my response above.



Quote:Did you look at the original decree in the Secret Archives of the Vatican, or did you quote from the beginning of the Missal where these documents are found? If the latter, if clerics and laymen alike were corrupting the rest of the missal, how can we be sure they did not change this.

If corruption was so rife in the 64 years from Quo Primum to 1634, how can we be sure that things were not changed after 1634, and in fact we now have a totally corrupted rite, and papal documents?

You have to have certainty with something, but your skepticism not only has no basis in reality or history, but undermines the very point you are trying to make.

Is it tradition?

(07-23-2018, 09:01 AM)Old World Order Wrote: Even if genuine Missals were compared (which I doubt), none of the above violates the canons of Trent or Quo Primum. The main problem you are having is in the interpretation of the document Quo Primum. You (and some others on this thread) are under the false impression that nothing at all can be added or taken away from the 1570 Missal for all time, and that anything (even a Saint's feast day or a rubric cannot be added or changed). This is completely wrong and not what Quo Primum says.


Quote:Really?

See, I thought I read : "they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal."

It would seem that introducing a new Saints feast day precisely does introduce a new prayer.

Exactly. His newly published Missal under the penalty of his displeasure. This was meant for his pontificate, not future ones. The formula, however, could never be changed. Do you read anything I post?

Quote:If the rubrics can be significantly changed, then is that not a new ceremony?

Depends on the rubric and the extent of the change.

Quote:Was not the introduction of the 40 hours devotion a new ceremony? How about the Christ the King procession (since outside of Corpus Christi a Eucharistic Procession was never held in 1570)? What of the creation of new Masses for the profession of religious?

None of the above changed the formula of the Roman Rite. Ceremonies can be added for new Saints as well. As I said the more rigorous interpretation that you hold was meant for Pius V's own pontificate alone.


Quote:I too, agree that these don't violate Quo Primum, and these are foreseen changes, and consonant with that rite, but the problem is that if you read the latter section as literal and strict so it is somehow binding on all Popes in the future, then you cannot read this section in a wide way. You have to be consistent in the interpretation, which undermines your whole point.

No, you are just failing read Quo Primum closely, and therefore you fall into the error of two extremes. First, that Quo Primum allows for no changes at all, for all time. Secondly, that a future Pope can completely disregard the document and make his own new doctrine regarding the Mass.


Quote:If you interpret Quo Primum to be infallible and binding on all (even though it clearly gives exceptions), then you also have to rigidly adhere to its other provisions. Thus, my argument is an argumentum ad absurdam, if we take your opinion and take it to its logical conclusion then there can be no changes whatsoever, but there are changes.

No, as I just said, your misinterpretation of Quo Primum leads you into extremism. I pointed out to you clearly what Quo Primum said, but you just wish to ignore it. 

(07-23-2018, 09:01 AM)Old World Order Wrote: No, Father Cekeda's fallible Q&A does not interest me. Nor does the fallible study of Paul Cavendish interest me. What the Popes and Councils have said does interest me, however. Unfortunately they don't interest you, since you would rather quote these fallible men (even those you disagree with in many matters).


Quote:I think they probably have read the same Popes as you and I have, so I doubt you can really say they don't care about what the Popes and Councils have said. The question isn't what the popes say, but what you and I think they are saying. We're all interpreting what we think the popes are saying.

I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read this. THERE IS NO INTERPRETATION NEEDED IN REGARDS TO WHAT THE POPES SAID REGARDING THE MISSAL OF PIUS V. They said PLAINLY that they were correcting errors that had crept into Missals and restoring the Missal to the purity and norm of Pope Pius V. What interpretation of that is needed? The only people that even attempt to interpret that are those of bad will.


Quote:The question is whose interpretation is correct. Yours is at least as fallible as Fr Cekada, mine or Paul Cavendish.Your appeal to the infalliblity of Popes and Councils does not work either, because you're not appealing to their argumentation, but taking what they say and applying your interpretation. That interpretation is not infallible, hence the problem.

I'm not interpreting anything! There is no interpretation needed! Does one need to interpret 2+2? That's how ridiculous you are. YOU and others are attempting to interpret.


Quote:Generally I think I'll trust a priest and someone whose done a pretty extensive study on the matter over someone on an internet forum with thin skin enough to make the kind of sweeping ad hominums and ungentlemanly accusations of this interlocutor.

Oh boy, now your going to start in with the guilt trip. Earlier it was my writing style. Anything to detract from the plain facts that you have no logical answer for. Yeah, you'll trust a fallible priest whom you said you mostly disagree with and a layperson over the plain words of the Popes. That's what you are actually doing, regardless of your deceitful spin. The good willed people reading will see right through you.
Reply
#35
(07-23-2018, 11:12 PM)Old World Order Wrote: The originals are probably buried somewhere in the Vatican, or there are imposter copies in some museum or library somewhere claiming to be the originals.

So how do you know what the originals are?

(07-23-2018, 11:12 PM)Old World Order Wrote:
Quote:The problem is if, as you assert, clerics and laymen alike were in the business of corrupting things so badly within a single generation, then how can we even be sure that they did not also corrupt the Papal decrees you cite, or the Council of Trent?

Nothing is impossible ...

You've demolished any possible argument you had here.

If the Missals which are freely available from 1570 and 1604 are fraudulent and the "true copies" hidden somewhere, then these documents that you claim are so definitive could also be fraudulent, then we can have no certainty either of the Missal or of the Papal decrees.

The Quo Primum you are reading and the Bull of Urban VIII you read are guaranteed no authenticity if the whole Catholic world could be deluded into accepting a fake 1570 Missal as the real.

In short, by you own argument we can have no certainty, only ipse dixits from you.

You have settled your opinion, then you read these decrees, you read into these decree what you want, then decide that you are correct and everyone else is wrong.

No evidence is going to convince you otherwise, because you will simply dismiss it as fraudulent, even though you admit the very evidence you are using could be fraudulent.
Reply
#36
MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(07-23-2018, 11:12 PM)Old World Order Wrote: The originals are probably buried somewhere in the Vatican, or there are imposter copies in some museum or library somewhere claiming to be the originals.

Quote:So how do you know what the originals are?

I never claimed to know. I said that Popes Clement VIII and Urban VIII knew or at least would have a much better chance of knowing.
(07-23-2018, 11:12 PM)Old World Order Wrote:
Quote:The problem is if, as you assert, clerics and laymen alike were in the business of corrupting things so badly within a single generation, then how can we even be sure that they did not also corrupt the Papal decrees you cite, or the Council of Trent?

Nothing is impossible ...

You've demolished any possible argument you had here.

Of course leaving out the rest of what I posted.

Quote:If the Missals which are freely available from 1570 and 1604 are fraudulent and the "true copies" hidden somewhere, then these documents that you claim are so definitive could also be fraudulent, then we can have no certainty either of the Missal or of the Papal decrees.

Go back and address my entire explanation.

Quote:The Quo Primum you are reading and the Bull of Urban VIII you read are guaranteed no authenticity if the whole Catholic world could be deluded into accepting a fake 1570 Missal as the real.

Go back and address my entire explanation.
Reply
#37
(07-24-2018, 12:15 AM)Old World Order Wrote: Go back and address my entire explanation.

You've torpedoed your own boat.

I'm not going to worry about the deck chairs, even if they're a mess.
Reply
#38
(07-24-2018, 03:44 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(07-24-2018, 12:15 AM)Old World Order Wrote: Go back and address my entire explanation.

You've torpedoed your own boat.

I'm not going to worry about the deck chairs, even if they're a mess.

As I thought. You haven't addressed much of what I posted throughout the thread. This is because you have no answer for full truth. You are like the protestant who makes his false doctrine out of one scripture verse while ignoring the rest of scripture, tradition, history and common sense. No one needed you to point out the possibility of any text being corrupted. You act as if you made some kind of great discovery. I haven't torpedoed anything. I just spoke the truth. As  I said, however, if the enemy is going to corrupt something, he is not going to make it more traditional! He's going to broaden the road and liberalize it and seek to undermine the Pope and tradition. Corrupting the Missal is a sure fire way to do these things. Let me give you an example.

Say you are a teenager and you had a little brother who had a God given ability to copy someone's handwriting perfectly without a trace of imperfection in the style. Now let's say your parents are going away for a short time and they leave you a note explaining what you should do while they are gone. Now your little brother happens to get a hold of the note before you and presents you with the note. Before you begin to read it, you remember your little brother's ability and the thought crosses your mind that the note might not be genuine. As you are reading the note, it says to make sure you eat healthy meals, clean your rooms, do your homework and go to bed by 10PM. Knowing what your parents have always said plus common sense tells you that the note is genuine. If, however, the note says make sure you go to the mall, do something constructive, finish the candy in the cupboard and go to bed at a reasonable time, you would (at the very least) have reason for suspicion.

That's my point, and that's where your point fails. In other words I don't need to know for certain that the following Quo Primum text is genuine...

"Furthermore, in order that the said Missal may be preserved incorrupt and kept free from defects and errors, the penalty for nonobservance in the case of all printers resident in territory directly or indirectly subject to Ourselves and the Holy Roman Church shall be forfeiture of their books and a fine of 100 gold ducats payable ipso facto to the Apostolic Treasury."

Common sense tells me that the enemy would badly want defects and errors in the Missal in order to undermine the Pope and Tradition, and the Pope would issue penalties for non-preservation of the Missal. After reading such then I really don't need to question the following text either...

"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" (Pope Clement VIII-Cum Sanctissimam, July 7, 1604)

Are you getting it yet? Do you see your lack of common sense in arguing the way you do and contradicting the clear words of the Popes? Do you see that the above needs no interpretation?  Do you see that tradition and common sense should tell you the above texts are genuine just as tradition and common sense helped in discerning the note presented to you by your little brother in the example I gave you? Do you see, that based on the above, the chance that copies of the Missal are corrupted is MUCH more likely then the texts from Trent and Quo Primum, Clement VIII and Urban VIII that I have been presenting in this thread?

So in summary...the fact that any text could possibly be corrupted is nothing new and you didn't discover it. My argument isn't based solely on texts, rather it also takes into account tradition, history and common sense and... you haven't come close to addressing my entire argument throughout the thread. You conveniently leave out what you cannot answer.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Old World Order's post:
  • Bonaventure
Reply
#39
(07-24-2018, 09:11 AM)Old World Order Wrote: [quote pid='1380385' dateline='1532418250']

"Furthermore, in order that the said Missal may be preserved incorrupt and kept free from defects and errors, the penalty for nonobservance in the case of all printers resident in territory directly or indirectly subject to Ourselves and the Holy Roman Church shall be forfeiture of their books and a fine of 100 gold ducats payable ipso facto to the Apostolic Treasury."

Common sense tells me that the enemy would badly want defects and errors in the Missal in order to undermine the Pope and Tradition, and the Pope would issue penalties for non-preservation of the Missal. After reading such then I really don't need to question the following text either...

"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" (Pope Clement VIII-Cum Sanctissimam, July 7, 1604)

[/quote]

This is actually pretty pertinent.
Reply
#40
(07-24-2018, 11:20 AM)BC Wrote:
(07-24-2018, 09:11 AM)Old World Order Wrote:
Quote:"Furthermore, in order that the said Missal may be preserved incorrupt and kept free from defects and errors, the penalty for nonobservance in the case of all printers resident in territory directly or indirectly subject to Ourselves and the Holy Roman Church shall be forfeiture of their books and a fine of 100 gold ducats payable ipso facto to the Apostolic Treasury."

Common sense tells me that the enemy would badly want defects and errors in the Missal in order to undermine the Pope and Tradition, and the Pope would issue penalties for non-preservation of the Missal. After reading such then I really don't need to question the following text either...

"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" (Pope Clement VIII-Cum Sanctissimam, July 7, 1604)

This is actually pretty pertinent.

Common sense is pertinent.

The claim that a Missal published in 1570 and which is the critical edition published by the Holy See itself, and the same in 1604 again, published by the Holy See itself which is the basis for the comparison which OWO dismisses out of hand as probably flawed, while the real Pope, ahem, I mean the real Missal is being hidden and know to those in the know like the Pope, is not an example of "Common Sense" but of conspiratorial thinking.

The foundation of the original argument is flawed : Quo Primum does not discuss which parts of the Mass are changeable or not, just as Quod a nobis does not do so with the Breviary.

If the argument is then that Quo Primum is infallible and truly binds future Popes (something which falls when we consider what are the condition for infallibility laid out by the First Vatican Council), then we have to take the whole text literally : no changing the Mass or Breviary, since no part of these is described as open for changes.

But we do see some minor and other massive changes. History does not support the premise, but it is by looking at what the Popes did (including the text) which shows what they meant: Actions speak louder than words, as we say.

I agree that the Novus Ordo in no way represents a continuity or a good thing, and the Paul VI did not have the moral right to do what he did to the extent that he did, but, quite simply he did have the legal power to make some modifications, not because of Quo Primum, but because of the duty of the Papal office to promote the Faith and not injure it.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)