Council of Trent
#41
(07-24-2018, 07:24 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(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.
Quote:Common sense is pertinent.

Then why aren't you using any?

Quote: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.

So Pius V was conspiratorial when he threatened with penalties those who would corrupt his Missal? Clement VIII was conspiratorial when he plainly stated that many errors had already crept into Missals within 35 years of Pius V? I guess Urban VIII was conspiratorial also, because he echoed Clement VIII. No, I actually think it's conspiratorial when one dismisses the CLEAR WORDS OF THE POPES THEMSELVES who actually lived during that time period and saw what was going on with their own eyes, in favor of the study of layperson over 400 years after the fact. That's conspiratorial.


Quote: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.

The foundation of my argument is not texts alone, and especially not Quo Primum alone. The fact that you say such a thing proves what I have been saying all along. You pick and choose parts of my argument instead of addressing the whole argument, then you twist those parts and put your own false spin on them and hope no one has been reading the whole thread and actually paying attention so you can get your "thumbs up".


Quote: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),

Again, this was addressed during this thread. The Mass concerns the FAITH. Neither Quo Primum nor the Canons of Trent regarding the codification of the Mass can be revoked or modified as per the definition in Vatican I. Ever. In fact, Quo Primum states this plainly within the document itself. I know you like to say things in passing, hoping that they will go uninvestigated.

Not by me they wont.

Quote: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.

This was also addressed. I would sooner, however, believe that 1570 Missal was to be completely fixed for all time, then I would entertain the notion that the Pope could play with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass like a toy, because it is merely a discipline which does not concern the faith. The latter is the nonsense which you are proposing. You actually need to look at history and have some knowledge ot Trent and some common sense to come to the Catholic position. As I posted earlier, Trent reserved the calendar to the Pope. Did you read the Papal encyclical which explained that? Does the truth really concern you? I doubt it by the way you post.


Quote: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.

So basically then, what you see determines the truth of a matter, correct? Therefore, if the man you call Pope gathers with the leaders of different religions at Assisi so each can pray to their own gods, then the Church must have never prohibited such a thing? Right?


Quote: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

Some modifications? What?!?! He virtually destroyed the Roman Rite throughout the west and created a new protestant "rite"! Not only that, but you say he had the legal right to do it! And you say I torpedoed my ship?!?!
Reply
#42
(07-24-2018, 09:20 PM)Old World Order Wrote:
(07-24-2018, 07:24 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Common sense is pertinent.

Then why aren't you using any?

This is precisely why I have no interest in, and did not reply to you, but to BC.

A bit of common courtesy would do wonders if you want people to engage your arguments, OWO. Show that and I'll bite. Keep on this path and I'm not going to waste my time.
Reply
#43
(07-24-2018, 11:32 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(07-24-2018, 09:20 PM)Old World Order Wrote:
(07-24-2018, 07:24 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Common sense is pertinent.

Then why aren't you using any?

This is precisely why I have no interest in, and did not reply to you, but to BC.

A bit of common courtesy would do wonders if you want people to engage your arguments, OWO. Show that and I'll bite. Keep on this path and I'm not going to waste my time.

So you can say I have no common sense, but when I reply the same, I am the one lacking common courtesy? Have I attacked your writing style? Was that courteous of you, when you attacked mine? Does anyone here see a double standard?
Reply
#44
(07-25-2018, 09:32 AM)Old World Order Wrote:
(07-24-2018, 11:32 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(07-24-2018, 09:20 PM)Old World Order Wrote:
(07-24-2018, 07:24 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Common sense is pertinent.

Then why aren't you using any?

This is precisely why I have no interest in, and did not reply to you, but to BC.

A bit of common courtesy would do wonders if you want people to engage your arguments, OWO. Show that and I'll bite. Keep on this path and I'm not going to waste my time.

So you can say I have no common sense, but when I reply the same, I am the one lacking common courtesy? Have I attacked your writing style? Was that courteous of you, when you attacked mine? Does anyone here see a double standard?

I'm not the one who has issued an endless string of ad hominums from his first reply. A sample of what I think constitutes a lack of common courtesy :

"This is how hardened you are in your opinion, that you make the Pope out to be a LIAR."

"Anyone with an iota of reason will realize that the words of the Pope need no interpretation in this case."

"In reality you don't know exactly how the Popes acted."

"As I said you're not interested in a discussion."

"What I am telling you, is that in saying that you make the Popes out to be liars."

"No, as I just said, your misinterpretation of Quo Primum leads you into extremism."

"I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read this."

"That's how ridiculous you are."

"Oh boy, now your going to start in with the guilt trip."

"Anything to detract from the plain facts that you have no logical answer for."

"That's what you are actually doing, regardless of your deceitful spin."

"The good willed people reading will see right through you."
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Dominicus, jovan66102
Reply
#45
(07-25-2018, 09:32 AM)Old World Order Wrote: Have I attacked your writing style? Was that courteous of you, when you attacked mine?

Wanting to try to figure out what you meant by this I've re-read what I've written. (I worry I may be giving this more time than it deserves, but don't want to seem crass).

The only thing I can suppose you mean is when I suggested you "drop the hyperbole" at the outset of post no. 35, and then suggested that writing with plentiful use of bold, italic, underlined and changed font size is also a typical measure among those who pontificate here (and in general in the trad world), rather that have interest in a well-thought out gentlemanly discussion.

Regarding the latter point, that is just the history of my last 20 years in the traditional movement and 12 years here on this forum. The most productive discussion rarely involve quote dumping or over-emphasis, which is a form of hyperbole.

Hyperbole is a standard rhetorical device, but when it is introduced into argumentation, such over-statement rarely, if ever can help make for a fruitful and rational discussion.

Insisting that if your interlocutor does not read a text as you interpret it then he is calling the author a "liar" is a perfect example of this, and shuts down any hope of rational discussion. It's standard loaded question fallacy stuff : "When did you stop beating your wife?".
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#46
(07-25-2018, 04:39 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(07-25-2018, 09:32 AM)Old World Order Wrote:
(07-24-2018, 11:32 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(07-24-2018, 09:20 PM)Old World Order Wrote:
(07-24-2018, 07:24 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Common sense is pertinent.

Then why aren't you using any?

This is precisely why I have no interest in, and did not reply to you, but to BC.

A bit of common courtesy would do wonders if you want people to engage your arguments, OWO. Show that and I'll bite. Keep on this path and I'm not going to waste my time.

So you can say I have no common sense, but when I reply the same, I am the one lacking common courtesy? Have I attacked your writing style? Was that courteous of you, when you attacked mine? Does anyone here see a double standard?

I'm not the one who has issued an endless string of ad hominums from his first reply. A sample of what I think constitutes a lack of common courtesy :

"This is how hardened you are in your opinion, that you make the Pope out to be a LIAR."

"Anyone with an iota of reason will realize that the words of the Pope need no interpretation in this case."

"In reality you don't know exactly how the Popes acted."

"As I said you're not interested in a discussion."

"What I am telling you, is that in saying that you make the Popes out to be liars."

"No, as I just said, your misinterpretation of Quo Primum leads you into extremism."

"I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read this."

"That's how ridiculous you are."

"Oh boy, now your going to start in with the guilt trip."

"Anything to detract from the plain facts that you have no logical answer for."

"That's what you are actually doing, regardless of your deceitful spin."

"The good willed people reading will see right through you."

If I have told an untruth that would be one thing, but if the above is true I certainly have done nothing wrong. After examining the above list I don't see anything that is untrue. Also, you yourself were not courteous (according to your own definition). Even if it was only one time, you have no right to go on a righteous tirade. What did Jesus say to the Pharisees about to stone the harlot?  Let me list some other things Jesus said to the Scribes and Pharisees. He called them...

-hypocrites
-whitewashed tombs
-blind guides
-serpents
-vipers
-sons of Hell

Do I need to go on? That was just from one chapter and I may have left some out.

Did Jesus lack common courtesy? Can't wait to hear this one.
Reply
#47
(07-24-2018, 07:24 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Wanting to try to figure out what you meant by this I've re-read what I've written. (I worry I may be giving this more time than it deserves, but don't want to seem crass).

The only thing I can suppose you mean is when I suggested you "drop the hyperbole" at the outset of post no. 35, and then suggested that writing with plentiful use of bold, italic, underlined and changed font size is also a typical measure among those who pontificate here (and in general in the trad world), rather that have interest in a well-thought out gentlemanly discussion.

So basically you like to stereotype people and come to conclusions before facts. I'm interested in the truth first. If a gentlemanly discussion can be had (all the better). You are interested in a Vatican II-type Novus Ordo dialogue. That's where we differ.
Reply
#48
[Image: Twitter-I-rest-my-case-c7c3a5.png]
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Dominicus, jovan66102
Reply
#49
(07-25-2018, 11:22 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [Image: Twitter-I-rest-my-case-c7c3a5.png]

Well played, Sir, well played! LOL
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#50
(07-25-2018, 11:22 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [Image: Twitter-I-rest-my-case-c7c3a5.png]


Another non-reply. What a surprise! Indeed, that was the only case you had.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Old World Order's post:
  • Bonaventure
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)