Council of Trent
#61
(07-30-2018, 11:01 AM)Dominicus Wrote: I'm not sure i'd call anything MM has to say "insubstantial".

That's a pretty bold statement. I'm not sure that even he would agree with you (that EVERYTHING he says is substantial). Then again, you never know. In terms of this thread and actually addressing my arguments, I disagree (especially towards the end). Anyone can post "substance" in the somewhat strict sense of the word. For, example, I never said that the 1570 Missal could not be changed at all (for all time).  That was not my position. Quo Primum states plainly that the formula of the Mass could not be changed (for all time). So, posting changes to the Missal which did not compromise the formula of the Roman Rite did not address my argument "substantially". It was merely "substance" in a somewhat strict sense of the word, as in (it showed some additions and changes which did not compromise the formula of the Roman Rite and it took up space). Adding a Catholic Saint or devotion (even a major one) to the Missal does not change the formula of the Mass. Changing a minor rubric does not change the formula of the Mass. The customary rites and ceremonies in the administration of the sacraments are still present and intact. As far as I know, no Pope, Saint or theologian (nor anyone else in the Church) thought differently up until the changes of Paul VI, or possibly Pius XII (with his dismantling of Holy Week).
Reply
#62
Yes. Archbishop Lefebvre said that the 1962 missal was not substantially different from the earlier missals. However, the sede-vacantists say the change in Holy Week made it substantially different because the Novus Ordo Mass was derived from that. 1962 seems to be the watershed year, at any rate.
Reply
#63
Here is a slightly better translation of the dogma quoted in the original post:


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

Council of Trent, Session VII, On the Sacraments, Canon XIII

This dogma does in fact teach us that the new rites are illicit as no pastor, whomsoever (the pope included), has the authority to create new rites for use in the administration of the sacraments. Pius IX said the following in his profession of faith at Vatican I:


Quote:I likewise receive and accept the rites of the catholic church which have been received and approved in the solemn administration of all the aforesaid sacraments.

Leo XIII wrote in Immortale Dei, “we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will.” Vatican I infallibly defines:


Quote:If anyone says that it is impossible, or not expedient, that human beings should be taught by means of divine revelation about God and the worship that should be shown him: let him be anathema.

God has revealed that the “received and approved” rites are what He wants to be used in the worship that should be shown Him.

“For I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you…” (1Cor 11:23). St. Paul says again: “For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received” (1Cor 15:3). John Salza comments, “In these and other verses, St. Paul emphasizes that we must believe and practice only what we have “received” from Christ and the apostles which has been “delivered” unto us, and which includes the liturgical rites of the Church. This is a divinely revealed truth and a matter of Faith.”1 The Novus Ordo rites are not approved by the Church because they are novelties not received from Christ and the apostles. The Tridentine Profession of Faith includes the following article, “most steadfastly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions, and all other observances and constitutions of the same Church.” The necessity of adhering to the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions is a divinely revealed dogma. The most important of the aforementioned traditions is the Immemorial Roman Rite of the Mass, also known as the Rite of St. Peter. As D.M. Drew writes, “Ecclesiastical Tradition is founded upon Divine Tradition and human nature, both of which are immutable, and that is why there are elements of Ecclesiastical Tradition that are immutable.”2

Those who attempt to equate reforms of the Breviary with the invention of a new rite of Mass ignore that the dogma the original poster quoted specifically deals with rites “accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments.” Reforms of the Breviary are therefore entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Fr. Gregory Hesse was one of the few modern priests who understood all of this. He did an excellent job explaining why the new rites are illicit in some of his talks that were recorded and put on YouTube. I highly recommend searching for and listening to his talks. John Salza's article that I referenced is also quite worth reading, as is D.M. Drew's.

1http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/divinelaw.htm
2http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Culture%20Wars%20reply%20for%20web%20posting%209-10.htm
[-] The following 1 user Likes St. Camillus's post:
  • Bonaventure
Reply
#64
(08-27-2018, 08:24 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: God has revealed that the “received and approved” rites are what He wants to be used in the worship that should be shown Him.

Without getting into the nitty-gritty problems with over-reading and dogmatizing based one's personal reading of Trent (in a way that the Church itself has not applied it), the quoted statement is that it is false by overstatement.

Firstly, This part of Trent deals with Sacraments, not the Mass. So, these "rites" are the Sacraments, not the rite of Mass as a whole, which is the subject of other session of Trent. That limits the scope of the applicability of this statement.

Secondly, the Sacraments are not primarily about the worship, but about means to give grace through certain rites. The constitute part of the liturgy, yes, which is a form of public worship, but the reason Christ instituted the Sacraments is not primarily about the worship of God through revealed means, but the sanctification of men through certain ceremonies.

Thirdly, while certainly God through the institution of the Sacraments by Christ, has revealed the manner in which he wants to give grace to men. He did this through establishing some Sacraments specifically (by giving both Form and Matter), others generically by probably giving to the Apostles the command to establish a rite based on Christ's instruction. This is at least the common opinion of theologians.

This is because certain similar rites in the East and West, but also very different rites. For instance Baptism is essentially the same as regards Form and Matter. Latins say "N., I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". Easterners say "The servant of God, N. is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Both are valid rites, and their similarity shows that they probably came from Christ's direct and specific institution (it's described in the Gospels)

The same could be said for the Eucharist, where the words of consecration and matter are essentially the same in all rites. The rest of the liturgy is much different in each, but all are Catholic. So if we're trying to extent Trent Sess. VII, Can. 13 to mean the rite of Mass, this is a large speed bump. If God "revealed" how he wanted to be worshiped, then how is it that the Latin Rite which is younger than the Byzantine Rites is considered the "revealed" way?

Other Sacraments seem to be only generically instituted by Christ. Confirmation rituals in the East and West along with Extreme Unction are quite different in their form. The only thing which seems to clearly link the two is the use of Olive Oil.

Clearly the various forms for Orders are vastly different as well, yet it is the same Sacrament.

In conclusion, if one takes this position there is an insurmountable hurdle, the East. If "pastors" cannot change rites from what God "revealed" (which is obviously in a traddie Latin's mind what the Roman Church does) , then how is it the the Church has such varied rites between West and East?

Since you resurrected a long-dead thread, how then St. Camillus do you explain the different Eastern Catholic rites for the Sacraments if God "revealed" the Latin rites for the Sacraments? Did the Apostles give various different rites? Did God "reveal" various rites?
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • austenbosten, jovan66102
Reply
#65
(08-28-2018, 06:23 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Since you resurrected a long-dead thread, .... 

Long-dead?  Thread started at the end of May and last post was less than a month ago.  Hardly what I would call "long-dead."

Not sure why the need for such condescension.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Bonaventure's post:
  • Some Guy
Reply
#66
It's also my favorite thread to read despite all the frustration that seems to regularly bubble up.
Reply
#67


Reply
#68
(08-28-2018, 09:20 AM)Bonaventure Wrote:
(08-28-2018, 06:23 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Since you resurrected a long-dead thread, .... 

Long-dead?  Thread started at the end of May and last post was less than a month ago.  Hardly what I would call "long-dead."

Not sure why the need for such condescension.

A month of no activity generally means that no one is interested in a thread anymore. The life span of a thread here is usually under a month in most cases. It is why bumping threads is considered rude.

Sometimes threads drag on for a while, but there is typically continuous or at least sporadic activity. Alive for 2 months and dormant for one suggests a lack of interest.

There is no condescension is saying that St Camillus was responding to a thread about which most people had moved on. Nothing condescending was meant.

If there is some interest, the usual and courteous way to approach things is to start a new thread, unless there is a good reason to resurrect a thread.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#69
(08-28-2018, 04:25 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: A month of no activity generally means that no one is interested in a thread anymore. 
Guess I missed that in the rule book.
My bad.
BTW, what rule is that, exactly?
[-] The following 1 user Likes Bonaventure's post:
  • Some Guy
Reply
#70
(08-28-2018, 05:00 PM)Bonaventure Wrote:
(08-28-2018, 04:25 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: A month of no activity generally means that no one is interested in a thread anymore. 
Guess I missed that in the rule book.
My bad.
BTW, what rule is that, exactly?

Who's being condescending, now?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)