Sola Liturgia? Will we see TLM Protestants?
  • MarkB
    Posts: 680
    Ah, we are making progress because now we are hitting on the crux of the matter and the crux of the disagreement.

    Does the pope have the authority to abrogate the TLM? That is the question.

    I think he does; I believe the Church has taught and established that he does have such authority over the liturgy. (Read the two articles by Kwasniewski and Conte in a post above this one for a good exchange of views about that matter.)

    I don't believe many people who disagree with me will change their minds. So if we continue to disagree, okay... but at least now we are clear about what the disagreement concerns.
  • Mark...

    Just so that we're all clear on this point: Mark B's belief in the power of the pope to do (or not do) a thing isn't the same as the actual power of the pope to do it. Mark's belief does not bestow on the Holy Father a power he doesn't have, nor does it render null an authority he actually has.


    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • MarkB
    Posts: 680
    It occurred to me that a helpful analogy might be the phenomenon of sanctuary cities in the United States: cities that have declared that within their city limits certain laws or regulations enacted by higher levels of government do not apply. Most prominently, there were sanctuary cities where illegal immigrants would be shielded from enforcement of federal immigration laws. Less prominently, there have been sanctuary regions where local sheriffs have said they will not enforce restrictive gun laws.

    The rationale (or rationalization) for such sanctuary cities is that the higher laws are considered wrong. So the local community is attempting to nullify them with its refusal to comply. (It must be said that declaring a city to be a sanctuary is not self-justifying.)

    It seems to me that some Catholics are considering or have declared their groups to be something like sanctuaries for the preservation of the use of the 1962 Missal. They consider what Church authority has done or might do in their diocese to be wrong, so they (are threatening to) refuse to comply.

    And this gets back to the TLM Protestant question: is it legitimate for a Catholic to refuse to comply with restrictions or prohibitions on the use of the 1962 Missal enacted by the pope, and can a Catholic refuse to comply while remaining in full communion with the Church?
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 991
    Does a sanctuary city cease to be a member of the USA just because it takes a moral high ground in opposition to a perceived injustice?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • MarkB
    Posts: 680
    As I said, declaring sanctuary is not self-justifying, so it's not correct to assume that declaring sanctuary is always taking a moral high ground.

    In a small way, a sanctuary city has indeed separated itself from the country by declaring itself to be a sanctuary, a place where the laws expected to be observed everywhere in the country are declared not to apply. It is not in full communion with the country because it is not adhering to the country's duly enacted laws and not obeying the federal government's authority.

    A more extreme example would be the so-called "autonomous zones" that were created in Portland and Seattle in the summer of 2020: regions of several square blocks that for a period of months operated as if they had seceded from the country and state and city in which they were located. They operated quasi-independently from the surrounding community and government authorities.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,570
    It’s time to face the music. Here is my short and sweet:

    The NO is a New Rite

    It has no bearing on the TLM

    The NO cannot attempt to “swallow” the TLM and then claim that the TLM still exists inside the “bigger” NO. That might work with fish but it doesn’t work with rites. The NO claims to be the bigger fish but it is a “50 year older” next to a “2000 year older.”

    The TLM is that which grew from the seed of the church and will remain until the end.

    Argue all you want and then get back to me at the end of time.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw ServiamScores
  • Ah, we are making progress because now we are hitting on the crux of the matter and the crux of the disagreement.

    Does the pope have the authority to abrogate the TLM? That is the question.
    No, this is your question. As far as I can tell, you and Dr. K are two peas in a pod. Both arguing legalisms. Read Mosebach to get a better understanding the real question, at least from another point of view.

    [Edited to remove ad hom.]
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,276
    It seems to me the bishops now have approval to continue the TLM or shut it down completely in their dioceses. You can claim rights and privileges from now on but if the TLM is no longer available it is over for any practical purposes.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,570
    It seems to me the bishops now have approval to continue the TLM or shut it down completely in their dioceses. You can claim rights and privileges from now on but if the TLM is no longer available it is over for any practical purposes.
    Now we will see “bishop rise against bishop”
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,276
    Most of them are not courageous enough for that. They tend to go along to get along.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,079
    The issue is the Church's authority, the pope's authority, over the liturgy


    Ever hear of 'sensus fidelium', friend?

    Don't bet your fortune on TC holding up over the years.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 680
    To Arthur Connick,

    I read Mosebach's article. I think he's wrong to claim that Pope Francis considers the TLM to be "dangerous" and that that's his primary motivation for TC. I think he's wrong to claim that Pope Francis advocates a "hermeneutic of rupture", that Vatican II broke with tradition instead of renewing and reforming and developing it.

    For a better article, or at least a different perspective than Mosebach's speculations about Pope Francis's motivations, I recommend this one by Shaun Blanchard, published in the University of Notre Dame's Church Life Journal:
    https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/traditionis-custodes-was-never-merely-about-the-liturgy/

    I don't agree with everything Blanchard says, especially not towards the end of the article, but I think he's correct in the thrust of his argument that TC is about Pope Francis aligning the Church squarely in the Vatican II paradigm, not as a rejection of the Church's tradition prior to Vatican II, but as the definitive renewal and development of that tradition that cannot be reversed.

    One of the things Blanchard does is quote Paul VI about why he didn't let the Lefebvreists (sp?) continue saying the old Mass:

    We should recall, however, that Francis is in many ways returning to the policy and rhetoric of Paul VI (pope from 1963–1978), who reigned during the final three sessions of the Council, and oversaw the first long phase of conciliar implementation. When the philosopher Jean Guitton asked Pope Paul why he did not grant the use of the preconciliar Mass to SSPX founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his followers, the pope replied:

    Never. This Mass . . . becomes the symbol of the condemnation of the council. I will not accept, under any circumstances, the condemnation of the council through a symbol. Should this exception to the liturgy of Vatican II have its way, the entire council would be shaken. And, as a consequence, the apostolic authority of the council would be shaken.[10]

    Just as I highlighted Francis’s evocation of the adage cum Petro et sub Petro, I think the key to understanding Pope Paul’s statement here lies in his concern that “apostolic authority” not be “shaken.” Lefebvre’s resistance was a direct challenge to the pope, and Paul VI feared that the pre-conciliar Mass had become or would become a shibboleth for the rejection not just of the authority of Vatican II, but that of the popes who sanctioned it.


    Blanchard argues that Pope Francis considers restricting and eliminating the old Mass to be an important part of the path forward for a Church definitively committed to Vatican II as an authentic development of Catholic tradition that includes the pre-conciliar tradition, includes the memory of all that has preceded us, but isn't forever stuck in 1962. Restricting the old Mass is necessary because a Church committed to Vatican II cannot have nor encourage a parallel pre-conciliar mindset to exist since that would foster a kind of ecclesiastical multiple personality disorder, with one part committed to Vatican II's development of tradition and the other on hold.

    What Mosebach interprets as fear isn't fear on the part of Pope Francis. It's more the decision of a father who has judged that something that had served its purpose well for a time now is no longer in the best interests of his children, so he has decided to gradually phase it out of his children's lives in favor of something better. But that isn't just Pope Francis's decision: it's a decision that was initially made at Vatican II by the world's bishops and subsequently confirmed and advanced by all the post-conciliar popes. What Pope Francis has done is state more authoritatively and definitively than his predecessors that the Church is committed to Vatican II, and there's no going back.

    From Blanchard's article:

    Writing as a church historian, historically and descriptively, I want to show that Pope Francis’s motu proprio is only superficially about the liturgy. It is not about Latin, as Robert Mickens and others have rightly stated. The “issue under the issues” is Vatican II.[2] If the lex orandi (law of prayer) is the lex credendi (law of belief), as the venerable old adage goes, then we should not be surprised that just beneath the surface of this liturgical decree lays the real concern of Francis’s striking intervention: the legacy of the Second Vatican Council and the contested lex credendi of the Catholic Church. Much more than a decree regulating liturgy, Traditionis Custodes is a decisive moment in the history of papal reception of Vatican II.


    Contra Mosebach, the TLM isn't considered by Pope Francis to be dangerous in itself; but as a symbol or instrument of resistance and opposition to Vatican II or of a pre-conciliar mindset, the use of the 1962 Missal is counterproductive to advancing the Church's commitment to Vatican II.

    More from Blanchard:

    In granting the permissions in Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict very clearly wished to sever the link between pre-conciliar liturgy and anti-conciliar theology, a problem no one can doubt he takes gravely seriously. Francis has now judged that project a failure, and Traditionis Custodes implies the incongruity of clinging to pre-conciliar liturgy while accepting conciliar theology.


    It really does boil down to whether people accept Vatican II or not. How could a Church committed to liturgical reform continue to celebrate the unreformed liturgy? Why would it?

    As for the criticism that I have been arguing legalisms, well... TC is liturgical legislation. The pope is the supreme earthly authority in the Church, to whom all Catholics are subject. Pope Francis exercised his authority by issuing the new liturgical legislation. Legal analysis is central to whether TC is valid, binding, and demands obedience from Catholics, or whether Catholics are permitted to resist or defy it.
    Thanked by 2Don9of11 Elmar
  • MarkB
    Posts: 680
    dad29:

    The sensus fidelium must include fidelity to Vatican II. A so-called "sensus fidelium" that rejected Vatican II would be a counterfeit.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,570
    Most of them are not courageous enough for that. They tend to go along to get along.
    Apparently you are not privy to the famous prophetic quote
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,276
    I don't know which of many quotes you are referring to. But I do remember Bishop Sheen saying don't look to bishops to safeguard your faith. They are the first to go over in any heresy.
  • Mark,

    To the extent that the Council contradicts the deposit of faith, a good Catholic can not cooperate with it. So, if you will explain, with citations, anywhere in which the Council contradicts the deposit of faith....

    Thanked by 3tomjaw francis KARU27
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,570
    (Little fish meets big fish)

    Triumph of the Will: The Novus Ordo, RIP

    https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/5516-triumph-of-the-will-the-novus-ordo-rip

    But why don’t people do as they’re told, when they’re told to give up all they hold dear? The question answers itself. The New Man demands submission, but the cumulative loves and sorrows of the past embroider us all into a community stretching across space and time.

    Look closer at the shrill commands of the New Men and you’ll see that the will, although it feels strong on the inside, is the weakest of human powers. The will seeks to impose itself on the cosmos, but the cosmos is almost entirely indifferent. The will also seeks to enter into the psyches of other people, to control what goes on in other souls and minds. There, too, the will fails. The will rages and commands, but, really, it is a will-o’-the-wisp.

    No one knows better than he who seeks to make his will law just how weak his will actually is. Hence, the terror of the twentieth century, the century where the New Man willed by the possessed few just wouldn’t stick in reality. The will is shown almost immediately to be impotent—after that, for those who won’t recognize the will’s weakness, there is only the twisting of arms, the cracking of heads.

    Pope Francis’ motu proprio Traditionis Custodes is a document which could only be written by a man who had sensed his own impotence to will reality, but had not yet repented of dictating terms to God’s Creation. The document’s apparent translation errors (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/5494-cardinal-burke-statement-on-traditionis-custodes) and the overall appeal to the very thing—tradition—which the document overtly seeks to destroy make it clear that Traditionis Custodes is not a work of care for what has been handed down, but an attempt to will the entirety of the Christian heritage out of existence. Francis has proclaimed that all Catholics must be New Men. He must surely understand, even before he made the crazed decision to declare war on the Deposit of the Faith, that such attempts are bound to end in failure.

    Why this is so is a matter of historical context. First, to understand Traditionis Custodes, one must understand Vatican II. Francis was hardly the first Churchman to hate tradition. In Vatican II, many of the leaders of the Church tried to revolutionize the Deposit of the Faith. The spirit of Vatican II was aggiornamento. It sounds lovely in Italian, but in plain English it means “update”. The arrogance hidden in that one simple word is breathtaking. The pope is, at best, middle management—he does not innovate, he only cares for what he has received. And what he has—and we all have—received is nothing less than the means of our salvation, the graces of Christ mediated by Our Lady and Holy Mother Church.

    Vatican II wanted to “update” the divine plan for saving the human race. Traditionis Custodes doubles down on this rejection of tradition—a rejection which has utterly failed because no sane man or woman wants to throw onto the dustheap the riches of tradition, or especially the promise of eternal life.
    Thanked by 2sdtalley3 tomjaw
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 991
    It’s funny to me, Mark, because you say the sensus fidelium should embrace V2, and I think the sensus fidelium is precisely why we should be skeptical of it. It is the same reason I’m skeptical of the recent change to the death penalty, for instance. Generation upon generation held it as valid. All of the sudden it’s impermissible? Mmmmmm … Not how that works. It’s my life-long living of my Catholic faith (a relatively well-informed one at that) that has imprinted upon my soul the fact that you cannot change the direction of the church on a dime, let alone contradict perennial teaching. I don’t care if you’re the pope himself. I seem to recall that St. Paul had a warning about this… that even if an angel of God should come to you…
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,725
    All of the sudden it’s impermissible?
    What's with this "All of the sudden"? What was the teaching of BXVI, JPII, or PaulVI - was it not that, although the extreme penalty could not be excluded under all circumstances, these circumstances did not currently arise in well-governed countries?
    It is of course true that all popes in my 83 years have personal experience of living in countries which used the death penalty as an instrument of State Terror.
    Thanked by 3CharlesW Elmar CHGiffen
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 991
    The fact that some states have abused it, and the fact that it should be reserved to extreme cases does not make it impermissible. It was a complete 180° on the view that it’s permissible.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 878
    Does the pope have the authority to abrogate the TLM? That is the question.

    The short answer is yes - we all agree that the NOM is a valid Mass. However, this answer only covers authority in the juridical, legal sense.

    The liturgical scholar Laszlo Dobszay touches upon this indirectly in his book The Bugnini-Liturgy and the Reform of the Reform (pdf of the complete book here) He makes it clear that the reform of the liturgy cannot be a simply a matter of authority, but must look at the content of the reformed liturgy itself. (It should be noted that Doboszy, though quite sympathetic with those who champion the TLM, can hardly be called a traditionalist).
    "In what sense, then, can the 'Neo-Roman' liturgy be regarded as a Roman one? There is no doubt that it is 'Roman' in two respects. Firstly, the majority of the Roman Catholic Church today celebrates her liturgy according to this Ordo. Secondly, it was produced within the juridical framework of the Roman Church, and it enjoys her official approval However, the conclusion is quite different if we test the Novus Ordo from the viewpoint of its content. In this respect, it does not belong to the ancient and long-lived Roman liturgy, but represents another type (pp. 154-55; emphasis in the original.)

    In the context of obedience, Dobszay, though fully obedient to the current liturgical laws, nevertheless argues that
    It is . . . problematic if Rome, which acts as a guarantee of the regulations, wishes to reduce the whole matter to a question of obedience. In this case her own commission could also be called upon to account for obedience to more universal and comprehensive laws. What makes the claim of obedience psychologically difficult is that an arbitrary construction — based to a large extent on individual initiatives and opposed to the centuries-old customs of the Church - now claims the reverence due to the usage of the Church, a procedure which though perhaps valid legally, is yet contestable from the point of view of contents.

    More direct and more illuminating is this oft-quoted passage from Cdl. Ratzinger, that the pope is the servant, not the master, of tradition, in this case liturgical tradition:
    "The pope is not an absolute monarch whose will is law; rather, he is the guardian of the authentic Tradition and, thereby, the premier guarantor of obedience. He cannot do as he likes, and he is thereby able to oppose those people who, for their part, want to do whatever comes into their head. His rule is not that of arbitrary power, but that of obedience in faith. That is why, with respect to the Liturgy, he has the task of a gardener, not that of a technician who builds new machines and throws the old ones on the junk-pile. The “rite”, that form of celebration and prayer which has ripened in the faith and the life of the Church, is a condensed form of living Tradition in which the sphere using that rite expresses the whole of its faith and its prayer, and thus at the same time the fellowship of generations one with another becomes something we can experience, fellowship with the people who pray before us and after us. Thus the rite is something of benefit that is given to the Church, a living form of paradosis, the handing-on of Tradition.”
    (Preface to The Organic Development of the Liturgy. The Principles of Liturgical Reform and Their Relation to the Twentieth-century Liturgical Movement Prior to the Second Vatican Council by Dom Alcuin Reid (Ignatius Press, 2004)).
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,374
    Dobszay would really need to grapple more with the trajectory of papal maximalism of the Second Millennium, which was far from a given before the emperors decided the locally powerful Roman families could no longer be entrusted with the papacy as a plaything (Peter Heather has written about that from a secular historical angle that's approachable for a non-technical reader). The emperors themselves rather quickly got bit by their own handiwork. They would not be the last.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW Elmar
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,079
    The sensus fidelium must include fidelity

    ....to the authoritative tradition of the Church. The portions of 2Vat which include such tradition will be honored by the SF. Those that are not.......well........

    The sensus fidelium also judges the teachings of Popes in the same context.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw ServiamScores
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,079
    the extreme penalty could not be excluded


    You answered your own question.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,079
    Does the pope have the authority to abrogate the TLM?


    OBrogate, yes. DErogate, yes. ABrogate? B-16 didn't think so.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,079
    It is . . . problematic if Rome, which acts as a guarantee of the regulations, wishes to reduce the whole matter to a question of obedience. In this case her own commission could also be called upon to account for obedience to more universal and comprehensive laws. What makes the claim of obedience psychologically difficult is that an arbitrary construction — based to a large extent on individual initiatives and opposed to the centuries-old customs of the Church - now claims the reverence due to the usage of the Church, a procedure which though perhaps valid legally, is yet contestable from the point of view of contents.


    A very nuanced explication of the Sensus Fidelium argument.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 680
    Vatican II -- all of it -- is part of the Church's authoritative tradition. Catholics cannot legitimately decide not to adhere to it, nor can they take a black marker to the parts of it they don't like. The authoritative parts of Vatican II are not just the parts you think are redundant because they don't say anything new or different from what was said before.

    What you are mislabeling "sensus fidelium" is really "fidelitas ad se ipsum." (Fidelity to one's self.) That's not Catholic.

    The larger point that you seem not to accept is that authoritative Church tradition develops and evolves and grows.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 680
    Mark,

    To the extent that the Council contradicts the deposit of faith, a good Catholic can not cooperate with it. So, if you will explain, with citations, anywhere in which the Council contradicts the deposit of faith....


    Chris, I don't understand the request. I've never advocated the view nor stated that Vatican II contradicts the deposit of faith. I'm aware some people have reservations and others (including the SSPX) do think there are contradictions, such as with the Declaration on Religious Liberty, but I'm not among those.
    Thanked by 1a_f_hawkins
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,374
    " . . . nor can they take a black marker to the parts of it they don't like."

    George Weigel would likely commend the use of gold pens and red pens when cherry-picking.
    Thanked by 2Olivier CHGiffen
  • Mark,

    You have repeatedly insinuated and stated categorically that people who prefer the UA are not good Catholics because they reject Vatican II. Such an idea is nonsense. A good Catholic accepts all that the Church teaches. The Church can't teach that Jesus isn't God or that He didn't rise from the dead, but not because some loud-mouth with a microphone can't pronounce those words. Rather, she can not teach these things because they aren't true. If a Pope were to teach such a thing, he would teach heresy, and faithful Catholics would be bound not to believe what the Holy Father proposed as true. They wouldn't be being unfaithful. Rather, they would be upholding the truth, as the Church has constantly proclaimed it.

    IF Vatican II teaches something contrary to the faith, then good Catholics are duty bound to reject it.

    You've also asserted that the Mass of Paul VI is what the Council ordered because it ordered the general revision of the Mass and the Office.

    You've also asserted that the theology of the Mass of Paul VI is different from the older form's theology, and that it's up to accept it, like it or not.

    So, if the Mass of Paul VI is, in fact, the Mass of Vatican II, and if there is a complete rupture, such that those who adhere to the older form reject Vatican II, there must be some place (by your argument) in which Vatican II contradicts the constant teaching of the Church. Please identify this place..
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 986
    No one has yet convinced me that the Extraordinary Form is a big T Tradition and not a little t tradition, in fact, what I've read so far is more of 'I don't like what law is, so I'll do what I please'. Big T Traditions cannot change. Little t traditions can change. I know that the Extraordinary Form has been said for hundreds of years, but is that enough to make it a Tradition instead of a tradition?
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 991
    It is so curious to me that the council specifically defined itself as “pastoral” and deliberately refrained from making any dogmatic statements (a fact that was confirmed by Paul VI himself days after the council ended) and yet modern Catholics treat it as though it holds the weight of Trent or even Jerusalem. By its own declaration, it does not. And yet the modernists are just as “dogmatic” (for want of a better term) as the traditionalists they seek to snuff out.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,725

    OBrogate, yes. DErogate, yes. ABrogate? B-16 didn't think so.
    Obrogate the 1967 Mass is what PaulVI said he was doing in 1969. He approved updates in 1965 in Inter oecumenici, in 1967 in Tres abhinc annos and 1969 in his Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum ("... this revision of the Roman Missal ..."). SP is consistent with that view in calling 1962 and 1969 two forms of the same rite.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,079
    is that enough to make it a Tradition instead of a tradition?


    Immemorial custom.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw ServiamScores
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,079
    Reading the threads on this topic make it clear that the '65 and '67 Pauline reforms fell WELL within the liturgical tradition of the Church and almost everyone here would have been very happy with them.

    On the other hand, B-16 clearly thought that the '69 "revision" was not a revision but a major re-structure, 'manufactured' by a few periti, not flowing from the prior opus--which had undergone a number of changes since ~1900 AD.

    Someone here has a problem with Benedict's analysis. I don't.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,725
    dad29 - you may be correct about Benedict's opinion, which may have developed over time. But it was not what he taught in SP, where he legislated on the basis of a carefully worded assumption of continuity : "There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal".
    My personal recollection is that I had most of the benefit of the changes from the vernacular and audibility. I could revert to 1967*. But what I would prefer is what SP sought - a coming together of the two 'forms'.
    [ADDED] * But with the older or newer Triduum
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 953
    It hasn't happened yet though, that coming together. The difference between the rites is larger, on the face, than anything called "different rites" in the past: Roman, Ambrosian, Cistercian, Mozarabic, what have you. There may be no contradiction, no true assertion of credendum that one orders to be orandum and the other refutes: no contradiction. I hope not, it would be terrible for the Church it there were! But they are different rites, and the sooner that's acknowledged the better, for it is the truth.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw rich_enough
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,079
    There is a quote of B-16's on one of the TC-related threads here wherein he makes clear what I paraphrased. He did not say there was a 'contradiction,' by the way.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • NihilNominisNihilNominis
    Posts: 670
    Surprised no one has brought up the Raskolniki / Old Believers.

    The particular Nikonian reforms that got in their craw and cleaved a lasting schism seem nearly trivial from an outside perspective.

    I always try to imagine our reform as a slightly different liturgical reform one element at a time:

    MR 1970, but no new lectionary?
    Primarily Latin Ordinaries throughout the world?
    Only one Eucharistic Prayer?

    Like, which one is the substantial change that makes it “different”? Kind of a Ship of Theseus question, I guess, but genuinely of interest.

    The dude still goes up to the front of church wearing late Roman clothes, and we often say a prayer in Ancient Greek. That’s gotta count for some kind of continuity.
    Thanked by 3MarkS tomjaw bhcordova
  • MarkB
    Posts: 680
    IF Vatican II teaches something contrary to the faith, then good Catholics are duty bound to reject it.


    It's not possible for an ecumenical council in union with the pope to err in doctrine, according to a Catholic understanding of ecumenical councils and the Magisterium as guided by the Holy Spirit.

    Where councils do not define doctrine but provide direction or directives, they do so authoritatively to which Catholics must submit in obedience. Direction and directives can be changed in the future, but unless and until they are changed the laity and priests and bishops have a duty to obey them.

    You've also asserted that the Mass of Paul VI is what the Council ordered because it ordered the general revision of the Mass and the Office.


    The Mass of Paul VI accords with what the Council decreed, but it's not WHAT the Council ordered. The Council did not order one specific iteration; it provided general norms. The new Mass fits those norms.

    You've also asserted that the theology of the Mass of Paul VI is different from the older form's theology, and that it's up to accept it, like it or not.


    Different in emphasis in some ways, not different in substance. I believe the example I used is that the ecclesiology of the Church as the People of God is more evident in the new Mass than in the old Mass because the members of the assembly in the new Mass are genuine liturgical actors: their participation is essential in the celebration of the Mass. In the old Mass, the assembly's participation is not essential to its celebration. That's a difference in emphasis. The old Mass had servers who provided responses on behalf of the assembly; in the new Mass the assembly's dignity is more evident because they are genuine liturgical actors. The People of God always possessed that dignity, but the old Mass didn't ritually express it as well as the new Mass does.

    You have repeatedly insinuated and stated categorically that people who prefer the UA are not good Catholics because they reject Vatican II. Such an idea is nonsense. A good Catholic accepts all that the Church teaches.


    I think a logical inference from what Pope Francis has decreed in TC is that adhering to pre-conciliar liturgical books is incongruent with the post-conciliar church.

    If someone rejects Vatican II, I think that qualifies as not being a good Catholic.

    Far from nonsense, it's Catholic faith.

    Yes, a good Catholic accepts all that the Church teaches, including Vatican II, including the parts of Vatican II that decreed reform of the then-existing liturgical rites and replacing them with revised liturgical rites.

    So, if the Mass of Paul VI is, in fact, the Mass of Vatican II, and if there is a complete rupture, such that those who adhere to the older form reject Vatican II, there must be some place (by your argument) in which Vatican II contradicts the constant teaching of the Church. Please identify this place..


    The new Mass is not a "complete rupture" with pre-conciliar tradition; it's not a rupture at all.

    Those who adhere to the old Mass reject Vatican II's call for a reformed liturgy because they want to celebrate the unreformed liturgy, which the council did not intend to continue to be celebrated. It is plainly inconsistent to claim to accept a council that mandated liturgical reform yet insist on celebrating the unreformed liturgy: to ignore or reject that part of the council, is to reject the council at least in part.

    Vatican II does not contradict the teaching of the Church. The incongruity is in the adherents of the old Mass, as explained in the prior paragraph. There is an incongruity in celebrating the pre-conciliar rites in the post-conciliar Church.

    And I say incongruity instead of contradiction because under current liturgical law a good Catholic may attend authorized Masses that use the 1962 Missal. It's evident from what Pope Francis has written and legislated, however, that those authorized Masses are to be curtailed and groups that have been accustomed to celebrating Mass using the 1962 Missal should eventually transition to the new Mass, although no timeframe is given for that because each bishop will decide as a pastoral matter how best to approach that with groups in his diocese who are attached to the use of the 1962 Missal.

  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 881
    My issue is with the diversity of arguments on the anti-TC side. I can understand an argument that the motu proprio's execution was flawed, or that the Novus Ordo itself was not as close to the intent of Vatican II than the 1967 missal, but I get very uneasy when people start talking about legal loopholes that mean we have no need to follow Vatican II's teachings. In my view, that definitively places one outside the Church.

    I think those who legitimately accept Vatican II and feel strongly about the place of the usus antiquior in the post-conciliar Church should work to police their movements of those who do not accept legitimate Church teaching. The inability to do so and the perception of schism or lack of acceptance is exactly what led to this.
  • Mark,
    Since it's not possible for an Ecumenical Council to teach error, it is essential to read each new council through the lens of what has come before. Phrases and clauses which can be read in a way which is consistent with Tradition and in a way which is not consistent with Tradition must be understood in the former, not the latter. Accordingly rupture is avoided. Furthermore, pastoral directives are not doctrinal statements (although they must reflect doctrine/dogma, and do so faithfully).

    So, when His Holiness, Pope Francis says that the Church can and should encourage those who are in mortal sin to receive Holy Communion, there are several possible conclusions, as raised in the Dubia... and unanswered by His Holiness. When he (and his "friends" in the media) say "He's not changing doctrine, just discipline" the discipline can't contradict the doctrine. A three hour fast can be reduced to a 1 hour fast without damaging the doctrine or the dogma, but reception by those in mortal sin can't.

    Not all disciplinary changes are equal.

    If I choose to refer to heretics and schismatics as such, instead of "separated brethren", I'm not violating any doctrinal prescriptions. If I choose to call them separated brethren so as to obscure the fact that they're not in communion with the Holy Catholic Church, then I err.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw Elmar
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 991
    Two observations:

    The first is that I believe you have a grave misunderstanding about infallibility. Infallibility is restricted by very peculiar and technical requirements which were not invoked and do not apply to V2 just because all the bishops were there. Just because it was an ecumenical council does not make it infallible. As I stated earlier, they specifically stated that the council sought to make no dogmatic pronouncements.

    Also, the pope was free to reject any/all documents voted on by the bishops, so you can’t simply say “all the bishops were in agreement, ergo it’s infallible.” It took the Petrine stamp to have any affect whatsoever.

    Secondly, I believe you need to do some research about the machinations (yes, there were machinations) by some of the movers and shakers of the council. All the preparatory schemas were discarded literally last minute. New documents rife with issues were put forward without any time for review, and often the bishops were not given adequate time to digest them, so they would just vote en masse because, they figured, if the other bishops thought it was ok, it must be ok. All sorts of odd politicking went on behind the scenes… Bugnini ran around telling people left right and center “this is what the pope wants” only for the pope to find out later that Bugnini was pushing his own agenda and stating the opposite of what Paul wanted. Etc. etc. some periti even remarked that they filled the documents with ambiguous phrases knowing full well “how they would interpret them after the council.” (Ie- twist these deliberately vague phrases to their own ends). this is all very well documented in many fine books.

    If you were to delve more deeply into the very troubling history of V2, I suspect that you would find yourself much more reticent to make some of your claims about its supposed binding power.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw KARU27
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 881
    Serviam, I understand your point, but Mark didn't mention "infallibility" once in his post. He was referring to the general authority of the Pope, not specifically invoked infallibility.
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 878
    The Council . . . provided general norms. The new Mass fits those norms.

    Perhaps you could offer some support for this statement, since many liturgical scholars, as well as theologians like Joseph Ratzinger, would disagree with you here.
    If someone rejects Vatican II, I think that qualifies as not being a good Catholic.

    Perhaps you could say what you mean by "reject" Vatican II? Don't think it's a valid council? Have an issue with some of the things it had to say? Somewhere in the middle? No Catholic that I know thinks the former; many, including cardinals, think the latter.
    It is plainly inconsistent to claim to accept a council that mandated liturgical reform yet insist on celebrating the unreformed liturgy: to ignore or reject that part of the council, is to reject the council at least in part.

    Ignoring the moving goalposts here ("rejection" has turned into "inconsistency"), taking exception to the way a Council was implemented is emphatically not a "rejection" of a council wholesale. A number of councils have made poor or unworkable decisions that were later implemented poorly or not implemented at all. They 5th Lateran Council was a such a poor response to the problems in the Church in the early 16th century that another council had to be called in less than 30 years. An ecumenical council has no guarantee of success, clarity, or workability, and it is not heresy or schism to object, take exception to, or think that a council's decrees are not the best of all worlds.

    If your assertion were true, then celebrating the NOM would amount to a rejection of certain parts of the Council, since the NOM itself embodies contradictions to mandates of Sacrosanctum Concilium. Innovations were introduced without the "good of the Church genuinely and certainly requir[ing] them"; and care was not taken that "any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing" (SC 23). Moreover, many bishops also "rejected the Council" (at least in part) in their de facto mandates against Latin and chant.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,725
    rich_enough - Support of the first quotation is offered by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum April 3 1969. Indeed a firm assertion by the Pope should be enough support for any Catholic.
    Since BXVI described the 2002 Missal as 'The ordinary form of the Roman rite' perhaps you can identify for us evidence of where he thought it did not fit the general norms of SC. That is a separate issue from whether it could have been done better, everybody can find imperfections. Neither Bugnini nor Paul VI thought their new edition perfect.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 991
    It's not possible for an ecumenical council in union with the pope to err in doctrine, according to a Catholic understanding of ecumenical councils and the Magisterium as guided by the Holy Spirit.

    Where councils do not define doctrine but provide direction or directives, they do so authoritatively to which Catholics must submit in obedience.


    Schoenbergian, this was marks’s statement that I was addressing. He does indeed seem to be invoking the principle of infallibility even if not by name.
    Thanked by 3tomjaw CCooze francis
  • sdtalley3sdtalley3
    Posts: 213
    I don’t have too much weight to add to the thread; however it’s interesting to see the different takes and opinions. I would strongly suggest that those interested check out the videos and conferences by Father Gregory Hesse (Canon Lawyer), gives about the documents produced from VII, via YouTube. They’re long so give yourself 1.5-2 hrs to listen to them.
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 881

    Schoenbergian, this was marks’s statement that I was addressing. He does indeed seem to be invoking the principle of infallibility even if not by name.
    I don't see it that way. After all, as Catholics we are called to obey more principles of the Church than merely the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 991
    The Hesse lectures are indeed fascinating, sdtalley. I stumbled upon them last year.
    Thanked by 1sdtalley3