Replies

Whoever it is that has told you that the Mass is a mere matter of "discipline" was lying to you. The fact that you have believed it is another matter. It is false, and on that principle alone we should begin, if any sense is to be made of this disagreement.

The Bull Quo Primum was not an off-the-cuff, disposable document that any future pope can choose to ignore. Could the current pope overturn the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? What we have today is a pope who is actively countenancing the public distribution of Holy Communion to public heretics. Such an offense against the Faith of Catholics would have been sufficient for public outcry in ages past. Why not today?

In case you missed it, because of the Phenomenolgy of JPII, objective, moral acts are no longer being used as the criteria upon which moral judgments are made. According to this bad philosophy, the subjective sentiment of the individual is the touchstone of right and wrong, and because of that moral evil -- perhaps what Pope Saint Pius X was referring to when he spoke of the poison of Modernism injected into the root of the tree, killing the trunk and all the branches -- we now have a pope and bishops who decline to stand up for truth in the face of objective moral evil in front of them, because in answer to the question "what is truth" their answer is, "we don't know."

The missal that Pope Saint Pius V came out with in response to Trent is essentially no different than the missals that were in use before Trent. That Mass, the Roman Rite, was in its essential elements the same Mass that St. Peter said in Rome 1500 years before that time. If you disagree with this premise, we can go into our respective sources and compare notes. The Traditional Roman Rite found in the missal of St. Pius V cannot be compared to the Novus Ordo on several grounds, one of which is that the N.O. was entirely drawn up out of whole cloth, a new concoction, not based on tradition, but with the intention of making a "liturgy" tolerable for Protestants. The nature of it is not the nature of the Traditional Roman Rite. You can believe what you like, but that does not change the fact of history. Phenomenologically refusing to acknowlege what has taken place does not change the fact of what has taken place. It is a bit like saying that there was no sound when a tree fell in the forest because there was no one there to hear it.

That, by the way, is another maxim of corrupted modern philosophy, because it relies on the observation of an event to define the existence or quality of the event itself. What if a witness was nearby who did not want to believe that he had heard the sound of the tree falling? If he refuses to believe his own ears, who is there to tell him he has made an error? Are we to judge his intention in refusing to report the sound? What if he is crazy, does that discredit his testimony? He might not have been crazy at the time...

I am not going to address much of your post. Since it does not have bearing on the issue at hand. However a few points do call for a response.

"Whoever it is that has told you that the Mass is a mere matter of "discipline" was lying to you"

Where did I say that? The Mass is extremely important. But it is not unalterable. Never has been. Never will be. It changed fairly dramatically just from 1570 to the last edition of the pre Vatican II MISSALE ROMANUM (1962). Anyone who would suggest otherwise had best be prepared to produce evidence to support their position. I am quite prepared to do so. Just have a glance at the various Apostolic Decrees and papal bulls printed in the front of all the pre Vatican II Missals. They all lost changes ordered by the various popes.

"The Bull Quo Primum was not an off-the-cuff, disposable document that any future pope can choose to ignore."

The first part of your sentence is correct. The second is false. Quo Primum (hereafter QP for short)was an important document but its status was disciplinary NOT dogmatic. It commands the use of a set of rubrics and a missal. It lays down those exceptions the pontiff regarded as acceptable. Nothing more and nothing less. If you believe otherwise, please offer me direct quotes or specific evidence. On what do you base you claim that QP is dogmatic? Even the schismatic SSPX does not make that claim.

"Could the current pope overturn the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?"

QUO PRIMUM was NOT an infallible declaration of a dogma. Hence your comparison to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is irrelevant. Apples and oranges.

"What we have today is a pope who is actively countenancing the public distribution of Holy Communion to public heretics. Such an offense against the Faith of Catholics would have been sufficient for public outcry in ages past. Why not today?"

That is an opinion. It is also totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

"In case you missed it, because of the Phenomenolgy of JPII, objective, moral acts are no longer being used as the criteria upon which moral judgments are made. According to this bad philosophy, the subjective sentiment of the individual is the touchstone of right and wrong, and because of that moral evil -- perhaps what Pope Saint Pius X was referring to when he spoke of the poison of Modernism injected into the root of the tree, killing the trunk and all the branches -- we now have a pope and bishops who decline to stand up for truth in the face of objective moral evil in front of them, because in answer to the question "what is truth" their answer is, "we don't know."

I did miss it. Further I reject your statement as so absurd that it borders on neurotic. You are now presuming to pass judgment upon the person of the sovereign pontiff. Are you a sede vacantist by chance? That you are a schismatic at the least is no longer in doubt. That you are a heretic is something I strongly suspect but am not yet certain of. In any case your bizarre diatribe is also moot to the issue of the right of the pontiff to regulate the liturgy of the church. I can not believe you deny the authority of the Pope to regulate the liturgical norms of the church. I am in awe. Do you in fact claim that QP is a dogmatic document which has infallible standing? If so then all doubt regarding your being a heretic is removed.

"The missal that Pope Saint Pius V came out with in response to Trent is essentially no different than the missals that were in use before Trent."

This is true only back as far as the 4th century. Perhaps even as late as the sixth. I would refer you to the Catholic Encyclopedia (pre Vatican II edition) for an exhaustive discussion on the history of the Mass. The rubrics of the Mass of the early Christians bore little if any resemblance to the elaborate liturgical formalities of the Tridentine Missal. They did not even use Latin in those days. If you believe otherwise please cite your sources.

"That Mass, the Roman Rite, was in its essential elements the same Mass that St. Peter said in Rome 1500 years before that time"

In its most BASIC elements this is true. Those elements being the minimal necessary to confect a valid sacrament. That would also be true of the Mass as said today since it confects a valid sacrament though I dislike its form. It is also true of the Byzantine Liturgies. It was also true of the Ambrosian Liturgy and the Missals of Sarum and York. (Or do you also reject those liturgies as well?) It is certainly NOT true however if you are referring to the elaborate rubrics of the Tridentine Missal.

"The Traditional Roman Rite found in the missal of St. Pius V cannot be compared to the Novus Ordo on several grounds, one of which is that the N.O. was entirely drawn up out of whole cloth, a new concoction, not based on tradition, but with the intention of making a "liturgy" tolerable for Protestants."

I have already addressed my distaste for the NO. Unless you are claiming that it is invalid then your points are yet again, moot to the issue at hand. The issue of whether the liturgy was drawn up from scratch (which I agree it was) has no bearing on whether the Pope can authorize a new rite. Indeed it may even weaken your argument. For if the NO is NOT a mere revision of the previous liturgy but rather as we both agree... an entirely new rite, then you can not claim the old liturgy was altered. It was not. It was merely superseded.

"You can believe what you like, but that does not change the fact of history."

I have three degrees in history. I have seen little evidence from a historiogrpahic point of view in your arguments. You have made a lot of claims but I have seen no citations.

"Phenomenologically refusing to acknowlege what has taken place does not change the fact of what has taken place. It is a bit like saying that there was no sound when a tree fell in the forest because there was no one there to hear it."

Psuedo-philisophical babbling does not impress me. Please confine yourself to the point at hand. Your weird off track ramblings are highly distracting. I am dealing with facts. You are making claims which do not square with historical fact.

Do you accept the validity of the Byzantine Rite? What of the Coptic or Armenian Rites? Please give me a reference to a pre-4th century missal that you can point to that resembles the Tridentine in its rubrics. I have looked and found none. How many rites beyond the NO do you reject? Do you claim that QP is an infallible document proclaiming a dogma of faith? If so please cite specific evidence that it has ever been so regarded by Holy Mother Church. Please also cite some authoritative sources that confirm that it was acknowledged that the Holy See has no authority over the liturgies of the church. I am not referring to the twisted interpretation of QP by the lunatic fringe of Catholicism. I am referring to any documents which would confirm that the Popes renounced any power over the liturgy and that this was accepted at least pre-Vatican II. A casual reading of the Apostolic Decrees in the old missal right after QP will unfortunately demolish that idea right off the bat. You can find them in the front of every edition of the MISSALE ROMANUM up to 1962.

Finally, the issue here is the authority of the Pope to regulate the liturgical norms of the church. Please confine yourself to that. All of your off beat ramblings have no baring on that issue. Your presumption to pass judgment upon the person of the sovereign pontiff in clear violation of the code of canon law is truly breathtaking, but ultimately not relevant to this issue.