Moto Proprio


#1

I have been thinking of this lately…

It seems to me that the events of the pending moto proprio seem to be more than just “another silent news item from Rome”…the liberal establishment has picked up on this…and it seems like it is gaining significance as far as news goes…could there be more to this than us children of God realize??? Is there a HUGE spiritual battle taking place over this whole thing. Is Satan Shaking in his so called boots pending this Moto Proprio? Is this a significant event in Salvation history??? Is this a spiritual “battle of the bulge”???

I am wondering if this Moto Is a Turning point in the history of Humankind. THe natives are certainly restless…especially the liberal natives. The last gasp effort is being made right now with those claiming the TLM is anti-semitic.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070423-0537-vatican-jews-.html…it is indeed a spooky time.


#2

Yes all know that the liberal media doesn’t spread rumors and hoaxes, nor do they feed conspiracy theories.

Just look at the fact of man causing global warming and other such nonsense.

For this to be as you say is to mean that the normative Mass is evil.

Which would violate the fourth canon from the twenty second session of the Council of Trent.

CANON IV.–If any one saith, that, by the sacrifice of the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema.


#3

I just posted a reflection on this issue, from a charismatic’s perspective, on my blog: happywednesdays.livejournal.com/57423.html

I too think there is more at stake here than just the Tridentine rite of the mass.

Josh


#4

Normative? What year are you talking about?

If liberals are strange, consider the conservatives. At Vatican II conservatives wanted no change in the liturgy. 40 years later, they’ve accepted a whole new liturgy and still call themselves conservatives. Never know how today’s conservatives will feel about the ozone layer 40 years from now.

At least we can predict the liberals.


#5

It still sickens me to see people use this Canon from Trent in defense of the Novus Ordo Mass and all its practices.

The Council of Trent was convened to combat the Protestant Heresy. The Protestants claimed the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Mass as per the Missal of St. Pius V, the Tridentine Mass, was blasphemous and a denial of the Sacrifice of the Cross AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED with a more suitable form of worship, more in line with their heretical thinking. (Table instead of Altar, celebrant facing people, communion in the hand, under both kinds, etc., etc., etc.)

To put this Canon against Traditionalists is one of the biggest jokes I have ever heard. I fear you have just opened up a can of worms here with this one.

Ken


#6

to me, people are arguing over the wrong issue.

the issue shouldn’t be:

“should Benedict XVI grant a universal indult for wider use of the TLM”

the issue should instead be:

“did Paul VI have a right to suppress the TLM in the first place”

*Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:
“Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been
delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other
churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to
read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly,
no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our
permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will,
decree, and prohibition. Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will
incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

*


#7

Except that Nulli ergo omnio hominum…, Si quis autem…, were standard in many papal bulls, including, as some have posted before, the breviary. So one can’t really use the Quo Primum argument in order to say that the Pope couldn’t change it.


#8

You are absolutely right on this one. In fact the Council of Trent forbade any new rites to be introduced into the Church.

Session 7, CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.

Actually the translation should have included the words “any pastor WHOMSOEVER” to be more precise.


#9

That’s a non-sequitor argument. You need to show (better) proof of that claim, especially in light of the fact the bull was based on the explicit decrees of a valid council determining permanent church law.


#10

The Council of Trent spoke of the reform of both the breviary and the missal. Thus if Quo Primum can be said to be based on the Trent so can Quod a nobis.

Now in Quod a Nobis, St. Pius V said that

  • the breviary could not be changed “nothing changed in whole or in part, nothing added and nothing removed”
  • those who followed “the formula of praying and singing the psalms hereafter and in perpetuity” could only keep it by that formula and do not satisfy it except by that formula.
    Etc., Etc.
    -and again at the end added, as was customary for many papal bulls, the phrases *Nulli ergo …I] and Si quis autem… (except Quod a nobis also has a few more terms “removal, abolition, permission, revocation, command, precept, statute, indult, mandate, decree, relaxation, exhortation, prohibition, imposition, and will.”)

A little curious: though St. Pius X intended future reforms to the breviary in 1911, the main change in 1912/13 was not in the versicles, or in the hymns, or in the lessons, but in the psalms- the part specially singled out in Quod a Nobis.*


#11

As for the doctrinal battle around the Motu Proprio, it’s already well underway.

rescath.net/showthread.php?t=38, quoting from an article entitle “Experts worry Vatican may slight Jews in Latin mass”.


#12

I did something like this in my English class when we had to analyse magazine and newspaper articles. The use of “experts” and long sounding titles was supposed to bolster up an argument and impress people as to the viewpoint. Even if the expert happens not to be an expert. :wink: :stuck_out_tongue:


#13

Again a non-sequitor. You need to state how you arrive at this conclusion before you try to justify other points on which this one is based.

You can’t assume *et ceteris paribus * on this one either.


#14

Because in the first place, in front of the breviary, it said “Ex decreto Sacrosancti concilli Tridenti Restititum”. And also because Trent said in closing:

The sacred and holy Synod, in the second Session celebrated under our most holy lord, Pius IV., commissioned certain chosen Fathers to consider what ought to be done touching various censures, and books either suspected or pernicious, and to report thereon to the said holy Synod; hearing now that the finishing hand has been put to that labour by those Fathers, which, however, by reason of the variety and multitude of books cannot be distinctly and conveniently judged of by the holy Synod; It enjoins that whatsoever has been by them done shall be laid before the most holy Roman Pontiff, that it may be by his judgment and authority terminated and made public. And it commands that the same be done in regard of the Catechism, by the Fathers to whom that work was consigned, and as regards the missal and breviary.


#15

Nice try. You’re assuming equal theology weight to all decrees which I don’t think you’ll have too much support on from either side. Just exactly what are you trying to do in your argument, discredit the Pope or undermine ALL the decrees of Trent?

By the way, if it means anything, I added “You can’t assume et ceteribus paribus” to my last post.


#16

Neither. Nor was I attempting to give equal theological weight to all decrees.

Could you state your argument again, please, as to why “in perpetuity” of Quo Primum is binding and why that of Quod a Nobis isn’t.

By the way, if it means anything, I added “You can’t assume et ceteribus paribus” to my last post.

Alas, I’m so ignorant that while I know the literal meaning, I have no clue what the phrase implies. So can you please explain that also?


#17

Ken, this Canon does not defend all the “practices”. The abuses are abuses and are wrong.

But that does not change the fact that the normative Mass is valid and licit and this Canon covers it.

Those who think the Mass is invalid separate themselves from the Church.


#18

this canon is clearly meant to counter the protestant claim that the sacrifice of the mass is not a true sacrifice. But the arguement that some traditionalists make against the novus ordo has to do with the contents of the N.O. which seem, to them, to indicate its invalidity. So using Cannon IV from the council of trent really isn’t a good argument becuase it is dealing with a different situation and a different context


#19

I disagree.

The protestant claim that the sacrifice of the Mass is not a true sacrifice is exactly the same as the claim that the, so-called, traditionalists are making when they say that the normative Mass is invalid.

We have protestants at both ends of the spectrum. The ultra-liberal and the ultra-conservative.


#20

Originally Posted by 6glargento forums.catholic.com/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*this canon is clearly meant to counter the protestant claim that the sacrifice of the mass is not a true sacrifice. But the arguement that some traditionalists make against the novus ordo has to do with the contents of the N.O. which seem, to them, to indicate its invalidity. **So using Cannon IV from the council of trent really isn’t a good argument becuase it is dealing with a different situation and a different context

**Caution:
This dismissal is only allowed to be used by a Vatican II advocate when they are dismissing the Excathedra stuff of the Pre_vatican II era.
*


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.