I have a question I was hoping someone here would be able to answer. Sorry for the vagueness of the question…but if I had all the info, I wouldn’t need to even ask the question!
Ok, so last night I downloaded some Catholic talks online to listen to on my mp3 player. One talk was by a group of sedevacantists, called Most Holy Family Monastary. The talk was something along the lines of, “Why is the new Mass is invalid?”
They talked about St. Pius V’s bull Quo Primum that says something to the effect of any other Mass that’s ever introduces other than the TLM is invalid. And the TLM will be valid forever. The second statement is fine, but obviously the first one is troubling. Does anyone know what they’re talking about exactly, and what the truth actually is?
I don’t have a good response to your question, but let me relate an experience I had three years ago.
I was visiting out in Colorado and ran across a church with a sign saying 'Traditional Catholic". I dropped by and found that it is a splinter group which claims to be the true, apostolic church. The priest there argued that the so-called Roman Catholic Church as headed by today's Vatican is heretical and has been since Vatican II.
This may not be the place to go into more detail, but among other things he showed me a photo of Pope John Paul II kissing a Koran, the same Pope meeting with leaders of different faiths (including Hindus, Buddhists, others), etc. He stated that the only valid mass was in Latin - the TLM - and on and on. Interesting conversation. He, of course, didn't convince me. As an ecumenical-minded Protestant I was very pleased by the results of Vatican II and am concerned now that the progress made then may be lost. I pray not.
May God bless Catholics, Protestants and the whole world. May religion become a bridge and not a barrier.
Yup that sounds like the same people. I just don’t know how to refute them when it comes to that papal bull. It either says what they say it says or it doesn’t. Or, they’re completely twisting the meaning.
Please do not listen to those folks at MHFM. There are any number of us who grew up with the TLM and submitted to the Magesterium of HMC. Those folks are NOT in Communion with HMC.
To dispute the Magesterium is to become protestant. Those folks are protestant even though they may use the TLM. We submit to the Magesterium of HMC even if it means having to listen to the a’strummin’ and a’grinnin’ folks for the last 40+ years.
Pope St. Pius V’s Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum does not contain any statement in it which fits the definition of EX CATHEDRA and so is not binding on assent of faith. Therefore, it is only binding on religious assent…which means that what is written therein can be changed in time by another of the same level of authority (i.e., a subsequent Pope).
I also did not see anything in Quo Primum to the effect that any other rite of Mass is invalidated, simply that those localities not given approval to say Mass following a specific practice (or in absence of a 200-year-old tradition to that effect) may not continue to do so without it being illicit.
The document in no way invalidates the Novus Ordo Missae. The only occurence which could invalidate the “New Mass” is complete defect in the minister, form, matter or intent of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
Absolutely not. That would condemn all other Catholic Rites as invalid or illicit or both; it is no different from KJV-onlyism, apart from over-exalting a version of the Eucharist rather than a version of the Bible.
No Pope has authority to “tie the hands” of his successors - they do not have the “fullness of power”, if they are not free to extend, cancel, or otherwise change his decisions, as the good of souls - & “the supreme law is the salvation of souls” - may require. Which is to say that they are not Popes. Applied to Pius V, that would be equivalent to saying he was the last Pope; that there had been no-one with the “fullness of power” since his death in 1572. And that conclusion would utterly destroy the visibility of the Church. It’s a nonsense to say the so-called “Mass of Pius V” is “the only Mass for all time”, as the conclusions that follow from the idea prove. So the first phrase you mentioned does not, because it cannot, mean that no other Missal but that associated with Pius V is or can be valid.
The validity of the revised Missal is necessary, if the competence of the Pope as supreme pastor in the Church is not to be meaningless. If he can’t tell an heretical rite of worship from an orthodox one, then his exercise of authority as supreme pastor is worthless, deadly; for by approving an heretical Missal for the entire Roman Rite, he would be misleading hundreds of millions of Christians, and would be helping forward their damnation. That would make the heresiarchs & schismatics of the past look like beginners in comparison. That is why the orthodoxy of liturgical books set forth and approved by the Pope is a dogmatic fact.
Yeah I quickly learned that their postion rejects the Church and all the popes since Vatican II, and thus they’re in schism. What troubles me though is they directly quote the bull. Pay particular attention to the part I’ve bolded:
[quote=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.”
So how can we explain the validity of the Novus Ordo in light of this passage? I just want to know how to refute the claim.
I did a search on CAF but mostly I could only find debate threads about how the TLM was never abrogated, etc., etc. I don’t want to start a debate, but if anyone has an answer or could even link me to past threads that address this I would be grateful.
Thanks Nicole. I posted my last post before I saw your replies. If you can, take a look at the portion of Quo Primum that I quoted and let me know what you think, in the context of what you’ve just said…how nothing in the bull qualifies as ex cathedra, etc. How do we know in this bull what is ex cathedra and what isn’t?
…and that’s exactly what they do believe. It’s a bit frightening how convinced they seem to be. They believe that the popes since Vatican II are antipopes and the current Holy See of Peter is vacant. They reason this by saying that the new Mass promulgated by VII contradicts Quo Primum, and since the Church is infallible and can’t contradict itself, one of the two has to be wrong. They choose to believe that VII was wrong and that the Church since then has been apostate.
Obviously this is nonsense. However, how do we explain the statement from Quo Primum that I bolded in my last post?
They misinterpret the document, though it’s been a long time since I looked into this stuff so you should probably do your own research.
Basically, the Mass has been changed, many times, between the Council of Trent and Vatican II. The Novus Ordo Mass is still the Mass propagated by Trent - just changed significantly, which is within the right of the Church. We can disagree with the Novus Ordo and think we should return to an earlier form, but there’s a world of difference between that and the opinions of the sedevacantists.
Correct me if I’m wrong anyone, remember my signature.
if the person speaking . . .
oh why do I bother
you turn into a broadcast by a notorious anti-Catholic group and want to know if what they are saying is true? there is a reason this is a banned topic here.
If you want to hear heresy, listen to heretics, if you want to hear truth, listen to good solid Catholic preachers. your choice.
The canon of the Mass didn’t change between Trent and Vatican II. In fact, the canon remained unchanged from the time of St. Gregory the Great until 1962, when John XXIII added the name of St. Joseph.
[quote=Catholic Encyclopedia] History of the canon
Since the seventh century our Canon has remained unchanged. It is to St. Gregory I (590-604) the great organiser of all the Roman Liturgy, that tradition ascribes its final revision and arrangement. His reign then makes the best division in its history". newadvent.org/cathen/03255c.htm
With the introduction of the Novus Ordo, not only the prayers and readings, but the canon of the Mass itself was changed.
In the book Reform of the Roman Rite, Msgr Gamber questions whether Paul VI had the authority to make such a change. He presents, and then refutes, each of the arguments that can be brought forward to justify the actions of Paul VI. The end result is that Paul VI did not have the authority to do what he did. And what is interesting is that Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) wrote the forward to the French edition of that book.
This is what Cardinal Ratzinger said about the New Mass of Paul VI in the forward:
Cardinal Ratzinger: “What happened after the Council was altogether different: instead of a liturgy fruit of continuous development, a fabricated liturgy was put in its place. A living growing process was abandoned and the fabrication started. There was no further wish to continue the organic evolution and maturation of the living being throughout the centuries and they were replaced – as if in a technical production – by a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product”.
It is interesting to compare the above quote from Cardinal Ratzinger, to the following quote from Cardinal Ratzinger:
Cardinal Ratzinger: “After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. … The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition.”
The Traditional Mass is a Mass the developed very gradually over the first centuries, before the canon was pretty much settled in the 7th century. The canon remained virtually unchanged until the 16th century when it was finally canonized. Then came the Novus Ordo where it was completely changed. As Cardinal Ratzinger said: "There was no further wish to continue the organic evolution and maturation of the living being throughout the centuries and they were replaced – as if in a technical production – by a fabrication, a banal in-the-spot product.
Now don’t assume I went looking for trouble, annie. That isn’t the point of the thread or why I posted it…I didn’t know that these folks were anti-Catholic until I listened to the talk and I didn’t know they were notorious until I posted this thread at CAF.
The site where I downloaded the talks from looked like a good Traditional Catholic website by some folks who prefer the TLM. :shrug:
@ Ultima Ratio: ok it seems like you would agree with these MHFM folks that the NO Mass is invalid? What about Pope Boniface VIII’s Bull Unam Sanctum, which stated that there can be no salvation to anyone who doesn’t submit to the Roman Pontiff? Doesn’t being in willful schism from Rome and rejecting the post-Vatican II Church mean that you’re not in submission to the Pope?
Basically what I’m getting from a few of the other posts is that the sentence I emphasized from Pope St. Pius V’s Quo Primum (“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”…) wasn’t infallible and subsequent popes were well within their rights to promogate a different form of the Mass. I guess my main question is, where did we come to the conclusion that that statement wasn’t ex cathedra?
We come to the conclusion that nothing in the document fits EX CATHEDRA because nothing in the document fits how the First Vatican Council has defined EX CATHEDRA.
Therefore, faithfully adhering to the Tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our Saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, 1. in the exercise of his Office as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians, 2. in virtue of his Supreme Apostolic Authority, 3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
If one of the three is lacking, then the statement is not EX CATHEDRA. The document is not defining doctrine; the document itself states that the Missal Pope St. Pius V is promulgating does not have to be used by those whose who have received approval for their current rite of the Mass…or if the rite being used has at least a 200 year tradition (i.e., not bound on the whole Church).
Pius V used EXACTLY the same language in Quod a nobis, which promulgated the Tridentine Breviary 2 years earlier. Yet it, like the Missal, was constantly tinkered with over the years. Furthermore, NOBODY said anything when Pius XI promulgated a Breviary with a radically rearranged Psalter–and this was certainly a substantive change in the Pian Breviary. And even before that, Pope Urban VI (I think) considerably monkeyed around with the hymns.
The term “Mass for all time” and similar expressions are meaningless–there was a time when the Tridentine Mass did NOT exist–and also offensive to Eastern Christians: what are their liturgies, which are much older? Chopped liver?
The phrase says no more than that the user is devoted to the Extraordinary Form.
“This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom."
Note what Pius V is calling the Tridentine Missal–A NEW RITE!
Therefore, it cannot be the “mass of all time,” now can it?