Concerning the Mass

[dabaq]

Well, I'm just transferring this mini-debate over to my journal since Miriam seems to freak out every time I mention this subject in her journal...

Let's see here:

I said:
They can't understand the importance of the Mass if it looks like a Protestant worship service... Change the Mass back to the Catholic Mass and people will go.

God Bless!

Comments

[heyyoimjohnny]

I'm going to a more basic point; I should have done this earlier, my apologies for that. I'm not going to fight your opinion; you're set in your ideas, and I'm not a forceful person.

I don't know a lot about the Tridentine Mass and so I don't know the differences. I'm sure it's wonderful. But to say the Novus Ordo "is illicit, scandalous, and causes the destruction of the Faith" makes you lose all credibility in my eyes. The Novus Ordo Mass was defined under Papal authority, therefore under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Defined under the guidance of the Holy Spirit... and that makes it beautiful. Nothing you say against it will change that fact. You can make your claims that it is bad in all these ways, but then your view opposes that of the Church. I'm done with this debate; I'm taking the Church authority over yours. To blame the weakness in the Church on the Novus Ordo Mass doesn't make sense.

And Nebraska is very orthodox and true to the Church; as a result, their seminaries are flooded with good, orthodox seminarians, who will no doubt teach well the teachings of the Church and keep the faithful strong. I wish they'd send some over to my state... haha.

Godbless you too, David.

[dabaq]

Ok, I agree we should go into a more basic point. Firstly, the Novus Ordo was certainly never promulgated officially by the Pope, and hence has no authoritative binding and has no guidance of the Holy Spirit. Hence, it is illicit, which means it is illegal under Church law to say it... Therefore, I'm taking Church authority over worship of the illegal pronouncements of pontiffs. The document "promulgating" the Novus Ordo is a joke; it does not bind the Novus Ordo as law, since it was not declared to be law, no promulgation date was provided (although it was later added as a forgery), and no punishment was given, besides the fact that the Novus Ordo is intrinsically evil by its nature (a bad law is no law). Hence, under Church law, the law was invalid, null and void.

God Bless!

[heyyoimjohnny]

So are you saying that,

a) no one except the Pope in the entire Ecumenical Council was being guided by the Holy Spirit?

b) Pope Paul VI's Bull Missale Romanum... doesn't exist?

c) that the Church has taught erronously on this subject for 40 years?

[dabaq]

I am saying that:

a) Vatican II was not infallible and thus not guided by the Holy Spirit. This is because the Pope did not wish to exercise his infallibility, which is the only thing that can cause a council to be infallible. Councils without this infallibility can err, such as the Robber Council of Ephesus.

b) Pope Paul VI's document Missale Romanum exists, but carries no legal weight since it promulgates no law, but makes at most a suggestion.

c) That the Church has not officially taught on this subject for 40 years.

God Bless!

[heyyoimjohnny]

information taken from: http://catholic-legate.com/qa/v2infallible.html

"...It is not necessary for a doctrine to be defined by the Extraordinary Magisterium in order to be infallible. The Ordinary Magisterium is good enough. Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis (para 20) clearly taught that the words of Jesus in Luke 10:16 applied to the Ordinary Magisterium:

Luke 10:16 "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

You can't get more infallible than that.

Art Sippo
The Catholic Legate"

that answers a). Godbless!

[dabaq]

No, all it does is explain a concept of the Church that I'm already aware of. The ordinary magisterium of the Church is that which is taught by the Church's magisterium through the pope. It comprises the second tier of Church magisterium. It is not itself ipso facto infallible, but infallible in the sense that it is to reiterate Catholic doctrine; this means that if a teaching in an encyclical or other follows the Church tradition, what it says is infallible and is required to be assented to. An example of this is the perennial Church teaching of the immorality of abortion and contraception. Another example is in the case of altar girls where multiple Popes have condemned it; this reiteration of Church teaching and tradition makes the teaching ordinary magisterium. However, if a teaching is not based on tradition, it is not necessary to assent to it but rather must be rejected. In the case of extraordinary magisterium, however, it by the act defines something and is always infallible.

Hence, since Vatican II does not follow Church teaching, but rather brazenly contradicts it, it is not ordinary magisterium.

God Bless!

[heyyoimjohnny]

a) Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitutions... representing authentic, new, binding teaching. Defined by VCII. There was nothing contradictory to Church teaching in the second Vatican Council.

Even if the Magisterium don't make an infallible statement, they are still Church authority. It's not your place to shrug it off.

as for b), Missale Romanum was more than a suggestion. Pope Paul VI made that clear: "We wish that these Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by Our predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation." It was a reorganization of the liturgy, just as Quo Primum was; nothing new.

Godbless!

[dabaq]

You are looking at this in a very simplistic sense. For something to be infallible ex cathedra, it must be first stated or declared so by the Pope and none other. Furthermore, it must follow a certain formula: "We, by Our Apostolic Authority and the Holy Spirit thus approve, establish, decree, etc." Then, all declarations and definitions must be clearly declared to be so. This was not fulfilled by Vatican II, and even the Pope said that the Council would not define anything new, but would restate Church teaching; at best it would be therefore ordinary magisterium therefore. However, it is not even that if the teachings are contrary to the tradition of the Church.

And as for my authority in "shrugging this off," I'll paraphrase Thomas More (i.e. alter it to fit this situation), "My lord, for one bishop of your opinion, I have a hundred saints of mine; and for one council of yours, I have all the General Councils for a thousand years; and for one pope, I have all the Popes of Christendom." The Church's explicit, perennial teaching is contradicted in Vatican II; there simply is no other issue at the base here, not arrogrance, caprice, or fancy.

As for Paul VI:

"We wish that these Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by Our predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation."

Amusingly enough, you have quoted precisely one of the areas that make this document so humorous. What kind of law states we wish? A wish is a desire, a hope perhaps. This is not sufficient to create a law, as a law must be declared to be such; look at Quo primum's words for example, "We specifically command," "We order them in virtue of holy obedience," "We likewise declare and ordain," And so on and so forth. Thus, the document by the Pope, for this reason and other reasons that I have specified already, carries no legal weight and thus the Tridentine Mass is the current normative Mass of the Roman Rite, anything else being illicit.

It was a reorganization of the liturgy

This is rather more amusing that even the previous quote. Few people bother to claim that the Novus Ordo is merely a reorganization of the liturgy. It is an entire demolition and destruction of it. It tore apart the Tridentine Mass, leaving very little similar, and adding nothing of beauty or worth. Liturgy grows organically; the Tridentine Mass issued by Pius V was essentially the same as the Mass said before Trent, with little change. On the other hand, the Novus Ordo was a complete redoing of the Mass. Outside of the canon, it retains almost none of the original prayers, and even within the canon, it was altered; one does not even have to say the canon, as one can use the other Eucharistic Prayers, which contain virtually no similarity to the Mass and are all bent on making the Mass a memorial meal as opposed to a sacrifice.

I will close with a quote from St. Robert Bellarmine: Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior. (De Romano Pontifice. II.29.

God Bless!

[heyyoimjohnny]

I haven't much time to answer all of it right now, but a quick note: you said, "This was not fulfilled by Vatican II, and even the Pope said that the Council would not define anything new, but would restate Church teaching; at best it would be therefore ordinary magisterium therefore. However, it is not even that if the teachings are contrary to the tradition of the Church."

As the ordinary Magisterium is infallible, it has protection by the Holy Spirit, and therefore absolutely cannot teach error. It is not possible. So as VCII was ecumenical, it was infallible. Pope John XXIII called the council with his Papal authority, it is infallible. I'm looking at it in a simplistic sense because it is very simple: Holy Spirit governs Church; Pope is head of Church. Pope's got infallibility, Magisterium's got infallibility, Pope uses authority and calls an ecumenical council (a general council of the entire Church, which is therefore under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as promised by Christ), anything taught or defined in that council is infallible. Because of this simple definition, anything pertaining to Catholic doctrine in the council is absolute and protected against error. The opening words of the council by Pope John XXIII:

"Mother Church rejoices that, by the singular gift of Divine Providence, the longed-for day has
finally dawned when -- under the auspices of the virgin Mother of God, whose maternal dignity is commemorated on this feast -- the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council is being solemnly opened here beside St. Peter's tomb...
The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that he sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously. That doctrine embraces the whole of man, composed as he is of body and soul. And, since he is a pilgrim on this earth, it commands him to tend always toward heaven...
That being so, the Catholic Church, raising the torch of religious truth by means of this Ecumenical Council…
Venerable brothers, such is the aim of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council…"

Ecumenical Council. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Pope Paul VI's closing address calls it ecumenical several times, also.

Since we're quoting saints, how about some Thomas Aquinas, in speaking of a symbol of faith being prescribed by the General Council of Nicaea:

"The universal Church cannot err, since she is governed by the Holy Ghost, Who is the Spirit of truth: for such was Our Lord's promise to His disciples (Jn. 16:13): "When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will teach you all truth." Now the Symbol is published by the authority of the universal Church. Therefore it contains nothing defective."

Godbless!

[dabaq]

You've messed up one of your premises. Ordinary Magisterium is always infallible, but papal teaching is not always ordinary magisterium. Papal teaching is ordinary magisterium when it is reiterating a perennial teaching of the Church, i.e., putting forth a teaching always taught by the Church but being explained again and possibly more clearly. When a teaching is not part of tradition, it is not ordinary magisterium.

And here I can review your logical sequence:

Holy Spirit governs Church; Pope is head of Church. Pope's got infallibility, Magisterium's got infallibility, Pope uses authority and calls an ecumenical council (a general council of the entire Church, which is therefore under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as promised by Christ), anything taught or defined in that council is infallible.

I'll go at them one-by-one:

Holy Spirit governs Church

This cannot be denied, although it would be better said that He leads the Church. Governance is something else.

Pope is head of Church.

He is visible head of the Church without a doubt.

Pope's got infallibility

Only in those occasions in which he wishes to explicitly exercise it. However, the infallibility of the Pope cannot be denied.

Magisterium's got infallibility

This is an incorrect statement due to equivocation. The Magisterium is the teaching office of the Church; it comprises all those papal teachings that are infallible, and hence is infallible by its very definition. However, you cannot say in the same breath that the Pope's got infallibility and the Magisterium's got infallibility since the having of it is in a different sense. The Pope has the ability to speak infallible whereas the Magisterium is that infallible statement.

Pope uses authority and calls an ecumenical council

The calling of the council requires an invitation of cardinals and bishops; I suppose he could use authority and order them to come. However, authority is ambiguous; there is an authority of ordering people and an authority of using infallibility. The former he possibly used (it is of little consequence) whereas the second he didn't.

(a general council of the entire Church, which is therefore under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as promised by Christ)

Erm, no. An ecumenical council is a general council of the Church in that it has many members of the Church representing many parts of the Church, but it doesn't make it any more guided by the Holy Spirit any more than a council with the Pope by himself or with himself and two cardinal buddies, since the Holy Spirit guidance teaching-wise is in virtue of the Pope and no one else. Thus, just because a group (whether immense or small) of clergy come together to advise the Pope won't make this infallible unless the Pope makes it so by his express action which is manifested by the formula required. The other clergy of themselves have no power to give, take, or embellish with.

anything taught or defined in that council is infallible.

Due to a faulty logical process, this is incorrect.

You are simplifying in the sense that you are making infallibility ecompass more than it does. The Pope's infallibility is his own and is used when and only when he explicitly declares it to be so used. The presence or non-presence of anybody else makes no difference.

God Bless!

[dabaq]

The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that he sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously.

This is not the quote that I refer to when he says he won't make this infallible, but he hints at it here. He says that the purpose of the council is to guard and teach the sacred deposit of doctrine, and not to define anything, which is the action of an infallible pronouncement.

As for your quote, St. Thomas Aquinas says that the universal (Catholic) Church cannot err; however, the Pope's faulty actions are not the actions of the Church. Thus, St. Robert Bellarmine says that bad laws or orders are to be resisted; that the law is bad means that it is a law not given by the Church. Pope Sergius III in invalidating the valid orders of Pope Formosus was erring because he declared invalid that which was valid, but this was his own action and not that of the Church. Thus, do not put a scarecrow argument; I have never said the Church can err, only the members.

And by the way, could you post your next reply as a new comment and not a reply to this post, since the post width keeps shrinking...

God Bless!

[heyyoimjohnny]

Thank you for correcting my faulty logic. My apologies, I did take logic this year, but didn't retain any of it. ;)

To make it more simple; John XXIII promulgated the council, it's infallible. Doctrine of Papal supremacy can be applied to Vatican II since it was promulgated by Pope John XXIII. It had infallibility, and therefore, it couldn't possibly teach anything contradictory to Church doctrine.

Another note, even if a council or Pope makes a statement that isn't infallible (or follows the certain formula), it doesn't mean it is fallible or unauthoritive. And you don't have the authority to decide whether it is or whether it isn't.

[dabaq]

No. Infallibility ex cathedra is only applied in certain cases and when the Pope makes it explicit that he's using it. Otherwise, when would one know that he is exercising this? Something is not infallible just because it is in a council headed by the Pope.

A non-infallible statement must be listened to unless it can be proven that it is contrary to Church teaching. I myself have no authority to say this, but the Church's previous teachings do, and I can present these to show the errors.

God Bless!

MichaelFilo

[heyyoimjohnny]

Nicely done.