http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum.html

No, no, it needs to say something along the lines of:

"We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal."

Now THAT'S a command. Understand?

It doesn't matter how it's worded. What matters is that the Pope commanded it in both cases and both Missals became law.

"We wish" to give force of law = command? Again, how long have you been in the NO now? And yes, it does matter how it is worded.

"We wish" to give force of law = command? Again, how long have you been in the NO now? And yes, it does matter how it is worded.

The Pope decides Canon Law. Whatever he wishes to be Canon Law becomes Canon Law. And as I already quoted, he ordered that the Missal be brought into effect. 

Cantarella, by holding that everything concerning the government of the liturgy is wholly a matter of mere Church discipline and by holding that the pope has the authority to create new rites for use in the solemn administration of the sacraments, you yourself are making the many "solemn rites and ceremonies" that Trent is referring to superfluous. If you think that the traditional rites can be omitted by pastors without sin and replaced by new ones then you obviously do not think that they are of great value. Drew, by expressing his belief that the received (traditional) and approved rites are necessary attributes of the Catholic faith without which the faith cannot be known or communicated to others, is showing that he understands the solemn rites to be the exact opposite of superfluous. By claiming that the pope has the authority to create a new rite of Mass you are essentially saying that if Pius XII (or whoever you consider the last true pope to have been) had created the Novus Ordo, then you would have been bound in consistency with your belief to accept the new rite as containing nothing that is not holy. You have left yourself no standard by which to judge otherwise. It is no surprise that many sedevacantists end up becoming practitioners of the Novus Ordo religion. You share the same error as the "conservatives."

To say that Trent's canons on the holiness of the ceremonies of the Mass apply to new rites is like saying that Trent's decree on the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture applies to the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition of the Bible. Trent's decree on the inerrancy of Scripture applies no more to Bibles which are not the Latin Vulgate than does Trent's canons on the holiness of the ceremonies of the Mass apply to rites which have not been "received and approved" by the Church.

Vatican I infallibly teaches:

God has revealed that the "received and approved" rites are what should be used in the worship that should be shown him. You can try and attempt to make the word "received" meaningless but just know that doing so would be as grave a sin as making the word "outside" meaningless when explaining the sacred dogma of faith "Outside the Church there is no salvation." John Salza puts it well in his excellent article "The Novus Ordo Mass and Divine Law":

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/divinelaw.htm

To hold that the received and approved rites can be replaced by other new ones is ultimately to deny that Catholicism is an incarnational religion. Fr. Michael Muller, CSSR wrote in The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:
https://archive.org/stream/holymasssacrific00ml#page/510/mode/2up/search/received+and+approved

You have always been one of my favorite posters on this forum, Cantarella, and I hope that you do not attribute a tone to my post which I do not intend to convey. I have prayed for you before I read that you became a sedevacantist and I will continue to pray for you now. Please keep me in your prayers.

Maryland Trad,

I am grateful for your post. Very well written. And the quote provided by Fr. Michael Muller, CSSR from his book, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, is worth remembering.
 
It is worth remembering because the virtue of Religion, which is to "render to God the things that are God's,"  is directly proximate to the virtue of Obedience.  Any act of obedience that is not governed by the virtue of Religion is not a virtue at all.  The interesting thing about the virtue of Religion is that its acts are typically external quantifiable actions that are objects of our perceptions.  Supernatural faith, where we believe internally what God has revealed on the authority of God the Revealer, must necessarily be also external in its profession for as Jesus said, "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven." And St. Paul, "For, with the heart, we believe unto justice; but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation." Without the external acts of the virtue of Religion there is no salvation because without the acts of Religion the faith cannot be externally expressed, and therefore, be know or communicated to others.  This necessarily means that these external acts cannot be simple matters of discipline but are essential attributes of the faith.  We are saved body and soul, and the body is that through which we enter into salvation just as the Body of Christ is the instrumental cause of our salvation.  At the last judgment, Jesus says, "For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me......"  Because  these acts are regarded by Jesus as having been done to Himself, that is directed to God, they all are part of the virtue of Religion but the most important act will be to have worshiped God through the "received and approved" rites of the Church where in union with Jesus Christ, the head of the Church, appropriate worship is offered to God.

When conservative Catholics and S&S Catholics make every act of Religion a matter of simple discipline that can be cast aside, they destroy Obedience as a virtue because it is no longer directed to God but to man as man.  In the end, it overturns all Catholic morality.  Even proper acts of obedience are vitiated because they are done for the wrong reasons.

Drew

You can't even get this part right.  What I wrote was:

RULE OF FAITH is "extrinsic" to that which is believed.
and
MAGISTERIUM is "formally distinct from" Revelation.

For proposition one, I simply cited CE in defining what a rule of faith is.

And the second one is obvious.  Otherwise Revelation and Magisterium are the same thing.

You continue to lie in blurring these together to calumniate me as saying that the existence and nature of the Magisterium have not been revealed.

Ladislaus,

Let me tell you what you said because your version changes.

Ladislaus posted:

Quote

« Reply #293 on: March 21, 2018, 08:17:44 AM »

Drew, your fight is against St. Thomas and all Catholic theologians, not with me.

I'm not even going to bother with your last post.  You can't seem to understand concepts as being formally distinct from one another.  You act stunned when I wrote that the Magisterium is not part of God's Revelation.  Magisterium is in fact formally distinct from Revelation.  In Revelation, God reveals His truth to us.  With Magisterium, the Church teaches and interprets and explains said truth.  It is not the Church's teaching authority which REVEALS the truth.  In fact, Vatican I clearly explained that papal Magisterium (in the context of infallibility) is to given to reveal new truth but merely to explain and protect it.  If you cannot understand how these are different, then I just can't help you.  Then your post goes downhill from there.

Cling to your idiot belief that the "Magisterium is not part of God's Revelation.  Magisterium is in fact formally distinct from Revelation."  This is a grave error against the faith and it does not matter one whit if you mean it is not part of the "content of revelation" or not part of the "act of revelation."  Either way, it is a grave error.  Just another grave error that the S&S folks find useful.

No one ever said that the Magisterium was all of divine revelation so I have no idea who you are talking to. But then again, I do not suppose you know either.  I have no interest in reading how your story evolves over time to excuse what is inexcusable.  The Magisterium is part of the "content of revelation" and it is part of the "act of revelation."  Those that deny these truths are heretics and schismatics which is necessarily where S&S leads.

Drew

 

Stop pretending that this is about simple "obedience".  We're talking about submission to the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church.

Ladislaus,

S&S necessarily corrupt the Magisterium as you have repeatedly done, and they corrupt the meaning of the word "universal" to exclude the attribute of time without which the definition is destroyed.  But you like destroying definitions wherever they get in your way just like you destroyed the definition of supernatural faith and the definition of the papal office by dividing essential attributes that make a thing what it is.

Ultimately, this is about "simple 'obedience'" but you have corrupted this as a virtue, destroying its necessary relationship and dependency upon the virtue of Religion.  This in the end destroys all Catholic morality because the virtue of Justice is overthrown.  It is not surprising that the gift of Piety is associated with the virtue of Justice and necessary to proper acts of Obedience as a virtue.

You have no Magisterium, no pope, no rule of faith, and no salvation is offered in the church you have created.

Why don't you campaign among the S&S folks to make you their pope and then all your problems can find a good reason.

Drew

I'd tell you to try again, but I don't want to be responsible for you hurting yourself.

That passage from Vatican I is simply the definition of Magisterium vs. Revelation.

Revelation -- "make known new doctrine"
Magisterium -- "religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation"

[Take notes here, Drew.]

R&R ALWAYS distort this passage to mean:  "If the pope teaches some new doctrine, then we don't have to accept it."

But that would completely undermine infallibility itself.  Infallibility is the a priori GUARANTEE that the Pope CANNOT teach such new doctrine inconsistent with Revelation under the conditions stipulated by VI.

So, Stubborn, if Jorge Bergoglio came out tomorrow and made a solemn definition with all the notes of infallibility, using the exact language of Vatican I, and even said "I infallibly define that ..."

and it turned out to be erroneous, how would you react?

Would you 1) just reject this teaching or 2) would change your mind and say that it must be right or 3) would you go sedevacantist?  [those are the three possible responses]

What a flippin Moron. You deserve to be pummeled.


If the pope came out tomorrow and solemnly defined a dogma, then it would be dogma whether you believe it or not. I swear, you get more ignorant with each post.

And no, I will NEVER go sedewhatever because according to the Catholic Church it is wrong, has always been wrong and always will be wrong. Wrong is wrong yesterday, today and forever.

Unlike you, I must be subject to the pope or I won't get to heaven.

Ladisalus,

The canons of Trent and the Tridentine Profession of Faith refer to the "received and approved" rites of which the Novus Ordo is not. It is not so by definition.  You keep corrupting definitions which is your stock-in-trade.  It also happens to be a sign of Modernism.  The corruption of definitions is the Modernists principle weapon used to destroy Dogma.  

And how can anyone who claims that Dogma is NOT the rule of faith appeal to Dogma as the rule of faith?  Since your magisterium is "dormant," and really with no signs of life whatsoever, where else are you going to go?  But aren't you just employing "private interpretation" of dogma making yourself a "Protestant"?  Or is that argument just another of your mindless Ladialausisms?  There seems to be an unlimited supply.

Drew

How exactly is Novus Ordo not received and approved?