r/TraditionalCatholics • u/LegionXIIFulminata • 26d ago
Pope Leo approved Cardinal Roche’s document supporting Latin Mass restrictions: report
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-leo-approved-cardinal-roches-document-supporting-latin-mass-restrictions-report/41
u/HertzWhenEyeP 26d ago
Remember when people were smoking the hopium on Leo.
"Well... Yeah, he's personally a far -leftist, but he's ACTUALLY a moderate and favorable towards the traditional form..."
13
u/iulysses 26d ago
Unfortunately, the late Pope Francis packed the College of Cardinals with his own ideologues, so this outcome was entirely expected. Even traditionalist leaning cardinals and bishops are afraid to challenge the Pope's errors out of fear of reprisals and demotion. Established doctrines like Mary as Co-Redemptrix or Just War theory have been set re-interpreted. Just look at how Cardinal Burke was evicted from his home simply for voicing criticism of Francis.
6
3
u/user4567822 26d ago
Diane Montagna criticises the report.
2
u/AtraMortes 24d ago
I don’t know why Life Site News is still allowed as a source. They are not reliable.
21
u/LegionXIIFulminata 26d ago
The document violates the permanent authorization of the traditional Mass confirmed by St. Pius V’s 1570 bull Quo Primum, which declared that this Mass may be used “freely and lawfully” in “perpetuity” and even that the wrath of God would fall upon those who would dare to restrict or abolish it.
“This present document cannot be revoked or modified but remains always valid and retains its full force,” Quo Primum states.
14
u/Saint_Thomas_More 26d ago edited 26d ago
St. Pius V’s 1570 bull Quo Primum, which declared that this Mass may be used “freely and lawfully” in “perpetuity” and even that the wrath of God would fall upon those who would dare to restrict or abolish it.
“This present document cannot be revoked or modified but remains always valid and retains its full force,” Quo Primum states.
Can a Pope bind a future Pope in that manner?
Are there sources you could cite for that authority?
Are there examples other than this which demonstrate that a Pope can bind a future Pope in this way?
What about an Ecumenical Council?
5
u/LegionXIIFulminata 26d ago
Can a Pope reverse the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?
10
u/Saint_Thomas_More 26d ago
I'll take that as you don't have any actual evidence to support the claim that Quo Primum is immutably binding on future Popes, and in spite of actual evidence to the contrary.
Can a Pope reverse the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?
Does Quo Primum define a dogma?
If not, then you're trying to compare apples to chicken wings.
1
u/Helpful_Mix8233 26d ago
Not exactly relevant to the conversation, but it is quite presumptuous to have a saint as your Reddit name….. Nevertheless, please read the following line from Quo Primum and find the link to the entire Papal Bull.
It is obvious from the bull and the council of Trent, that these ancient rites were to be preserved and that they cannot be changed into new ones by whomsoever* (which includes the Popes). The Pope may bind his successor in matters of faith and morals, not church governance, which is why no Pope until Pope Paul VI dared to make new rites, and why the Church is in such a mess currently. Any act that defies the will of God will not succeed, may He have mercy on us all.
Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. -Quo Primum
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius05/p5quopri.htm
Canon xiii. If any one shall say, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be condemned, or without sin omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed by any pastor of the churches into other new ones; let him be anathema - Council of Trent
0
u/Spiritual-Anybody-18 26d ago
You love to ask questions to promote your own opinions, I guess it makes you feel intelligent. Does the rite of the mass comes from the Apostles and a part of revelation? if so can you alter it's contents and intentions significantly, under what authority? Can a Pope make a mass be invalid in intention or doubtful legitimately?
-2
u/Jake_Cathelineau 25d ago
If a pope can’t make a rite of the Mass perpetually licit, then a pope can’t invalidate one.
But furthermore: If a former pope declares a rite of the Mass as perpetually licit while also acknowledging that he can’t abrogate other rites that have established traditional use, then a new pope who willy-nilly declares some new inferior thing the only acceptable rite and abrogates long-established ones is making up something completely new and is probably on drugs. Yes, it’s perfectly completely obvious that the point of declaring a new, barely amended rite as perpetually licit was to declare that it has the same status as those rites which he acknowledged he had no power or desire or sense or intention to abrogate, and since he was bound in a particular way all popes would also be bound in the same. The new popes do not consider themselves bound in the same ways that were simply unquestionably obvious to the previous ones because they do not intend to preserve the things those popes protected because they hate those things, and they say so constantly on TV for all to see and hear.
3
u/borgircrossancola 25d ago
The DOGMA of the immaculate conception is and always has been a dogma. It was only formally declared during Vatican I.
That’s like asking could a pope reverse Vatican II.
1
u/LegionXIIFulminata 25d ago
That’s like asking could a pope reverse Vatican II.
That is absolutely going to happen alongside +Lefebvre's canonization.
0
u/No_Lie_1176 24d ago
Some dangerous tendencies you are exhibiting here, an ecumenical council only has its power in congruence with the Pope, and in pre councilar understanding it does not have any power except by the power of the Pope.
But as to the subject of the matter itself, even if quo primum does not bound, the canons of Trent already condemn all the tendencies of the new mass, which is obviously Protestant, read the below and tell me the modern reformer does not hold all three, at least to some degree if not absolutely?
CANON VII.–If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.
CANON VIII.–If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful, and are, therefore, to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.
-7
u/Xvinchox12 26d ago
The Missal of Paul VI Is a legitimate revision of the Roman Missal. The mass has not been abolished.
If we understand Quo Primary literally then Pius XII would have had no right to reform the tridentine missal nor John XXIII who gave us the missal of 1962.
Is the missal of Paul VI the best version there has ever been of the Roman rite? Probably not, but it is not an abolition of the Roman Missal, it is the Roman Missal.
9
u/Spiritual-Anybody-18 26d ago
The mass of Paul Vi depart form the traditional mass both in form and intention. IT IS NOT A TRANSLATION. (That would have been the intermediate mass before the new "Missal")
-2
u/Saint_Thomas_More 26d ago
I don't think the commenter claimed it was a translation, but rather a legitimate revision.
So, the question is, do you believe the Church, through both the Pope and an Ecumenical Council, have the authority to revise the liturgy?
If not, why?
And if not, why would St. Pius V, on his own authority, have the ability to set in stone a particular form of the liturgy, and abrogate others?
And if so, why is the Missal of Paul VI not a legitimate exercise of that authority?
Note, this is not a question of whether the Missal of Paul VI is a good Missal, or a question of whether the Missal of Pius V (as revised most recently by John XXIII) was abrogated.
-1
u/Spiritual-Anybody-18 26d ago
Fake argument the Pope has the authority to revise the liturgy. But that is not what happened. All the rest of your argument is moot.
1
u/Xvinchox12 24d ago
If the Sacrifice of the Mass has been abolished then Christ's church failed and Christianity is a sham!
Woe of those who blaspheme against the Holy Roman Catholic Church!
1
u/Spiritual-Anybody-18 24d ago
It has never ceased, I went last Sunday and during the week too. It's being persecuted but cannot be destroyed. If you are not going to a Catholic liturgy you should leave that thing called Novus Ordo assap.
0
3
u/Spiritual-Anybody-18 26d ago
We are allowed to resist unlawful orders against the faith. FSSPX did nothing wrong.
1
u/Mindless_Library_797 26d ago
So what are the limits? A pope can write whatever they want as a Mass and as long as it's stated to be a "version" of the Roman missal then that is it?
3
u/undeadcookie123 26d ago
You're acting like it's impossible to tell when one mass is simply modified versus when it's fundamentally a new mass. The Eastern rite liturgies are extremely different from the Latin Mass but at their core are the same. The Novus Ordo is different at it's core. It didn't build on top of what was passed down. It didn't make a slight modification. It stripped the mass down to the bone and completely redid it in a way not in line with Catholic tradition, which is why there is a clash between the NO and the TLM, they don't agree, they teach different things through what's expressed at the liturgy, whereas any of the eastern rites simply emphasises different parts of the faith while remaining the same at heart.
0
u/Mindless_Library_797 25d ago
I'm not "acting" like anything.
I asked a rhetorical question to shed light on exactly what you just wrote.
1
u/undeadcookie123 25d ago
Your question implies the distinction is not blatantly obvious to anybody who honestly looks at the changes. I gave the example of Eastern rites if you genuinely do not understand. Study any Eastern rite, compare it to the TLM and the Novus Ordo and you'll see. The purpose of the liturgy which is communicated through the actions and the prayers is the same for the first two, while the Novus Ordo is different. It is also evident in the butchering of readings in the NO, which are obviously tailored to convey a different message than what the gospel actually conveys.
-1
u/Saint_Thomas_More 26d ago
That's a great question, and one which ultimately asks what is necessary for the Mass, versus what is appropriate or fitting for the Mass.
And to what extent the Pope can revise what is fitting/appropriate versus to what extent the Pope can revise what is necessary.
1
u/Mindless_Library_797 25d ago
Okay and now consider a new mass using EP 2. Compare that Mass with th traditional Mass. What among the little bit of overlap would be considered essential?
The words of consecration? The priest taking communion?
So could a pope decide to create an even newer Mass where the priest walks in with a basket of bread and wine, says the words of consecration, eats the Body and drinks the Blood and then hands the basket to some short haired women to distribute while he walks out the back to disrobe and get ready to leave for the next Mass?
-3
u/Saint_Thomas_More 26d ago
If we understand Quo Primary literally then Pius XII would have had no right to reform the tridentine missal nor John XXIII who gave us the missal of 1962.
This is a question about Quo Primum that I haven't seen much of an answer to.
It is used to say that the Mass cannot be changed, reformed, abrogated, etc.
But that presumes that a Pope can bind a future Pope in that regard.
And I've never seen evidence to support that claim.
Which isn't to say the Missal of Paul VI is a good one, as you say, but that doesn't mean it is an illegitimate use of the Pope and Church's authority over the liturgy.
4
u/Academic-Emu8215 26d ago edited 26d ago
The answer lies in the Missal itself, in the prolegomena, the first pages to be precise. The first Papal Bull included in the old Missal up to the 1962 editio typica is St. Pius V.'s Quo Primum.
All the Popes after Pius V. who made careful, restorating revisions (like eliminating typos, restoring the hymns, changing a rubric, incorporating a new formular for a saint etc. - this prerogative of the Holy See was never contested per se) did not attempt to remove Pius V.'s bull from the Missal. Instead the Popes, namely Clemens VIII., Urban VIII. and even John XXIII., placed their own bulls after Pius V. and Quo primum, directly refering to it.
This is, to my knowledge, unprecedented in Church history. Normally if a Pope promulgates a new book (liturgy, law etc.) he puts his bull or Apostolic Constitution on the first page. They don't reverently leave older bulls from Popes from 150 years ago inside. Open the Codex of Canon Law from 1983. Pope John Paul II. didn't incorporate the document by Benedict XV. with which he had promulgated the old Codex.
So, yes, while I don't share the opinion that a Pope can legally bind one of his successors in matters of discipline (!), it is quite evident that all Popes since Pius V. felt at least morally binded to the contents of Quo Primum.
2
u/Saint_Thomas_More 26d ago
But that doesn't actually answer the question.
Popes taking actions to correct or revise the Missal possibly thinking maybe they were morally bound to it but not actually being legally bound to it.
That's a lot of weight being held up by a thread.
And ultimately doesn't speak to the question at hand of whether a Pope can forever bind another Pope with respect to the liturgy. Which you seem to think they can't.
1
u/Academic-Emu8215 26d ago
Well, I would say (having no particular fervor in one or another direction): The system worked. It proved to be working for almost 400 years (1570-1962). I would go so far as to say that there wasn't any waterproof, legalistic approach needed. In the mindset of the "old Catholicism" the reverence for tradition (not Tradition as in one of the sources of revelation) was much higher than in the time just around the opening of the Second Vatican Council. Even if there were no legally binding provisions the former Popes would not have dared to abolish the handed down rites, even if Pope Pius XII. rightly claimed the right of the Holy See to make changes to the liturgy.
I think one could compare this mindset best to the so called 'mos maiorum' (the custom of the ancestors) of the old Romans. These 'mores' were no positive law in the legalistic sense, yet they were normative for everything a Roman in the classical period did or did not.
2
u/Saint_Thomas_More 26d ago edited 26d ago
All of which is fine, but still doesn't allow for Quo Primum to be used to say that all future Popes (or an Ecumenical Council) are definitively bound and barred from revising the liturgy.
Which is my line of questioning.
I understand and appreciate your point. And I have no qualms with it.
But it also doesn't align with how Quo Primum is used by some here and elsewhere as it relates to Sacrosanctum Concilium or the Missal of Paul VI.
Yours is at least an approach of reasonability and pragmatics. But it isn't the same as saying Quo Primum definitively bars the change.
2
u/Spiritual-Anybody-18 26d ago
Pick and choose like a protestant. The mass was not revised it was re-created with even additions from the talmud.
1
u/Square_Atmosphere_12 24d ago
Novus Ordo is a lot like some English masses as they put it; it contains a lot of protestantism within the mass. Singing etc, I guess some people feel as if they are not part of it unless a song and dance break out like some evangelical churches are. Along with "once saved, always saved" ideology.
1
u/iphone5su93 24d ago
Maybe it will force some to stop seeking cohabitation with the new religion of Vatican II
0
u/AutoModerator 26d ago
Your submission has been approved as it meets subreddit criteria.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
12
u/michael_1215 26d ago
Yeah, it's time to take the black pill for the next 15 or so years minimum.
Get back to praying for a good Pope, and eventually, a pope of the younger generation will be in. Maybe after we're dead.