Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Page 1 of 1   [ 15 posts ]   
Author Message
 Post subject: Validity of the Promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:52 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:44 pm
Posts: 41
Religion: Catholic
Knowing that this is a delicate topic, I will open with a disclaimer. I am not denigrating the Missal of Paul VI simply because it does not line up with my “liturgical preferences”; such a pursuit is unprofitable for all sides. Nor am I criticising the content of the new Mass, but strictly discussing the juridical validity of its promulgation. I am not discussing the sacramental validity of the new Mass itself; proper sacramental theology leads to the conclusion that the new formula for consecration is valid. However, the juridical validity of its promulgation is another matter, and if my conclusion is correct, then there would be negative implications for its liceity.

From examining all of the evidence dispassionately, I have been forced to reach the conclusion that the new Missal was not validly promulgated due to a substantial defect in the text of the Apostolic Constitution. The validity of the promulgation must be assessed in light of canonical tradition, which mandates that there must be 1) an indication that the new law will be obligatory, specifying upon whom the law will be binding, 2) a clause to show when the law should come into effect, and 3) an abrogation of previous legislation and a clause asserting its replacement by the new law. These conditions are not met:

1) The words cogere et efficere were mistranslated. Quiddam cogere can be broken down into agere quoddam con, which means “to sum up”. Quiddam efficere, on the other hand, can be broken down into facere quiddam ex, which means “to make something out”. Taken as a whole, the phrase cogere et efficere means “to draw a conclusion”. What do the translations say? “In conclusion, we wish to give the force of law…” But summing up and drawing a conclusion is not equivalent to giving something the force of law and imposing it upon the Church. Thus the first condition is not met.

2) The Apostolic Constitution does state when the law (the new Mass) will come into effect, namely, the First Sunday of Advent in 1969. However, even here the text does not suffice. The word praescripsimus is in the wrong tense (past perfect). Up until this point the legislator has not defined what he wished to prescribe, and has prescribed nothing at all. Thus, the verb should be praescribimus, in the present tense, saying that now he is (present tense) giving the new Missal the force of law. However, by using the past tense, the essential meaning of the sentence is changed, and can hardly reflect the legislator’s intentions, and so nothing happens. Nothing was already prescribed, so this sentence prescribes nothing, and as a result, still nothing is being prescribed. Thus, the second condition is not met.

3) Paul VI concludes by stating that his “decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future”, and mentions that he is deograting from previous laws. The word “prescriptions” is still meaningless in this context, because, as previously demonstrated, nothing was actually prescribed, and nothing is now being prescribed. Nor is anything abrogated; at most, Paul VI suggests there is a derogation from older Missals, but nothing is abrogated, and so for the most part, the old laws retain their force. Thus the new Missal replaces nothing, and the third condition is not met.

From these problems, one is forced to draw the conclusion that the Novus Ordo Missae was never truly promulgated. Greater confusion is caused by the fact that neither the Ordo Missae specifying the rubrics for the new Mass, nor the Ordo Lectionum Missae which presents the new Lectionary, bear the signature of the pope, the only competent authority to promulgate these laws. An Instruction was issued on October 20, 1969. These are all curial documents; none of them are true law. They all presuppose that the Apostolic Constitution was validly promulgated and are based off of that, but the supposed promulgation never occurred, it is a legal fiction.

If anyone has any counter-arguments, please let me know.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validity of the Promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 8:17 am 
Offline
Prodigal Son of Thunder
Prodigal Son of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 10:54 am
Posts: 39971
Location: Ithilien
Religion: Dunedain Catholic
Church Affiliations: AWC, CSB, UIGSE-FSE (FNE)
We already know that it wasn't obligatory, Pope Benedict resolved that with Summorum Pontificum when he recognized that the celebration of the older Missal had always been allowed.

_________________
Formerly Bagheera

"Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the King." (1 Peter 2:17)
Federation of North-American Explorers - North Star Group - How You Can Help


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validity of the Promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:11 am 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:44 pm
Posts: 41
Religion: Catholic
Peregrinator wrote:
We already know that it wasn't obligatory, Pope Benedict resolved that with Summorum Pontificum when he recognized that the celebration of the older Missal had always been allowed.


If it is not obligatory, then it isn't truly promulgated law. And if the previous Missal was never abrogated, then no new Missals can be promulgated. Ergo, the Novus Ordo was never promulgated...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validity of the Promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:19 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:36 am
Posts: 8901
Location: India
Religion: Catholic (Syro Malabar)
Spes_nostra wrote:
If it is not obligatory, then it isn't truly promulgated law.


Quote:
And if the previous Missal was never abrogated, then no new Missals can be promulgated.


Sources, please.

_________________
"May our tongues proclaim Your truth. May Your Cross be a protection for us as we let our tongues be turned into new harps and sing hymns with fiery lips"

-From the introduction to Our Father, "On the feasts of the Lord and other important feasts", Syro Malabar rite


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validity of the Promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:31 am 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:44 pm
Posts: 41
Religion: Catholic
Jack3 wrote:
Spes_nostra wrote:
If it is not obligatory, then it isn't truly promulgated law.


Quote:
And if the previous Missal was never abrogated, then no new Missals can be promulgated.


Sources, please.


Did you not read my first post?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validity of the Promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:42 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:36 am
Posts: 8901
Location: India
Religion: Catholic (Syro Malabar)
I did not see anything in the op proving that there cannot be more than one Missal.

_________________
"May our tongues proclaim Your truth. May Your Cross be a protection for us as we let our tongues be turned into new harps and sing hymns with fiery lips"

-From the introduction to Our Father, "On the feasts of the Lord and other important feasts", Syro Malabar rite


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validity of the Promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2019 6:23 am 
Offline
King of Cool
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 76073
Religion: Anticukite Catholic
Prior to the Council of Trent ,there was no single, Universal Mass, rather there were many local traditions and customs, creating a single misssl for the she Church was a novelty of Trent. If the Church had a plurality of valid customs in place, why can that not happen again?

_________________
Excelsior!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validity of the Promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2019 8:16 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:36 am
Posts: 8901
Location: India
Religion: Catholic (Syro Malabar)
There were multiple Missals even after Trent.

_________________
"May our tongues proclaim Your truth. May Your Cross be a protection for us as we let our tongues be turned into new harps and sing hymns with fiery lips"

-From the introduction to Our Father, "On the feasts of the Lord and other important feasts", Syro Malabar rite


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validity of the Promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2019 8:32 am 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:44 pm
Posts: 41
Religion: Catholic
Jack3 wrote:
There were multiple Missals even after Trent.


You've been commenting on my threads with great frequency lately, but can you please, for once, try to write a substantial refutation instead of picking apart one point and denying the antecedent? The other Missals allowed after Trent were still organically developed rites, truly received and approved by the Church, and thus allowed by indult. Quo primum even expressly mentions this, so your argument is a non-starter.

Doom wrote:
Prior to the Council of Trent ,there was no single, Universal Mass, rather there were many local traditions and customs, creating a single misssl for the she Church was a novelty of Trent. If the Church had a plurality of valid customs in place, why can that not happen again?


While I was going to limit this thread to the discussion of only the juridical validity of the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae, since you bring up the Council of Trent, I see no reason why we shouldn't venture into that discussion as well.

It is true that there were several rites in use before the codification of the Roman Missal in 1570. However, these rites were not constructed by men and then arbitrarily imposed by positive ecclesiastical law, but truly, organically developed rites. All of them shared the same substance, but had different accidents, and this was a legitimate type of diversity. None of the organically developed rites contained distortions of doctrine, because they all shared the same substance, received from Our Lord and transmitted through the Apostles. All of these were “received and approved” rites of the Church, and had developed organically, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, over centuries.

The codification and unification of the Missal, much like the codification of canon law in 1917, was the culmination of centuries of organic development, not a completely new innovation. For centuries, the Church had been moving toward centralisation and codification, logically resulting in codification. And while rites which organically developed prior to codification are truly “received and approved” rites of the Church, any rites constructed by men afterward would not be “received”, not being of Apostolic origin, and thus cannot be considered true rites of the Church.

This conclusion can be deduced first and foremost from the teaching of Sacred Scripture. In instructing the Corinthians on the liturgical and theological teachings concerning the Mass, St. Paul very clearly states that “for I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you” (1 Cor. 11:23), and then again affirms later that “I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received” (1 Cor. 15:3). The Church must only practice and believe what has been received from Christ and transmitted—“delivered”, as St. Paul says—through the Apostles. Thus, it is clear that our considerations of the liturgy will involve divinely revealed truth, rather than issues of merely positive ecclesiastical law.

This revealed truth is the reason why the Council of Trent was able to proclaim the following infallibly: “If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema”. The anathema sit clearly demonstrates that it is commanded by divine law to adhere to the received and approved rites of the Church, and prohibited by divine law to institute new rites which are different from the “received and approved” ones as the Church has judged. Since it is an issue of divine law, the canon applies to the pope as well, further reinforced by the term “quiscumque”, which permits no exceptions.

The Council of Trent’s prohibition on the creation of new rites is based off the traditional maxim of lex orandi, lex credendi—the law of prayer is the law of belief. Liturgical traditions which express a doctrine of faith cannot be substantially altered without compromising the underlying doctrine it is meant to convey. This is precisely why the Council, while permitting accidental changes to the liturgy (thus rendering the addition of St. Joseph into the Canon, for example, licit), unequivocally forbade substantial changes which would change the identity of the “received and approved” rite (the Tridentine Mass). For the Mass is the most complete expression of all of Divine Revelation, the most perfect expression of all of Catholic Tradition, so to determine whether a substantial change occurs in the Novus Ordo Missae, we must look at whether Catholic doctrine is still properly presented in the new Mass.

In the traditional Mass, the priest immediately genuflects after the first consecration and then presents it for adoration of the faithful; following this, upon setting the Host upon the corporal, which reminds him of the shroud and reality of the divine Body, adores It again. The same is repeated for the consecration of the chalice. However, in the new Mass, the priest first holds up the Host for adoration of the faithful rather than immediately adoring It, eschewing a visible expression of the reality of the divine Body, and then he places it on the paten, removing the symbolic significance of the corporal. Only then does he genuflect. By behaving as though the faith of the assembly, rather than the words of consecration, produced the change as the consecration occurred, an agreement with Luther’s heretical theology can be deduced. This is a deviance from doctrine which has a misleading effect upon the faithful, even if those who are well-instructed in the faith may retain intellectual assent to the doctrine despite misrepresentations being shown to them.

Many more examples can be given, but to do so would require a document the length of a thesis.

This is why Cdl. Ottaviani said that “the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent”. The Novus Ordo is a substantial change from the codified Roman rite, and thus must be rejected. And because the Novus Ordo was fabricated, rather than received from Our Lord and transmitted through the Apostles, it is not a rite of the Church, despite the papal fiat authorising it (and even then, as my original post states, it was not even properly promulgated). It cannot truly be called a Catholic rite, having been constructed by men in direct defiance of divine law, taught in the infallible and dogmatic canons of Trent.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validity of the Promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2019 10:29 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:36 am
Posts: 8901
Location: India
Religion: Catholic (Syro Malabar)
My last post in the thread was in response to Doom.

When did I deny the antecedent?

In the op, you mentioned three conditions in light of canonical tradition. What is your source for that?

How do you square the Ordinariate Missal?

_________________
"May our tongues proclaim Your truth. May Your Cross be a protection for us as we let our tongues be turned into new harps and sing hymns with fiery lips"

-From the introduction to Our Father, "On the feasts of the Lord and other important feasts", Syro Malabar rite


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validity of the Promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2019 11:27 am 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:44 pm
Posts: 41
Religion: Catholic
Jack3 wrote:
When did I deny the antecedent? In the op, you mentioned three conditions in light of canonical tradition. What is your source for that?


You denied the antecedent thinking that by picking apart one of my points, you have refuted the entire argument.

As for canonical tradition, have you never heard of basic logic? A new law cannot be promulgated unless the old one is abrogated. Otherwise, we'd have conflicting laws, not knowing which one is in force. And when there is doubt of law, the old one is not presumed to have been revoked, and the two laws must be harmonized with each other (see canons 20-21).

And the very wording of the Apostolic Constitution prescribes nothing anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validity of the Promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2019 6:34 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:37 pm
Posts: 6143
Location: Bergen, Norway
Religion: High Church Lutheran
Church Affiliations: Church of Norway
When people ask you to clarify, and you answer by pointing back to your opening post, insulting them in the process, don't expect to be taken seriously.

_________________
Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο

“Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt.” — Paul Tillich

http://katolikken.wordpress.com/
English texts: http://katolikken.wordpress.com/tag/english-texts-2/

http://www.facebook.com/kjetilkringlebotten

http://twitter.com/katolikken

http://thecatholic.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validity of the Promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2019 8:44 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:44 pm
Posts: 41
Religion: Catholic
Closet Catholic wrote:
When people ask you to clarify, and you answer by pointing back to your opening post, insulting them in the process, don't expect to be taken seriously.


When people are so thin-skinned as to take an objective observation as an insult, it is clear that it is time to stop engaging with them. And when people are so desperate as to pick apart one point rather than writing a substantive refutation, then it is clear that engaging with them is unprofitable.

Good day, friend! :wave

Oh, and given the lack of objections, I think the position I expressed in the original post has been quite vindicated. Thanks, everyone! :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validity of the Promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2019 9:15 pm 
Offline
Paladin
Paladin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 2:12 am
Posts: 6640
Location: Filii Tonitrui
Religion: Catholic
Quote:
“If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema”. The anathema sit clearly demonstrates that it is commanded by divine law to adhere to the received and approved rites of the Church, and prohibited by divine law to institute new rites which are different from the “received and approved” ones as the Church has judged. Since it is an issue of divine law, the canon applies to the pope as well, further reinforced by the term “quiscumque”, which permits no exceptions.


What is the definition of “divine law” here, and how does that relate to anathema?


Quote:
the Tridentine Mass


There is no such thing as a “Tridentine Mass.”


Quote:
forbade substantial changes


If the addition of St. Joseph to the canon was licit for you, then what is the limit? Where does the so-called “accidental” change stop and the “substantial change” begin?

_________________
-Alexander
"The proof of love is to suffer for the one you love." -St. Pio


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validity of the Promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2019 10:23 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:36 am
Posts: 8901
Location: India
Religion: Catholic (Syro Malabar)
Spes_nostra wrote:
Jack3 wrote:
When did I deny the antecedent? In the op, you mentioned three conditions in light of canonical tradition. What is your source for that?


You denied the antecedent thinking that by picking apart one of my points, you have refuted the entire argument.

As for canonical tradition, have you never heard of basic logic? A new law cannot be promulgated unless the old one is abrogated. Otherwise, we'd have conflicting laws, not knowing which one is in force. And when there is doubt of law, the old one is not presumed to have been revoked, and the two laws must be harmonized with each other (see canons 20-21).

And the very wording of the Apostolic Constitution prescribes nothing anyway.

I often respond to a part because I do not consider myself knowledgeable about the other parts.

"Basic logic" is not a source for the assertion that a Missal, unless obligatory, is not promulgated.

If you want to use canons 21 et al then you'll first have to make your case that promulgating a Missal is similar to promulgating a canon in the canon law.

_________________
"May our tongues proclaim Your truth. May Your Cross be a protection for us as we let our tongues be turned into new harps and sing hymns with fiery lips"

-From the introduction to Our Father, "On the feasts of the Lord and other important feasts", Syro Malabar rite


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Page 1 of 1   [ 15 posts ]   


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


Jump to: