The Jurisdiction of the Bull Quo Primum

SSPX USA District ^ | January 2, 2003 | Rev. Fr. Raymond Dulac

[Scupoli]

Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used. Nor shall bishops, administrators, canons, chaplains and other secular priests, or religious of whatsoever Order or by whatsoever title designated, be obliged to celebrate Mass otherwise than enjoined by Us.

[Scupoli]

Pope Polycarp ping!

[Polycarp]

1) Since Popes have authority over discipline, any Eucharistic Liturgy they promulgate ---if it has the proper matter and form--- is by its very nature Valid and Licit.

No Pope is bound in disciplinary matters by previous Popes.

1) Popes have authority over discipline. The Liturgy is a matter of discipline. As such, changes in discipline are prudential judgements, and not necessarily protected by the Holy Spirit from error. However, since Liturgy is the primary means of catechesis in Faith and Morals, such changes are grave matters. And criticism of these prudential decisions is valid BUT can only be undertaken knowing that such criticism itself is a grave matter and should only be undertaken by those with a deep enough understanding of these issues that their criticism itself does not cause scandal or lead the innocent into schism or disobedience where obedience is due.

3) These are difficult times. Simply questioning and searching, honestly, does not make one a schismatic. Questioning the link between the current grave scandals and the changes in the Church since Vatican II and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo mass does not make one a schismatic, though some conclusions drawn may clearly and onjectively be incorrect.

5)Denying Papal authority over the discipline of the Liturgy does make one schismatic.

6) Denying the Novus Ordo is valid and licit and orthodox or that Pope Paul VI had the authority to promulgate it does make one schismatic.

7) Questioning the fruits of the Novus Ordo, the quality and quantity of its catechesis, and pointing out where and when it becomes illicit or invalid is not schismatic.

8) Questioning the prudential judgement of the Pope can be done charitably in some circumstances but most often lately such questioning has itself been imprudent.

[Polycarp]

For more see Catholic Caucus: "Guidelines" re: discussions of Liturgy, other prudential decisions?

Siobhan's post on that thread is pertinent too:

1) A Catholic Caucus on FreeRepublic should have a clear focus on fostering the Culture of Life vis-a-vis the political, governmental, and legal order in the United States. (This should be our principal effort on this forum.)

2) A Catholic Caucus on Free Republic should be absolutely loyal to the Pope and the Magisterium. Areas of concern (such as the confab in Assisi) should be discussed first with an eye to understanding the Holy Father's actions and teaching and second to look to the relevant Vatican congregation which prepared the event or issue of concern.

3) A Catholic Caucus on Free Republic should establish its own kind of "Neverending Story" Thread where Catholics, SSPXers, assorted sedevacantists and others can duke it out to their hearts content.

4) A Catholic Caucus on FreeRepublic should engage in direct Catholic action to oppose the lavendar mafia, Catholics for a Free Choice, Dignity, Call to Action, We Are Church, and any other AmChurch efforts or enterprises hellbent on destroying the Church.

5)A Catholic Caucus on FreeRepublic should respond to any issue or crisis facing the Church from the viewpoint of "building up the Church" and exposing sin, canonical violations, apostasy, and sheer evil.

6)A Catholic Caucus on FreeRepublic should post threads which build up our spiritual and devotional lives as Catholics and threads that educate us about the suffering, persecuted Church abroad.

[sinkspur]

IS THE BULL VALID FOREVER?

The "bull"is forever, especially on this forum.

[Scupoli]

#1) This is a public forum and anyone has the right to post and discuss what they wish, 'Novus Ordo rules' aside. Who do you people think you are? Why are you so frightened of debate?

#2)How does your preaching relate to the topic of this thread?

[Polycarp]

Thread topic: The Jurisdiction of the Bull Quo Primum

My response:

1) Popes have authority over discipline. The Liturgy is a matter of discipline. As such, changes in discipline are prudential judgements, and not necessarily protected by the Holy Spirit from error. However, since Liturgy is the primary means of catechesis in Faith and Morals, such changes are grave matters. And criticism of these prudential decisions is valid BUT can only be undertaken knowing that such criticism itself is a grave matter and should only be undertaken by those with a deep enough understanding of these issues that their criticism itself does not cause scandal or lead the innocent into schism or disobedience where obedience is due.

2) Since Popes have authority over discipline, any Eucharistic Liturgy they promulgate ---if it has the proper matter and form--- is by its very nature Valid and Licit.

No Pope is bound in disciplinary matters by previous Popes.

3) These are difficult times. Simply questioning and searching, honestly, does not make one a schismatic. Questioning the link between the current grave scandals and the changes in the Church since Vatican II and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo mass does not make one a schismatic, though some conclusions drawn may clearly and onjectively be incorrect.

5)Denying Papal authority over the discipline of the Liturgy does make one schismatic.

6) Denying the Novus Ordo is valid and licit or that Pope Paul VI had the authority to promulgate it does make one schismatic.

7) Questioning the fruits of the Novus Ordo, the quality and quantity of its catechesis, and pointing out where and when it becomes illicit or invalid is not schismatic.

8) Questioning the prudential judgement of the Pope can be done charitably in some circumstances but most often lately such questioning has itself been imprudent.

Your question:

How does your preaching relate to the topic of this thread?

Please at least try to pay attention.

[Scupoli]

Sorry. In reading your posts it is difficult to sift the wheat from the chaff.

[Land of the Irish]

Great post, ultima. Scupoli, thanks for the ping.

[Loyalist]

3) A Catholic Caucus on Free Republic should establish its own kind of "Neverending Story" Thread where Catholics, SSPXers, assorted sedevacantists and others can duke it out to their hearts content.

Amen to that! I'm as 'schismatic, quasi-Jansenistic and pharisaical' an Orc as they come and even I want to see some balance restored in the Caucus.

A Neverending Story thread is the best place to debate these issues on an ongoing basis instead of clogging the place up with endless posts on The Eternal Subject!

[dsc]

"As such, changes in discipline are prudential judgements, and not necessarily protected by the Holy Spirit from error."

That bears on our discussion on the other thread wrt Satan deceiving men in the Church heirarchy.

IMO, errors have been made.

"...that their criticism itself does not cause scandal or lead the innocent into schism or disobedience where obedience is due."

The razor's edge.

"Questioning the link between the current grave scandals and the changes in the Church since Vatican II and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo mass does not make one a schismatic, though some conclusions drawn may clearly and onjectively be incorrect."

As I have remarked before, the differences between the two camps here don't seem to me sufficient to justify all the rancor.

"Questioning the fruits of the Novus Ordo, the quality and quantity of its catechesis, and pointing out where and when it becomes illicit or invalid is not schismatic."

Perhaps the laity should go further than that in urging the Holy Father to put things right. These current scandals seem at last to have gotten him off the dime wrt homosexual clergy; perhaps a quiet mutiny among the faithful would wake him up wrt liturgical abuses.

"Questioning the prudential judgement of the Pope can be done charitably in some circumstances but most often lately such questioning has itself been imprudent."

Those who care deeply are often passionate.

[Polycarp]

In reading your posts it is difficult to sift the wheat from the chaff.

Now that you have sifted it, (it shouldn't be too tough, as you apparently have been blissfully wading through deep schismatic chaff for quite a while) how about commenting on it, and the thread I linked to.

If you read my comments here and on that thread, you just might realize that I have been a defender of traditionalists' rights to question fruits and prudential judgements, within reason.

[Scupoli]

If you read my comments here and on that thread, you just might realize that I have been a defender of traditionalists' rights to question fruits and prudential judgements, within reason.

ROFL!! That's big of you. It's also the biggest piece of spin I've seen all day. Thanks for the laugh.

[Polycarp]

We aim to please.

[Scupoli]

as you apparently have been blissfully wading through deep schismatic chaff for quite a while)

You must contact the Holy Father and inform him the Indult promotes schism. I don't think he knows that and he will be SO glad you told him.

[RobbyS]

We need to emphasize what Pope St. Gregory said about the rights of bishops. "Successor to the apostles" is more than a rhetorical term and means that the pope must treat other bishops as brothers.

[Polycarp]

I'll let you have the last word and the last barb, scupoli. May God Bless you abundantly. Sleep well. Be at peace.

[Polycarp]

By the way, you pinged me to this thread.

I obligingly posted my comments on the thread topic.

You criticized me and upped the ante with ad hominems. I clarified that I had already indeed posted my comments regarding the thread topic, and reposted them.

I notice that you have yet to debate my comments, either here or on the other thread. There I pointed out your error in trying to make an equivalence between the personal opinion of a Cardinal expressed in a magazine article, and an official decree of the Roman Catholic Church by which another Cardinal, speaking in an official capacity for the Church and the Pope, formally excommunicated Lefevre.

In that case too, you simply resorted to ad hominem, instead of discussing my response.

You ping me to a thread, accuse me of lacking clarity in my clear response to your thread topic, then engage in ad hominem when you do not like my response.

Don't ping me to a thread in the future if this is typical of your idea of "debate," OK?