The Jurisdiction of the Bull Quo Primum

You need to take a long look in the mirror. YOU are the one who started this day by attacking the SSPX and labeling them as "nutcases". You are guilty of everything you accuse me and the others of.

attacking the SSPX and labeling them as "nutcases".

I did not attack the SSPX and label all SSPXers as nutcases, only one SSPXers with a gun and rotten marksmanship.

Work on your reading comprehension skills a little, then get back to me, OK?

YOU are the one who started this day by attacking the SSPX and labeling them as "nutcases".

Yeah, right.

Us "neo-Catholics" better be careful out there, if this is how SSPXers deal with those they don't like ;-)

Unless of course you're considering this piece of sarcastic humor attacking the SSPX and labeling them as "nutcases", in which case I'll be happy to post far worse comments from SSPXers on this forum directed at us sinister "neo-Catholics" and the post-conciliar Church.

But then, since you just joined us a month ago, you probably are not aware of the fact that my gentle barbs are nothing compared to the abuse we Catholics have endured here from the schismatic crowd.

You are guilty of everything you accuse me and the others of.

Hardly.

To: Polycarp

It would not be safe to assume anything.

#1)On 1st May, 1991, Bishop Ferrario of Hawaii "excommunicated" certain Catholics of his diocese for attending SSPX Masses and receiving a new Society Bishop for confirmations. Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, overturned this decision:

"From the examination of the case... it did not result that the facts referred to in the abovementioned decree, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the decree of May 1, 1991 lacks foundation and hence validity." (June 28, 1993).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#2) 68 But there is not even disobedience - cf An Open Letter to Confused Catholics p 129-136. Cf "The act of consecrating a bishop (without the Pope's permission) is not in itself a schismatic act." Cardinal Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law - in La Repubblica, Oct. 7, 1988

19 posted on 01/20/2003 5:32 PM EST by Scupoli

To: Scupoli

It would not be safe to assume anything.

True, it is not safe to assume your quotes have sufficient context

"From the examination of the case... it did not result that the facts referred to in the abovementioned decree, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the decree of May 1, 1991 lacks foundation and hence validity." (June 28, 1993).

CONGREGATION PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI DECREE
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
The following is the entire declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the case of the so-called "Hawaii five"-as expressed in the case of one of the five, Patricia Morley. I note that this document has received wide publication already and is therefore not in the least confidential:
On July 3, 1991, Mrs. Patricia Morley had recourse to this Congregation against the Decree of the Bishop of Honolulu issued May 1, 1991.
His Excellency, the Most Reverend Joseph Anthony Ferrario, with aforesaid Decree, declared Mrs. Morley excommunicated on the grounds that she had committed the crime of schism and thus had incurred the "latae sententiae" penalty as provided for in Canon 1364 §1 of the Code of Canon Law.
This Congregation has examined carefully all the available documentation and has ascertained that the activities engaged in by the Petitioner, though blameworthy on various accounts, are not sufficient to constitute the crime of schism.
Since Mrs. Morley did not, in fact, commit the crime of schism and thus did not incur the "latae sententiae" penalty, it is clear that the Decree of the Bishop lacks the precondition on which is founded.
This Congregation, noting all of the above, is obliged to declare null and void the aforesaid Decree of the Ordinary of Honolulu.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger Prefect

#2) 68 But there is not even disobedience - cf An Open Letter to Confused Catholics p 129-136. Cf "The act of consecrating a bishop (without the Pope's permission) is not in itself a schismatic act." Cardinal Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law - in La Repubblica, Oct. 7, 1988

You bring to my attention a matter of importance. You asked if I could tell you what exactly I said in the interview of 10th July 1988. The substance of what I said is as follows:'In the case of Lefebvre and the four priests consecrated bishops by him, there are two offenses canonically speaking, that they have committed. The fundamental offense is that of schism, that is, refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff and breaking communion with the Church. This offence they had already previously committed. Only that, now, the second offense, that of consecrating bishops, formalizes, in a certain sense, and concretizes the first, and makes it explicit. Schism is a delict which can be personal. It does not require having a number of people. Individuals can do it on their own. Lefebvre and his followers, inasmuch as they refused submission to the Pope, were already, by that fact itself, in schism. The intent of the act of consecrating bishops is already to create a church with its own hierarchy. In this sense, the consecration of bishops becomes an act of schism. One should keep in mind, however, that the act of consecrating bishops is not in itself a schismatic act. In fact, in the Code, where offenses are treated, these two are treated in two distinct headings. There are delicts against religion and the unity of the Church. And these are apostasy (i.e. renouncing the faith), schism and heresy. Consecrating a bishop without pontifical mandate is, on the other hand, an offense against the proper exercise of one's ministry. For example, there was an excommunication of the Vietnamese Archbishop, Ngo Dinh Thuc in '76 and '83 for an episcopal consecration, but it was not considered a schismatic act because there was no intent to break with the Church. Ngo Dinh Thuc represents a pitiable situation, as there is some mental imbalance. With regard to Econe, Lefebvre and the four priests, they are under two excommunications: one for the offense of schism, the other, reserved to the Apostolic See, for the offense of consecrating a bishop without a pontifical mandate.' I hope that this is helpful for you.
Cardinal Lara to John Beaumont, May 26th, 1993.

29 posted on 01/21/2003 9:15 AM EST by Ethan Clive Osgoode

It is not at all clear that popes have authority over the Divine Liturgy. Many of the greatest liturgists have questioned this assumption since the Divine Liturgy involves dogma as well as worship.

Here is Klaus Gamber: "Since there is no document that specifically assigns to the Apostolic See the authority to change, let alone abolish, the traditional liturgical rite; and since, furthermore, it can be shown that not a single predecessor of Pope Paul VI has ever introduced major changes to the Roman liturgy, the assertion that the Holy See has the authority to change the liturgical rite would appear to be debatable to say the least."

Gamber does not deny popes have the right to make incremental, minor, changes. Popes such as Pius XII have acknowledged this in such encyclicals as Mediator Dei. But as that encyclical points out, the traditional Mass had evolved over millenia under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. How can it be that radical change should not be considered blashpemous? There is no precedence for what was done.

It is known that even Gregory I faced a rebellion among the faithful when he changed the language of the Hanc Igitur only slightly. Many sought to kill him for it, so agitated were they by even minor alterations in the liturgy. Imagine how our forefathers would have reacted to such a complete revolution in worship.

You state that "denying Papal authority over the discipline of the Liturgy does make one schismatic." This is on the surface an absurd statement and very mischievous. Was Gamber a schismatic? Since when has this ever been a doctrine of the Catholic Church? Where had this new teaching ever been formally promulgated? You state as well that even denying that "Pope Paul VI had the authority to promulgate it [the new Mass] does make one schismatic."
This is complete and total nonsense.

You people have a genius for finding schisms growing on trees. Catholics have the right to question anything to do with this issue. They have the absolute right to think as well as to obey and not be browbeaten by those whose faith is the papacy itself and not the Catholic Church. This is especially true at a time like this when apostates have control not only over many powerful dioceses in the Church, but also over many chambers in the halls of the Vatican.

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/appendix3.html

<>Quo Primum link. Polycarp, you know the facts but the schismatics sharks prefer to roll back their eyes and strike blindly. Even though this could warn them away from attacking the Rock, they willl ignore it, swarm, attack, and shatter their teeth...no matter, they will grow new ones to attack another day. Schismatic Sisyphus Sharks<>

Protocol n° 947/99/L

Unofficial English Translation of the original Italian text

Letter of the Congregation for Divine Worship to the Most Rev. Gaetano Bonicelli, Archbishop of Siena, June 11, 1999 ,P> On the Celebration of the Traditional Liturgy

Protocol n° 947/99/L

Most Reverend Excellency,there has arrived at this Dicastery Your letter of April 12th, in which You posit a question on the liberty to use the "Missale Romanum" promulgated by St. Pius V after the Council of Trent on the part of each priest who desires it, basing such action on the "perpetual" liberty of the Motu Proprio which promulgated the Missal, on July 13, 1560.

Since such a question has begun to be solved with the publication of the present "Missale Romanum", and since this Congregation is not without the competence to shed some light on this rising problem, our response will limit itself to recalling the essential facts.

Although in the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI, one does not find an explicit formula abrogating the Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, it is however clear that the will of the supreme Legislator is to promulgate a renewed text of the "Missale Romanum" which would take the place of the one which was up until that time in use. If the will of the Pontiff would have been to leave in force the preceding liturgical form as an alternative to be freely chosen, it would have to say so expressly. Things being as they are and in the light of the documentation which followed, such as regards praxis, one ought to assert that the "Missale Romanum" prior to the Second Vatican Council is no longer in force as an alternative to be freely chosen by those same members of the Church who appertain to the Roman Rite. After the liturgical renewal undertaken by the Second Vatican Council, there appeared groups of Catholics strongly attacking the liturgical books, above all the Missal, now in use. These groups, and we speak of those in full communion with the Catholic Church and with Her Magisterium, have expressed the desire to be able to continue to utilize the preconciliar liturgical books. The Holy Father John Paul II, moved by paternal desire of meeting the liturgical and religious sensibilities of these groups, has conceded to them the ability to utilize the "Missale Romanum" published in 1962, with the authorization of the Bishop of the locale; and He has likewise asked the Bishops to welcome with benevolence and generosity these persons who feel profoundly bound to the preconciliar rite and, at the same time, who profess a sincere adhesion to the Magisterium of the Church and obedience to the legitimate Pastors. The desire of the Pope was expressed by means by the Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei adflicta" (July 2, 1988: AAS 80 [1988] pp. 1495-1498). On the tenth anniversary of the publication of the Motu Proprio, the Holy Father has reinforced the general orientations of this document in the Discourse he pronounced on October 26, 1998 (L'Osservatore Romano, October 26-27, 1998, p.8).

And so, these are the answers to the questions of Your Excellency:

Q. "Can every priest use the Tridentine Missal without any permission, given that St. Pius V assured them a faculty in this regard in perpetuo."

A. No, since the "Missale Romanum" given by St. Pius V is to be held to be no longer in force. As regards the obligation of the "Missale Romanum" in use today, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship published a notification, which appeared in Notitiae 10 (1974) p.353. For comparison one can refer to canon 6, §1, 4°, of the Code of Canon Law (1983) in harmony with can. 19.

Q. "Can the Pope publish [bloccare] a rite in perpetuo?"

A. No. In "The Power of the Church regarding the dispensation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist", the Council of Trent expressly declared: "this power has perpetually been in the Church, so that in the dispensation of the Sacraments, apart from their substance, She might judge to establish or change those things, which for the utility of those undertaking them or for the veneration of the Sacraments themselves, according to the variety of things, times, and places, would be more expedient." (DS 1728)

From a canonical viewpoint, one must say that, when an Pope writes " ...We perpetually concede ", one must always understand "until otherwise it be provided." It belongs to the sovereign authority of the Roman Pontiff to not be constrained by merely ecclesiastical laws, still less by the disposition of His own Predecessors. Besides being bound by the very constitution of the Church, He is bound only by the immutability of the Divine and Natural Law. Moreover, if in addition to the Motu Proprio of St. Pius V, which has been cited, one looks at the Apostolic Constitution (April 3, 1969) with which Paul VI has promulgated the "Missale Romanum" which is now actually in force, we find the following words: "These things by our ... prescription now and after, firm and efficacious, We wish to be and to remain [fore], not withstanding ... the Constitutions and Apostolic Ordinations published by Our Predecessors, and all other prescriptions even those worthy of particular mention and derogation."

It is clear that the authority of the Council or of the Roman Pontiff has not come to be excised in an arbitrary manner, rather it has always present the good of the Church.

Q. "What answer can I give on the point of law?"

A. To the above expounded facts, one can add, the benevolent concession of the Indult to utilize the preceding "Missale Romanum" in the terms and according to the manner indicated in the mentioned Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei adflicta". If, in Your Diocese, there were a group of persons who desired to celebrate with the rite in force up until the post-conciliar liturgical renewal, Your Excellency can give authorization according the faculty conceded by the Indult of this Congregation on October 3, 1984 (Notitiae 1985, pp. 9-10).

These can assume diverse possibilities:

a) To appoint a Mass in a church or oratory, at a fixed time, on Sunday or on a weekday, without prejudice to the faithful who follow the present Missale Romanum. b) To assign to the faithful attached to the preceding arrangement a church or chapel, either in an exclusive manner, or a partial one.

c) On the condition that the group would be numerous, there is also the possibility to establish for them a chaplain (see Code of Canon Law, cann. 564-567, 571-572), or even also a personal parish ( see canon 515 , §1), as has been the case in some diocese of the United States of America or in Canada.

This is what I am able, after a due consultation, to respond to Your Most Reverend Excellency.

I take the occasion to offer You cordial greetings and to profess the same, with a sense of distinct obsequium, as Your Most Reverend Eminence

Jorge A. Card. Medina Estévez, Prefect

Sac. Mario Marini, Secretary

<> The Curia speaks in the name of the Pope. So, ifn'ya don't likke the fact that Quo Primum is kaput, run off and start yer own church; you know, like Lefebvre did.

Just call yourself a "tradtionalist" and, magically, you are elevated to a superior status over those occupying the Divinely-Constituted Chair of Authority.

Who the hell do they think they are anyway? Who died and resurrected and made then Pope?<>

THE ROMAN CURIA

In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.

CHRISTUS DOMINUS, 9

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/donatism.html

<> Link to a reply to Bishop Fellay letter ( which was, frankly, evil and insane), deconstructing the false facade of cavilling, lies, distortions, ignorance, willfullness and Pride and revealing the new schism as but a repitition of an old schism - not that facts will matter to the schismatic sharks<>

I thought you were going to ignore the posts of Traditionalists, just has the current Pope ignores Tradition.

<> Initially, that was my intent. However, I am Indian-giving that pledge. (As an Irish-Algonquin Catholic, that is my prerogative).

It is clear you folks aren't going away and, as it is apparent, I like a fight - especially when I occupy the high-ground; it's easier to shoot down the lies

I don't intend to reply to everyone in every circumstance, nor do I intend to reply every time I see some dark, schismatic lie cloaked in "traditionalism" skulk before my Catholic radar screen, but I will engage from time to time just for the fun of it.<>