May 12, 2018 at 5:45 am #14188
Since Vatican II was not a valid council this is moreso a hypothetical question but it is one that I would appreciate a solid answer to. Supposing Vatican II had indeed been a valid council, would it have been considered infallible, on a level with Trent and all the other great councils of the Church. Or, would it instead have been a “pastoral council” that would not be particularly binding?
Many Traditional Catholics that I know tell me that it was simply a “pastoral council” and as such we are free to disregard all of the errors found within its documents. If I’m not mistaken this is a popular stance taken by the SSPX (correct me if I’m mistaken).
Any Suggestion Would be appreciate.
I didn’t find right solution on the internet.
ThanksJuly 17, 2018 at 8:29 pm #14560
If I were you, I would read the document that Paul VI issued at the close of V2 (I forget its name) and you tell me if you think its binding or not.July 18, 2018 at 7:24 am #14565
In finding Tradition, I was influenced by the argument of the late Fr Gregory Hesse who, citing the Council of Trent (7th session, canon XIII), said that even the Pope is prohibited from changing the rites of the Church as codified at the Council.
Recently, however, I came across a counterargument on Novus Ordo Watch, citing the following from Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mediator Dei:
“It follows from this that THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF ALONE ENJOYS THE RIGHT TO RECOGNIZE AND ESTABLISH ANY PRACTICE TOUCHING THE WORSHIP OF GOD, TO INTRODUCE AND APPROVE NEW RITES, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.”
That would seem to give Pope Paul VI carte blanche to introduce the NO Missae, would it not?
I have a question for Sedes. If VII had been entirely orthodox, not contradicting in any way the previous Magisterium, would you recognise Pope Paul VI’s authority to introduce the NO Mass, as would seem to be permitted by Mediator Dei?
(BTW, I noticed another Pascendi in the NOW comments. That is not me.)July 18, 2018 at 8:57 pm #14567
Yes, a Pope has the authority to alter the Rites as he see fit. The question is was Montini Pope when he changed the mass? The other question to ask is if the changes altered the essence of the Mass. Did Montini change the meaning of the Mass with his “reforms?” The fruits of the NO are self evident. Montini changed the mass from a sacrifice of Christ for expiation of sins to a communal meal offered by the people of god for praise and thanksgiving. He introduced a new and different rite. It was not a reform of the TLM. Its a moot point because of the heresy of V2. If Montini was Pope then Abp Lefebrve should have gone along with the NO based on what you quoted by Pius XII.
- This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Tom A.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.