The Latin Mass
©Prakash J. Mascarenhas. Revised 23rd May 2003.
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001
To the Rt. Rev. XYZ.
Dear Sir,
Thanks for going over my article [Concert of Grace] which is an attempt at refuting the heresies contained in the new document Dominus Iesus issued by the New Church. Regarding the clarifications you have sought, I wish to state:
1. The term Concert of Grace is my own creation. Nevertheless, I think that it is orthodox, not unorthodox or heretical. I hope that this is so.
2. The particular quotation from Dominus Iesus seems to have been not properly reflected, a printer's devil. I will have to check my copy of the text to make the necessary correction.
3. I take your point about the Incarnation, seeing as you see, that it is improperly worded, therefore liable to confusion, and so I will correct it immediatedly.
Thank you for the suggestions.
I have a philosophy about change. I start from St. Augustine, who taught that where the Church has decisively spoken, we are not free to contradict, but where the Church has not spoken, we are free to speculate, within the limits of Orthodoxy.
Then going on further, I propose that we must not be prisoners of precedence (except what is part of the Christian Law), but be willing to innovate, experiment and learn new approaches, attitudes and perspectives, in so far as they do not contradict Orthodoxy. This is because every precedent was at one time, at its inception, an innovation.
Man is not omniscient, and nor are societies. Therefore, it is essential, that they keep an open
mind, and be willing always to learn new things, new ways. Nihilism or statusquoism is wrong,
self-injurious. This however, is not an excuse for heterodoxy or kakodoxy, which must never be tolerated or permitted in the least, for we do not have the freedom to do so, without attacking the Depositum of the Faith, and becoming heretics ourselves.
This is how I can justify innovations such as the term "Concert of Grace."
Am I wrong?
Prakash Mascarenhas
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001
Dear Mr. Mascarenhas,
I fully agree with your position regarding Quo Primum. One legitimate pope cannot bind another pope in ecclesiastical matters (discipline, social teaching, canon law and in some ways even liturgy) The Church follows: Ecclesia sempre reformanda est, it means the Church is
living body, it is not dead. The Church can always do ad melius, it means to improve everything to the better. That is exactly what Pius XII did with the Holy week ceremonies, he improved them, he made them better.
Popes cannot change the substance of the sacraments, it means the Church must not change the matter and the form of the sacraments. This is what Paul VI did and what JP2 agreed.
They destroyed the substance of many sacraments (confirmation, extreme unction, holy orders, Eucharist and in some way even baptism) Many popes said that even the Church cannot change the substance of sacraments.
Quo Primum is very important document but another pope can make better liturgy. Problems with JOHN XXIII, JP2, Paul VI is that they are public heretics, as you said it correctly.
PAX TECUM!
Bishop XYZ
Date: Thursday, April 05, 2001 8:50 AM
Dear Sir, - I request your advice and opinion regarding this exchange which I am having with a friend...
From Prakash to HT
Dear Sir, - While you may disagree, it still remains a fact that the popes are themselves not bound by Quo Primum, or any other law made by a prior pope, within limits, for that would mean that the subsequent pope is not actually the equal of the previous pope, but his inferior in authority.
Obviously, this is not so, for we know that every pope is equal in power. It is a probable fact that St. Pius V intended to bind not only every Christian inferior in authority to himself and for all time. But that still does not bind his successors, because he just could not do it, it being beyond his powers. Only God can bind the pope.
In every country, we have legislative authority, whether invested in a monarch or a body. Now, generally, the legislation that these persons and bodies make, are certainly capable of being abrogated by either themselves or future successors.
One way is to look at the law governing the election of popes. The present law, after a lot of adjustments, has come to be set, that normally, the right to elect the pope is vested in a college of cardinals or eminent clerics of the Roman Church as created by the previous pope(s). It is certainly possible for a future pope to discard this system, and institute another in its place.
For example, he might constitute a college of electors, selected to represent all the provincial Churches (eg. America, England, Australia, France, Scotland, Germany, Eire, India, etc) and selected in consultation with those Churches; and he might even permit women to be such electors. Then he could legislate with authority to bind each and every person to obey and not change this law for all time. Nevertheless, his successor will, again, be entirely within his rights to amend or entirely change this system.
The reason why we reject the Novus Ordo is because it was the commandment of a non-pope, a man who was, before his election, a heretic and therefore incapable of becoming truly pope; and secondly because it is heretical and blasphemous, and not even a valid pope can command that what is evil, heretical and blasphemous - a thing that is obvious beyond his authority.
It is my understanding that Pope St Pius V was misinformed, if it was his intention to bind also his successors in the papacy.
Think again about it: if you hold to the rigid position, you must question Pope Pius 12, and then there is no end to it. You will go the path of the group called "Regium Dei." They now reject all the popes upto and including Pope Pius 9. This course will necessarily lead further to the logical conclusion of rejecting the papacy in toto, and then of our Lord Jesus Christ himself...
Finally, I would like to sum up: This is an important topic, not idle discussion. You are liable to be confused, therefore it would be wise to consult a theologian or theologians for understanding it.
Yours sincerely,
Prakash John Mascarenhas
Reply...
Dear John, I read your opinion on Quo Primun, and must respectfully disagree.
If this can be abrogated, we will have to accept the Novus Ordo Mass. We will also have to obey all the encyclicals of John Paul 2. The only way we can avoid this is to say that he is not the pope.
I think this sort of thinking is more radical than saying that Quo Primum must bind future popes. It was worded, and closed with threats of Peter and Paul. When the Holy Ghost is invoked, no future pope can ignore the papal bull. Even Pope St Pius 10th, when asked to enter St. Joseph into the Mass, said, "I cannot do that, because I am only the pope".
God bless you,
HT
Dear Sir, - Regarding the controversy about the actions of Pope Pius 12th in contradiction of Quo Primum, I wish to clarify that what one pope legislates, another has the full power to amend or dismiss. In this the papal power is absolute. Many 'trads' think that what Pius V legislated is the final law, and that even the subsequent popes are bound by it. It is not so.
The popes are a single heirarchial person, and they have the full right to command one thing today, and change it tommorrow. Of course, this power is only within the limits of their domain of competence. A pope cannot, for example say today that Christ is God, and tommorrow, that He is not. That would be exceeding his powers. This is actually a question that you can clarify with a theologian.
For the 'traditionalist' the implications are important: In his present attitude, which is actually misinformed, he must judge Pacelli as having done wrong. But if we take the Catholic doctrine, we see that not only it is not so, but even that a future legitimate pope would be entirely within his rights in abrogating Quo Primum.
Actually, a little logic will help here. When the Church was set up, was a single language mandated? No. On the contrary, it is evident, that the apostles and other proselytisers took particular care to not only explain the faith in the local languages, but even established the liturgies in those various local languagues. The Quo Primum legislation of Pius V must be seen in the context in which it was made. Of course, until it is actually abrogated, it is the law of the Church, and the Antipopes of the New Church do not have any authority whatsoever.
I, personally, am all for a return to the previous practise of the liturgy being in the local languages. What is important is the proper rite be maintained, and that is something that not even the pope can dispense from.
©Prakash J. Mascarenhas