Ultra-Romanism, Page 5
© Prax Maskaren. 23rd May 2003.
Dear Mr. Case,
It seems that we had a misunderstanding. When you wrote in response to me, (your message #12), H.H. Pope Michael I (Mr. David Allen Bawden) replied to your main point - which seems to be that CEAO is not in force.
And while you were waiting for my reply, I believed that it was for you to reply (which you have now done, after your 'reminder'), by replying to Mr. Bawden.
As a matter of fact, I was wondering what the delay on your part was about, but seeing that I had taken time myself to write my reply (to which your reply was Message #12), I did not see that I had any right to question you on that. Therefore, I waited.
I hope that now this little misunderstanding is cleared.
We will now proceed next to your latest posting, which is in reply to the post by H.H. Pope Michael I/Mr. D.A. Bawden.
Your post is certainly interesting, and it will take me time to apply my mind and reply to it.
While not really relevant, I would also like to inform you that I cannot make time to reply immediately as I am a working man.
As for the initiative, I would suggest that it is not 'mine'. I believe that it is an obvious need and that all of us need to work on it.
I had suggested the idea about a year back, but I did not want to do it myself because I know that I do not have the network or connections to get all the happening people to agree and to participate.
But finally, I decided that since it was a need which needed to be addressed before God, I had no other option than to work on it, given even my slender abilities.
Success is for God to give, yet if it fails, I accept blame.
Even as I cogitate over your latest post, I need to state the following:
There is, indeed, something in the life of the Church, which can be described as progressive evolution of thought and therefore also of legislations and of discipline, so that they cannot be reversed, though the pope can dispense occasionally.
We start with the Apostles and with our Lord's promise that the Holy Ghost will be with the Church for all times, teaching and making known further and better things which they did not understand then.
And so the Church has grown in thought and in its understanding of concepts, guided by the Holy Ghost.
Necessarily, such progress must affect the Church's understanding of discipline, and be reflected in its legislation.
While I was on the TCC list (Traditionalist Catholics Club), I had occasion to describe one such process, which affects the Holy Mass, and which is the basis of the legislation called 'Quo Primum'. [See Why Latin? A Defense of Quo Primum. See here for a document which sets out my old thinking: Is Quo Primum Reversible?]
Subsequently, I have learnt that this is what is described as 'Praestantia ritus Latini' or something like that, which means that the Latin or Roman rite is superior to any other rite, even while such rites were or are just as legitimate.
It is this development of understanding which guided the Church for centuries since Trent and which forces her to treat other rites as less than equal to the Roman rite, without denying their validities, etc.
It is my understanding that CEAO is another piece of the same progression in thought.
And I believe that, as such, CEAO, is absolutely impossible to reverse or to regress from — that no authority of the Church, not even an Ecumenical Council or a Pope can undo, abrogate, obrogate, negate, etc., etc., CEAO, anymore than they can Quo Primum and the principle of 'Praestantia ritus Latini'.
However, while a pope cannot negate or undo such progressive enactments, he can dispense, whether for a time or for a place...
On the other hand, there are disciplines and legislations which are mere disciplines and mere legislations, and as such, the Church is utterly free to change its mind about them, since they are not part of the natural progress of Church development of thought. Therefore, the Church may now permit and now forbid, in so far as these matters are concerned. And therefore, these disciplines and legislations do not qualify as irreversible.
The only criteria that is obliged with these reversible disciplines and legislations is that of obtaining the ends that the Church exists for.
Yours sincerely,
Prax Maskaren
J.L. Case wrote: (Thu May 15, 2003 5:28 pm; Message #12; Christania)
Canon law is comprised of both human & divine law, and without training and learning it is difficult at times to discern. Most of canon law is human law. When human law is created, it didn't exist before. For example, Marriage is invalid if the couple intends never to have children. That can never change. But human laws were later added to make marriages null for other reasons, such as difference of worship, which can be changed or dispensed. Your statement that legal evolution of the Church is irreversible is a gratuitous statement that is incorrect.
The considering of material heresy before an office is accepted at one time did not exist before CEAO. Therefore it is not divine law, but human. It can change. I say it has changed because in canon law of 1917 they did not retain it. Canon 188.4 mentions only AFTER the office is accepted because it speaks of tacit renunciation.
Furthermore, since it is human law, and not divine law, it does not apply to a pope, if he was once the true pope. It is the teaching of the Church that canon law (the human portions) do not bind a pope because he is the authority which gives it the force. "The Roman Pontiff is above canon law" (Magnae Nobis, 1748).
Pope Michael I/D.A. Bawden wrote: (Thu May 15, 2003 6:33 pm; Message #13, Christania)
Since there is no Canon in the Code of Canon Law covering this proposition we go to Canon 6. In reference to the former Canon Law the Code states that, as a rule, the old discipline is retained though there are some modifications of the old law.
The following rules are laid down by the Code: (4) In case of doubt whether some provision of the Canons differs from the old law, one must adhere to the old law. (Canon 6)
J.L. Case wrote: (Wed May 21, 2003 3:26 pm; Message #35, Christania)
Prax,
I have been waiting a week for you to respond since I posted the below message (#12 on the Yahoo list). "Pope Michael" has, at least, acknowledged that a discussion was starting from it, but even though you have been posting most of the messages here since then, you have not continued the discussion. To be blunt, so far I don't have great hope for this particular initiative.
JLC
Prax Maskaren wrote: (Wed., May 21, 2003 9:16 pm; Message #36, Christania)
Dear Mr. Case,
Will reply, hopefully by tomorrow.
Prax