Clicks591

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS ON "TRADITIONIS CUSTODES" - written by a Priest and Canon Lawyer

Article: "Legal Considerations on the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes" - Restrictions demand strict interpretation

by Fr. Pierre Laliberté, J.C.L.*

1. Principles

The motu proprio “Traditionis Custodes” was issued by Pope Francis on 16 July 2021, along with an accompanying letter.

As a restrictive decree, this present motu proprio of Pope Francis should be interpreted strictly, in accord with the legal maxim Regula Juris 15 (odiosa restringenda, favorabilia amplificanda). Interestingly, there is no vacatio legis on the document either.

Pope Francis indicates in the first paragraph that the bishops constitute the principle of unity of the particular churches and govern them through the proclamation of the Gospel. As the specified end of the document is the “constant search for ecclesial communion”, it would also appear that hermeneutically, this document should be interpreted in a way which genuinely fosters ecclesiastical communion between the faithful, priests, and bishops, and does not promote negative feeling and ill-will amongst any members of the Christian faithful who are attached to the traditional liturgical forms.

It is worthwhile to indicate what this motu proprio does not place restrictions upon. No mention whatsoever is made of the pre-conciliar Breviarium Romanum, Pontificale Romanum and Rituale Romanum. No express abrogation is made of any notable document concerning the traditional Roman Missal, and such abrogation should not therefore be implied. The traditional Missal remains, as it always was, never abrogated. The rights established by Quo Primum, by the theological and liturgical tradition of the Western rites, and immemorial custom remain intact. No mention is made of the traditional rites of the various religious communities (Dominican, Carmelite, Praemonstratensian, etc.) nor those of the ancient sees (Ambrosian, Lyonnais, etc.). There is no indication that the right of a priest to celebrate privately according to the 1962 missal is in any way infringed.

When read in comparison with the extensive granting of rights conceded by Summorum Pontificum and clarified and expanded by Universae Ecclesiae, when there is no express revocation of these rights indicated by Pope Benedict XVI, one must conclude canonically that they still exist.

There is a serious lack of clarity in this document which this brief analysis will attempt to address, and it is evident that its ambiguities will be, sadly, taken advantage of by those with less than a genuine love for the Church, her faithful people, and her heritage.

2. Documentary Analysis

Article 1, discussing the liturgical books promulgated by Sts. Paul VI and John Paul II, indicates that they are the “unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” In the absence of any indication to the contrary, one must conclude that the status of the Extraordinary Form liturgical books remains intact.

Article 2 recognizes the diocesan bishop as the “moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole liturgical life of the particular Church.” This is true and has always been the case. This article merely recognizes that the bishop regulates the general liturgical life of the diocese, which encompasses also the use of the pre-conciliar Missale Romanum, and to authorize its use, just as a bishop would authorize the right of any priest to celebrate the liturgy.

In considering Article 3, it is worthwhile to note that the provisions of this article refer to the “Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970.” Strictly understood, the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970 is the editio typica of 1965 with the alterations of Tres abhinc annos of 4 May 1967. This is not the 1962 Missal. To this author’s knowledge, the 1965 missal is used hardly, if ever.

Article 3, number 1 asserts that “these groups do not deny the validity and legitimacy of the liturgical reform dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs.” This should not pose a problem, as the fundamental principle of the liturgical reform, antecedent to any changes, as indicated in Sacrosanctum Concilium 4, remains that “in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way.”

Article 3, number 2 notes that the bishop of the diocese is to designate one or more locations where the faithful adherents of these groups [which celebrate according to the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970] may gather for the Eucharistic celebration, not taking place in the parochial churches and not erecting new personal parishes. This remains unclear legally, as it could merely be implied as a restriction placed upon the 1965 editio typica. While the text indicates that these groups may gather “not in the parochial churches and without the erection of new personal parishes”, there remain any number of other locations where such celebrations may take place.

Article 3, number 3 indicates that the bishop can establish the days on which Eucharistic celebrations are permitted according to the 1962 Missal. There is no indication given that the right of a priest to do so is infringed. The bishop also can make such a designation. And as is the case in virtually all communities where the Extraordinary Form is celebrated, the readings are typically proclaimed in the vernacular according to the provisions established in Universae Ecclesiae 26: “As foreseen by article 6 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, the readings of the Holy Mass of the Missal of 1962 can be proclaimed either solely in the Latin language, or in Latin followed by the vernacular or, in Low Masses, solely in the vernacular.” Number 4 indicates that a priest should be appointed who is “suited for this responsibility”, and gives examples of the positive characteristics which should be inherent in such a priest.

Article 3, number 5 and 6 descibe how the bishop is to positively guide the growth of such communities and parishes, namely to ensure that they are “effective for their spiritual growth” and to “determine whether or not to retain them.” Of course, the accent here is on the positive: bishops should encourage the effectiveness of the growth of such communities and parishes. The following subsection notes that there is also no strict forbidding of bishops to authorize the establishment of new groups, but rather merely to “take care” not to authorize their establishment.

Article 4 establishes a distinction between those ordained subsequent to 16 July 2021 who “should” submit a request to the diocesan bishop, who will consult the Apostolic See, and those ordained previously. There is no indication that these newly ordained priests must do so, and no indication of penalties to which they would be subject if they were not to do so. This is a hortatory, not a compulsory, statement. Similarly, those ordained prior to 16 July 2021 are also encouraged in article 5 to request from the diocesan bishop the faculty to continue to celebrate according to the traditional Missal. Again, these two (2) articles should be read in a way which, in accordance with the express aims of the present motu proprio, would foster the positive growth and understanding in communion between priests and their bishops.

Article 6 asserts that the institutes of consecrated life and societies of apostolic life previously under the purview of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei now are under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, and article 6 asserts the competence of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, as well as the aforementioned Congregation, over the observance of these provisions.

While the final article of this motu proprio appears rather sweeping in its abrogation of “previous norms, instructions, permissions and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Motu Proprio”, it should be reiterated that the provisions of this present motu proprio are restrictions which demand strict interpretation.

*Pseudonym for a Priest and Canon Lawyer in the Latin Church

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/07/article-legal-considerations-on-motu.html
Live Mike
Is there a canon lawyer in the house we have a legalistic hairsplitting alert in need of confirmation...

Article 8 reads, "Previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Motu Proprio are abrogated."

It is interesting to note that NOWHERE do we find the explicit abrogation of SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM.
It appears to only abrogate the PONTIFI…More
Is there a canon lawyer in the house we have a legalistic hairsplitting alert in need of confirmation...

Article 8 reads, "Previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs that do not conform to the provisions of the present Motu Proprio are abrogated."

It is interesting to note that NOWHERE do we find the explicit abrogation of SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM.
It appears to only abrogate the PONTIFICAL COMMISSION'S - INSTRUCTION ON THE APPLICATION OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO vatican.va/…sdei_doc_20110430_istr-universae-ecclesiae_en.html

Also, the document makes NO REFERENCE to abrogating “the usages universally received from apostolic and unbroken tradition.” Such a thing could NEVER be abrogated by anyone.
vatican.va/…xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum.html
Ultraviolet shares this
10591
I try not to bomb those whoo "follow" me with a stream of articles. You've paid me a profound compliment and I'm ever-mindful of it.

In terms of Canon Law this article is the legal equivalent of St. Michael The Archangel and the Heavenly Host routing the Fallen Angels straight out of Heaven.

Notice the author's genius in finding this legal loophole.

"In considering Article 3, it is worthwhile …More
I try not to bomb those whoo "follow" me with a stream of articles. You've paid me a profound compliment and I'm ever-mindful of it.

In terms of Canon Law this article is the legal equivalent of St. Michael The Archangel and the Heavenly Host routing the Fallen Angels straight out of Heaven.

Notice the author's genius in finding this legal loophole.

"In considering Article 3, it is worthwhile to note that the provisions of this article refer to the “Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970.” Strictly understood, the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970 is the editio typica of 1965 with the alterations of Tres abhinc annos of 4 May 1967. This is not the 1962 Missal. To this author’s knowledge, the 1965 missal is used hardly, if ever.

What the author said is legally correct. "Restrictions require strict interpretaton". --to which I would modestly add, "what is meant is not what was written."

If Pope Francis and his cronies meant to restrct the 1962 Missal and, in their Canonical ignorace, what they wrote restricted the almost-never used1965 Missal by mistake, too bad.

Perhaps it was the whimsical guidance of "the god of surprises and "the holy spirit" whom Pope Francis never tires of invoking to support his reforms against "rigidity". ..
DJRESQ
This reasoning is fallacious. Article 3 has six sections, but it's not the only article in the motu proprio. The other articles directly address the 1962 missal.

So, assuming arguendo that article 3 only refers to the missal of 1965 (which it doesn't, see section 3), that doesn't negate the fact that the other articles refer directly to the 1962 missal.

At best, what could be stated is that …More
This reasoning is fallacious. Article 3 has six sections, but it's not the only article in the motu proprio. The other articles directly address the 1962 missal.

So, assuming arguendo that article 3 only refers to the missal of 1965 (which it doesn't, see section 3), that doesn't negate the fact that the other articles refer directly to the 1962 missal.

At best, what could be stated is that the motu proprio refers to both 1962 and 1965, no one can say that it does not restrict 1962 if the bishop so chooses. Articles 2 and 5, and section 3 of article 3, allow for restrictions of the 1962 missal.

The bishop has full authority over whether, or not, the 1962 missal will be used in his diocese. If he says no, then it's restricted. That's what the motu proprio entails.

Art. 2. It belongs to the diocesan bishop, as moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole liturgical life of the particular Church entrusted to him, [5] to regulate the liturgical celebrations of his diocese. [6] Therefore, it is his exclusive competence to authorize the use of the 1962 Roman Missal in his diocese, according to the guidelines of the Apostolic See.

Art. 3, § 3. to establish at the designated locations the days on which eucharistic celebrations are permitted using the Roman Missal promulgated by Saint John XXIII in 1962.

Art. 5. Priests who already celebrate according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 should request from the diocesan Bishop the authorization to continue to enjoy this faculty.
Ultraviolet
"This reasoning is fallacious."

...which explains why you cited the fallacy and showed how it applies, the way I do when I call you out for fallacious reasoning. @DJRESQ

"Article 3 has six sections, but it's not the only article in the motu proprio. The other articles directly address the 1962 missal."

Irrelevant to the author's refutation of the point raised here from Article 3.

This…More
"This reasoning is fallacious."

...which explains why you cited the fallacy and showed how it applies, the way I do when I call you out for fallacious reasoning. @DJRESQ

"Article 3 has six sections, but it's not the only article in the motu proprio. The other articles directly address the 1962 missal."

Irrelevant to the author's refutation of the point raised here from Article 3.

This reasoning is fallacious. :D

It's a Fallacy of Division. You're assuming that because the other articles address the 1962 Missal, that changes the meaning of what was written here in Article 3.

What part of "antecedent" are you having difficulty with here?

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antecedent

Last time I checked, 1965-67 comes after 1962. The Missal that is antecedent to the reform of 1970 is that one, not the 1962. What Francis meant is not what he wrote.

Formal documents are the final word. When the CDF forbids the blessing of homosexual "unions" and Pope Francis signs off, THAT is the official Church position, not the gushing letter of praise he sent to Father James Martin which in itself was carefully worded not to overtly contradict the CDF.

Simply put, he loused up here and let's all have a good laugh at his expense over it because the point you're making has always been irrelevant in practice.

"The bishop has full authority over whether, or not, the 1962 missal will be used in his diocese. If he says no, then it's restricted. That's what the motu proprio entails."

...and that changes nothing.

Bishops have been running their own diocese that way all along in spite of Summorum Pontificum. Bishops who disliked the TLM simply forbade priests from celebrating it on their own authority and woe to the priest who tried to argue against his direct superior!

Rome was very far away and unesponsive. The Bishop's wrath was just a phone-call and a reassignment letter away.
DJRESQ
"Last time I checked, 1965-67 comes after 1962. The Missal that is antecedent to the reform of 1970 is that one, not the 1962. What Francis meant is not what he wrote."

I don't understand why people think they have the competence to address issues like this but somehow Vatican officials are too ignorant to understand what they are doing.

The fallacy in your reasoning is easily seen by someone …More
"Last time I checked, 1965-67 comes after 1962. The Missal that is antecedent to the reform of 1970 is that one, not the 1962. What Francis meant is not what he wrote."

I don't understand why people think they have the competence to address issues like this but somehow Vatican officials are too ignorant to understand what they are doing.

The fallacy in your reasoning is easily seen by someone old enough to know better.

What you don't seem to comprehend, and apparently neither does the priest (perhaps because you're both too young?), is that neither the "missal" of 1965, nor the "missal" of 1967, are considered separate missals from the 1962 missal, which in itself is merely a revision of the Missale Romanum of 1570.

We refer to 1965 and 1967 as "missals," but they are actually the 1962 missal revised, which itself is also a revision. They are not separate missals.

There was no promulgation of a new missal by Pope Paul VI in December 1964 (for 1965), nor in 1967.


If you want to contend there was, have at it, and good luck!

The changes to the "1962 missal" that resulted in the 1965 "missal" were enacted via the instruction Inter Oecumenici of December 1964, not by the promulgation of a new missal. Likewise, the changes that came in 1967 occurred via Tres Abhinc Annos, not by a new missal promulgated by the pope.

Thus, the Mass as experienced in 1967 was nothing more than "the missal of 1962" revised by the two aforementioned instructions, (not "missals").


It is a fact of history that the only "missal" promulgated by Pope Paul VI is "the Novus Ordo Missae," promulgated in spring of 1969 and repromulgated the next year, making its way to the U.S. in final version in 1972, if I recall correctly.

He did not promulgate missals in 1965 or 1967. Those aren't "missals," per se. So, neither one of those can be the missal antecedent that Pope Francis referred to.

The reason the missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969-70 is called "the Novus Ordo Missae" and neither one of the other ones is called "the Novus Ordo Missae" is because neither one of those was a "novus ordo missae."

There have been three editions of the Novus Ordo Missae, just like there were different editions of 1962, which is merely a revised edition of 1570, but we don't refer to the three separate editions of the Novus Ordo as separate missals. They're not. They're merely revisions of the Novus Ordo Missae.

It is clear, without any doubt to a person who understands these matters, that the “missal antecedent to the reform of 1970" is not the "1965 missal" or the "1967" missal.

It refers to the the Missale Romanum of 1570, of which the missal of John XXIII issued in 1962 is but a revision.

The proof of this can be found in the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae. Pope Paul VI says absolutely nothing about a 1967 "missal," a 1965 "missal," or even a 1962 "missal."

The "missal" he refers to as being replaced is the missal promulgated by Pope Pius V in 1570, which is the missal antecedent to the Novus Ordo Missae.

Read the whole thing at the link. You will understand that, when Pope Paul issued the new missal to take the place of the prior missal, the latest revision of which was 1967 (actually there were further revisions in 1968) he was referring to the missal antecedent, that is, the missal of 1570.

Missale Romanum (April 3, 1969) | Paul VI (vatican.va)

Pope Francis may be many things, but he's not an idiot, nor are any of the numerous Vatican officials who reviewed the MP prior to its promulgation.
Ultraviolet
"I don't understand why people think they have the competence to address issues like this but somehow Vatican officials are too ignorant to understand what they are doing."

That's a Fallacious Appeal to Authority. It's also a fallacy of Arguing From Incredulity.

To answer your rhetorical puzzlement, the reason people think they have the competence to address issues like this is because in this…More
"I don't understand why people think they have the competence to address issues like this but somehow Vatican officials are too ignorant to understand what they are doing."

That's a Fallacious Appeal to Authority. It's also a fallacy of Arguing From Incredulity.

To answer your rhetorical puzzlement, the reason people think they have the competence to address issues like this is because in this instance they do. The author whom I'm referencing is a bona fide Canon Lawyer and I am merely reiterating his point. Further, you've clearly forgotten exactly what sort of people are "Vatican officials" today. They don't have a sterling track record of competence, either theologically, legally, or even financially.

"The fallacy in your reasoning is easily seen by someone old enough to know better."

You're making a No True Scottsman Fallacy. However, for someone who is supposedly "old enough to know better" you still aren't old enough to read a rebuttal and directly address the point made. You claimed my reasoning was fallacious. You didn't cite the fallacy. You still haven't cited the fallacy. Go take your Metamucil, hunt up your reading glasses, re-read my previous reply and either cite the fallacy or withdraw the accusation.

"What you don't seem to comprehend, and apparently neither does the priest (perhaps because you're both too young?), is that neither the "missal" of 1965, nor the "missal" of 1967, are considered separate missals from the 1962 missal, which in itself is merely a revision of the Missale Romanum of 1570."

Considered by whom? Citation needed. Unsupported claim.

"We refer to 1965 and 1967 as "missals," but they are actually the 1962 missal revised, which itself is also a revision. They are not separate missals."

Thus contradicting your own previous statement. "So, assuming arguendo that article 3 only refers to the missal of 1965 (which it doesn't, see section 3), that doesn't negate the fact that the other articles refer directly to the 1962 missal."

Get your stories straight, pick claim and stick with it. :P

Pope Francis himself conflates both "the Missal promulgated by Saint John XXIII in 1962." in article 3 with "the Missale Romanum antecedent to the reform of 1970". He uses the concept of revisions and refoms as though they constitute entirely different works.

Borrowing the phrase, "I don't understand why people think they have the competence to address issues like this but somehow Vatican officials are too ignorant to understand what they are doing."

"It is clear, without any doubt to a person who understands these matters..."

...that you're arrogant enought to assume you are such a person while once again remaining blind to the fact you continue making yet another No True Scottsman Fallacy.

Then again, this is a theme with your arguments. You alone seem to possess a special "understanding" of each and every issue that isn't shared by those of us lesser mortals who merely read what a Pope says and either cite it accordingly or, in this case cite it and laugh at his stumbling.

"You will understand that, when Pope Paul issued the new missal to take the place of the prior missal... he was referring to the missal antecedent, that is, the missal of 1570."

Maybe if you re-read this article you will understand that, when "Traditiones Custodes" was issued, Pope Paul didn't write it. Pope Francis and his merry band of pranksters did.

"Pope Francis may be many things, but he's not an idiot, nor are any of the numerous Vatican officials who reviewed the MP prior to its promulgation."

Read that phrase out loud. I insist. You're defending the "Pachamama Pope" as not being an idiot. You just discredited yourself. Utterly.

Incidentally, since you've been citing your age as evidence of your wisdom, that's a Fallacious Appeal to Antiquity and a Fallacious Appeal To Authority. Just because you're older or claim you're older doesn't presuppose you're right because you're older.

Obviously, however old you may be, you haven't yet learned how to argue without making one fallacy after another. How embarrassing it must be to get repeatedly corrected by a much younger person.
DJRESQ
For anyone else who is reading this, you shouldn't pay attention to what Ultraviolet has written here, as it is nonsense.

The modern missal currently in use is the Novus Ordo Missae of Pope Paul VI, but it is a revision of that missal. The new Mass has been revised twice: once in 1975, and another time in 2000 under John Paul II, issued in 2002.

But there is no such thing as the missal of John …More
For anyone else who is reading this, you shouldn't pay attention to what Ultraviolet has written here, as it is nonsense.

The modern missal currently in use is the Novus Ordo Missae of Pope Paul VI, but it is a revision of that missal. The new Mass has been revised twice: once in 1975, and another time in 2000 under John Paul II, issued in 2002.

But there is no such thing as the missal of John Paul II. The current missal is the Novus Ordo Missae, as revised.

If Pope Francis were to promulgate a new missal, the missal antecedent would be the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI. It wouldn't be the missal of John Paul II because there is no such thing even though the revisions were done by him.

The same is true of the 1965 and 1967 changes in the Mass. Those are not separate missals promulgated by the pope; they're merely revisions of the existing missal, the latest iteration of which was 1962. And 1962 is merely a revision of the Missale Romanum of 1570.

Thus, the missal antecedent to the Novus Ordo Missae is the missal of 1570 in its latest promulgation: the missal of 1962.

Don't pay attention to young amateur theologians who don't have a clue of what they are talking about but don't have the humility to admit it.

Cardinal Mueller makes the same point in a recent statement. Notice that he uses the term "the missal of Pope Paul VI." Why does he use the singular? Because there's only one missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI, and that was in 1969-70.

The Mass revisions of 1965 and 1967 are not missals per se (just like the 2000 missal is not a missal per se); they are merely revisions of the 1962 missal, just like the 1975 and 2000 revisions are still the "Novus Ordo Missae."

Cardinal Mueller on the New TLM Restrictions - The Catholic Thing

Here's how to go about it, and pay no attention to Ultraviolet. And it doesn't matter that he's citing a priest who thinks he has found a loophole in the pope's motu proprio as if the people in the Vatican couldn't figure this out; the priest is just as wrong as Ultraviolet is.

Question: How many missals did Pope Paul VI promulgate, and when?

Answer: One, the Novus Ordo Missae of 1969.

Question: Did Pope Paul VI promulgate missals in 1965 and 1967?

Answer: No. The "missals" that existed during those years are merely revisions of the existing missal of 1962, the one promulgated by Pope John XXIII.

Question: What is the missal antecedent to the missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI?

Answer: The missal antecedent to the only missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI (the Novus Ordo Missae) is the missal promulgated by Pope John XXIII, the missal of 1962, which is merely a version of the Missale Romanum of 1570.

Question: When Pope Francis mentions the missal antecedent to the Novus Ordo Missae, what missal is he referring to?

Answer: He is referring to the Missale Romanum of 1570 in its latest promulgation, which is the missal of 1962.

Question: Why is Pope Francis not referring to "the 1965 missal" or "the 1967 missal" when he refers to the missal antecedent in his latest motu proprio?

Answer: Because those aren't separate "missals" per se. They were not missals that were promulgated by Pope Paul VI. Paul VI has promulgated only one missal. They are merely revisions to the 1962 missal, just like the current missal is a revision to the Novus Ordo Missae.

If a future pope were to promulgate a new missal, we would not say that the missal antecedent is the missal of 2000, nor would we call it the missal of Pope John Paul II, as there is no such thing, even though he made revisions.

What we would say is that the missal antecedent of such a future missal is the Novus Ordo Missae, the latest revision of which took place in 2000 (2002).

Similarly, the missal antecedent to the Novus Ordo Missae is the Missale Romanum of 1570, in its latest promulgation of 1962 by Pope John XXIII. 1965 and 1967 are not their own separate missals; they're merely the 1962 missal with revisions.

Thus, neither one of those things can properly be called the missal antecedent to the Novus Ordo Missae, and that's the reason Pope Francis and the Vatican officials did not use that terminology.

Ignore what Ultraviolet has stated on the matter; it's wrong.
Ultraviolet
People don't need you to tell them who is right or wrong. They can decide that for themselves. They can also decide when you are making one logical fallacy after another, because I point your fallacies out for everyone's benefit.

The fact you are resorting to this tactic shows exactly what a petty, amateurish debator you truly are. You can't defend your position, you can't justify your …More
People don't need you to tell them who is right or wrong. They can decide that for themselves. They can also decide when you are making one logical fallacy after another, because I point your fallacies out for everyone's benefit.

The fact you are resorting to this tactic shows exactly what a petty, amateurish debator you truly are. You can't defend your position, you can't justify your previous fallacies, so you tell a bold lie."durr hurr UV's wrong." Saying it and showing it aren't the same.

You love these digressions into history but they don't change the fact you literally contradicted yourself and I caught you at it one quote of yours versus the other.

A long "history lesson" about the modern missal is typical of your style of "argument", but they're irrelevant to how Pope Francis is referring to the Missal.

"The modern missal currently in use is the Novus Ordo Missae of Pope Paul VI, but it is a revision of that missal."

...that moment when you realize traditionalists are still using reprints of missals dated well before Paul VI's Papacy began in 1963. They're every bit as "modern" and as relevant.

So even here your "history" is garbage. :P

"But there is no such thing as the missal of John Paul II. "

The author of the article never once mentioned "the missal of John Paul II". I never once mentioned "the missal of John Paul II". Only you have.

Disproving something you introduced is a Strawman Argument.
You pulled this stunt repeatedly the last time you decided to indulge your intellectual vanity and be a tiresome bore. You introduce some nonsense like this and then spend paragraph after paragraph knocking it down as though somebody else presented this claim. I didn't, the author didn't, only you did. You really are desperate if you're resorting to this again so early.

So your entire argument proceeding from this premise is irrelevant. You're fighting yourself. Again.

"The same is true of the 1965 and 1967 changes in the Mass. Those are not separate missals promulgated by the pope; they're merely revisions of the existing missal, the latest iteration of which was 1962."

Fact Check: A change in the Mass is not a change in a missal. One is the service, the other is a book.

"Don't pay attention to young amateur theologians who don't have a clue of what they are talking about but don't have the humility to admit it."

...said the stupefying self-described old blowhard who doesn't have the humility to acknowledge his own repeated logical errors, much less his outright fabrications.

"Cardinal Mueller makes the same point in a recent statement. Notice that he uses the term "the missal of Pope Paul VI."

If that the point Cardinal Muller made, it isn't the same point you just made, i.e. "Don't pay attention to young amateur theologians...etc"

This raises another set of mistakes.

First, How do you know everyone's age? Mine or the the author of this article? That's the mistake you keep making. You're arguing with me, but I didn't write the article. A priest who is a canon lawyer wrote it. How do you know his age? How do you know my age? Yet you keep referring to your opponent(s) as "young".

Again, a baseless, unsupported accusation on your part. It's also another one of your stupid Strawmen Arguments because...

The author of the article isn't a "theologian" in the first place, he's priest and a canon lawyer. I'm not a theologian, I'm a seer. :D So the only person who's introdcuing this claim of "theologian" is you. Again, Strawman Argument.

The author doesn't pretend to be a "theologian", nor would he even need to be to point out errors in Francis technical terminology.

Best of all, this issue isn't even one of theology. We're not discussing God, or God's relation to the world. This is an issue of Church history and ecclesiastical revision.

Oh the irony of you criticizing people (and I quote) "who don't have a clue of what they are talking about but don't have the humility to admit it."

You can't even correctly identify the subject you're pretending to be an expert on. It takes a special kind of arrogant stupidity to accomplish that.

Incidentally, you've once again made the same error after I corrected it.

Bragging about your age (while attacking anyone else's) is...

a.) a Fallacious Appeal to Antiquity coupled with

b.) a Fallacy of Anecdotal Evidence.

Borrowing your famous and still unproven claim, "this reasoning is fallacious".

Unlike a certain rhetoric shovelling stable-boy (old or not), when I call something fallacious, I state the fallacy (or fallacies) made by name. I also show why they are fallacies. As I told you, saying it and showing it are two different things. You do the former but you can't do the latter.

Claiming you are old and criticizing me (with zero evidence supporting it) becasue I am supposedly young does not make you right.

Something or someone old is not correct just because they are old.

That's the Fallacious Appeal to Antiquity. It's a Fallscy of Anecdotal Evidence because you haven't supplied any proof of your age or my age.

This is all just your say-so and unverified. Since you're not going to doxx yourself with the information I'd require for verification, it will remain anedotal.

You don't know my age, I don't know yours. Unlike you, I don't assume you're old, just a windbag who makes one shockingly error in reasoning after another.

It's a safe assumption to make since you keep displaying both failings every time you comment, particularly when you come sniffing around after me looking for a re-match after I let all your hot air out during the last one.

"Here's how to go about it, and pay no attention to Ultraviolet. And it doesn't matter that he's citing a priest who thinks he has found a loophole in the pope's motu proprio as if the people in the Vatican couldn't figure this out; the priest is just as wrong as Ultraviolet is."

Will someone please count out exactly how many fallacies this buffoon has made in presenting his argument so far? Modesty and a conflict of interest prevent me from doing so. Worse, I'm not done correcting him. :D

"as if the people in the Vatican couldn't figure this out;"

Unwarranted presupposition on your part. Also a Fallacious Appeal to Authority.

Just because they're in the Vatican doesn't make them infallible or even competent.

Witness the enormous mismanagement of the Vatican bank. It's entirely possible that a canon lawyer found a loophole that Francis and his flunkies completely overlooked.

One thing to remember about all those "question and answers" folks. DJRESQ's understanding of the word "missal" isn't necessarily the same as Pope Francis' understanding.

Ironic I should point this out to him of all people. I'll borrow a phrase he mentioned before... "same terminology, different meanings" Ring a bell there, DJRESQ? ;-)

Then again, you aren't all too certain on what a "missal" is yourself. I quote you from earlier...

"The same is true of the 1965 and 1967 changes in the Mass. Those are not separate missals promulgated by the pope; they're merely revisions of the existing missal"

and...

"The Mass revisions of 1965 and 1967 are not missals per se..."

"Per se", nothing. Changes in the Mass aren't "missals" at all. Revising the liturgy isn't a revision of the book describing that liturgy, you fatuous, prattling idiot.

Since you can't use the proper terminology without utterly screwing it up, why do you assume Pope Francis could? :D

"Question: When Pope Francis mentions the missal antecedent to the Novus Ordo Missae, what missal is he referring to?"

Assumption on your part. Francis' notion of "missal" might be as vapid and error-filled as yours clearly is.

"Answer: He is referring to the Missale Romanum of 1570 in its latest promulgation, which is the missal of 1962."

...which is you putting words under his pen which he didn't write, something you're famous for. You are, once again, deriving it based on your argument and then falsely ascribing it to him. What you say Pope Francis meant is not what he referred to.

If Pope Francis was referring to the "Missale Romanum of 1570 in its latest promulgation" he could have, would have, and should have written that explicitly, After all, you are the one claiming "as if the people in the Vatican couldn't figure this out".

Again, you're contradicted by your own arguments. The fact is Pope Francis wrote no such thing, thus he isn't "referring" to it at all. You are.

After all, if that's what he meant, he wouldn't need you to put those words under his pen. Neither would his colleagues. They're in the Vatican, after all, and thus by your line of reasoning, they could figure it out.

"Answer: Because those aren't separate "missals" per se."

The fact he's referring to them as separate shows his understanding of the word isn't yours.

"If a future pope were to promulgate a new missal, we would not say that the missal antecedent is the missal of 2000, nor would we call it the missal of Pope John Paul II, as there is no such thing, even though he made revisions."

We? When did you start speaking for the collective Catholic world?

"We" wouldn't call it a new missal at all... "per se":. :D, Not if you decided it wasn't a new missal. You'd argue it's a revision of a previous one because (etc. etc. etc). Conversely, if you felt otherwise, then it would be "a new missal" even if the new Pope himself claimed it was only a revision.

...because, as always in Lefebvre-Land, what the Pope said doesn't count. It's whatever "we" say the Pope said that matters. :D

Now go be a pompous, fallacy-riddled moron somewhere else. You're all done here unless you're too stupid to realize even that.
DJRESQ
This isn't meant to be a debate; I was just correcting the erroneous information that was posted here. And you are indeed wrong.

The missal antecedent to the missal of Pope Paul VI, who promulgated only one missal (in 1969), is not a so-called 1967 missal, nor is it a so-called 1965 missal; it is the Missale Romanum of 1570, in its latest revision by Pope John XXIII in 1962. It's just that …More
This isn't meant to be a debate; I was just correcting the erroneous information that was posted here. And you are indeed wrong.

The missal antecedent to the missal of Pope Paul VI, who promulgated only one missal (in 1969), is not a so-called 1967 missal, nor is it a so-called 1965 missal; it is the Missale Romanum of 1570, in its latest revision by Pope John XXIII in 1962. It's just that simple, and anyone who is old enough and educated enough to know these things understands that.

Don't you have a parish priest who can enlighten you on these matters?

Again, to others reading: The idea that the pope didn't know what he meant by his own document, which was reviewed by numerous other Vatican officials before promulgation, but somehow some young Internet guy halfway around the world does, is beyond the pale. Common sense tells you that's not the case here.
Ultraviolet
What you meant and what this actually is are two different things. Likewise, you haven't corrected anything, instead you've made one logical fallacy after another. What an irony when the very first sentence you wrote was, "This reasoning is fallacious."

You can't present a fallacy-free argument or an error-free 'correction' if your miserable life depended on it. :D

"And you are indeed …More
What you meant and what this actually is are two different things. Likewise, you haven't corrected anything, instead you've made one logical fallacy after another. What an irony when the very first sentence you wrote was, "This reasoning is fallacious."

You can't present a fallacy-free argument or an error-free 'correction' if your miserable life depended on it. :D

"And you are indeed wrong."

...and you keep "you are indeed wrong" without demonstrating it. This is a Fallacy of Repetition. In your case, it's also a quick sound-byte for people who aren't going to wade through your text-wall the way I will. It's a cheap pissant tactic that perfectly reflects the character of the man using it.

"It's just that simple, and anyone who is old enough and educated enough to know these things understands that."

Those are a.) Fallacies of Repetition because you're just repeating yourself (on both points) and b.) a No True Scottsman Fallacy (a fallacious appeal to purity) because age and education don't automatically ensure an identical conclusion.

"Don't you have a parish priest who can enlighten you on these matters?"

Again, you're making the same ignorant mistake of conflating Church theology with Church Law with Church history.

A parish priest should know the first, he isn't obligated to be an expert on the other two. A Canon lawyer should understand the laws of the Church , and a historian should know the history of the Church, specifically the recent history of revising the modern form of the Mass.

At least parish priests guide their flocks on matters of the Faith. If they aren't Canon Law experts or historians specializing in Church history, no matter. Neither are you and it shows!

Even worse, you can't tell the difference between revising a form of the Mass and revising a Missal.

You are, no joke, just that ignorant. So don't go patting yourself on the back just because you claim you're old. You're not nearly as wise as you give yourself credit for thanks to your age.

I'll abstain from repeating which fallacy you keep making by doing that. :P

If anything your supposed great age counts against you here. It means you've been this ignorant for most, or nearly all of your entire adult life. How many people have you led astray with your drivel, I wonder? Now it's probably too late for you to learn otherwise and, besides, you don't want to. "You can't teach an old dog new tricks"

Again, "to others reading, DJRESQ repeated the rest of his big closing point already. That's another Fallacy of Repetition.

Just for fun, I'll tear it apart one last time.

"The idea that the pope didn't know what he meant by his own document... is beyond the pale"

...said the self-appointed "wise old man", the supposed Church historian and medievalist, who doesn't know the difference between revising a Mass and revising a Missal.

Let's not forget, he's seriously defending the academic competence of Pope Francis and his friends. Such is the difference between mere ignorance and outright stupidity. :D

"which was reviewed by numerous other Vatican officials before promulgation,"

Fallacious Appeal to Authority. Recycling my previous example...

These are the same kind of " Vatican officials" who review the financial reports of the Vatican Bank before plotting its future and just look at the mess they've made of it.

On a new point, DJRESQ is also making a Band-Wagon Fallacy since large groups of stupid people promoting something doesn't make it correct. Witness, for example, abortion and other left-wing tenets.

"but somehow some young Internet guy halfway around the world does..."

DJRESQ still hasn't caught on that

a.) This is not my article and I am not the author. I didn't catch the Pope's mistake, the author of the article did.

b.) he doesn't know my age.

c.) he doesn't know the author's age of the author.

Also, this is an inverted Fallacious Appeal to Antiquity.

Youth does not imply a lack of technical or academic competency.

"Young internet guys" just exposed the homosexual lifestyle of Monsignor Burrill by tracking his cell-phone app data, forcing him to resign. The Church is better for the efforts of these "young internet guys".

Conversely, as DJRESQ has demonstrated (taking his claims of age at face value) is that just like Pope Francis and his "numerous other Vatican officials"...

Great age is no guarantee of great wisdom much less competency or even intelligence.
Defeat Modernism
Session 7 Canon 13 of the DOGMATIC Council of Trent. Pope St. Pius V in Quo Primum. Thousands of years of Tradition. What more do you faithless people need?
Ultraviolet
...a proper interpretation of Session 7 Canon 13 of the DOGMATIC Council of Trent, instead of some mindless nabob simply referencing it, @Defeat Modernism As I recall, you tend to do reference this whenever you don't know what you're talking about and don't have anything better to say.
Ultraviolet
😇 Once again, the incontestable truth of Church Law trumps a sloppily worded attempt to "abrogate" it. Masterfully done. 😇