tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post6101187881978585318..comments2023-06-01T09:22:18.917+01:00Comments on Liturgiae Causa: Numquam abrogatam?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-71695950924804296932014-03-02T20:00:59.599+00:002014-03-02T20:00:59.599+00:00Fr. Anthony, I thought I had re-iterated my suppo...Fr. Anthony, I thought I had re-iterated my support for the argument of custom above? The point is 1962 was so novel, so transient, custom can have no bearing on it.<br /><br />Give me 1474 any day!<br />Rubricariushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05050302650867319277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-23126809158576987972014-03-02T19:57:48.836+00:002014-03-02T19:57:48.836+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Rubricariushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05050302650867319277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-84331799824497896232014-03-02T17:32:29.099+00:002014-03-02T17:32:29.099+00:00I am no more “for” the 1962 or 1965 than you are. ...I am no more “for” the 1962 or 1965 than you are. I’m not trying to catch anyone out or be unpleasant. Far from it. I’m just trying to discern some cogent argumentation. I would like to ask you whether you consider the principle of custom to have applied to the Roman liturgy since the <i>Editio Princeps</i> of 1474. Can it be argued that Pius V put law above custom when he promulgated the 1568 breviary, 1570 missal, etc? Was there essentially any difference from this point of view between the 1962 version and (for example) that of Clement VIII, Urban VIII, etc. Perhaps if we want to use the Roman rite, as opposed to a local use, should we not be pressing for the <i>Editio Princeps</i> of 1474?Fr Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15521671841072661886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-62446723896797512232014-03-01T19:59:27.403+00:002014-03-01T19:59:27.403+00:00But the established principles of custom cannot ap...But the established principles of custom cannot apply to the 1962MR as it was only in use in its entirety for just over two years, its <i>ritus</i> was entirely re-written and it cannot be protected by virtue of immemorial or centennial custom. Caponi et al are vague and refer to the 'old' rite etc and write as though the Roman rite was unchanging; their essential argument is certainly valid but cannot apply to such a novelty as 1962MR. The whole argument was that Paul VI's <i>Missale Romanum</i> did not contain an abrogatory clause that would affect immemorial custom but that cannot apply to 1962MR - it is even younger than you and I dear Fr! No supporter of SP has come up with a coherent argument of why Ratzinger's assertion that particular, short-lived, edition of the MR was 'never juridically abrogated'. They all start talking of the '<i>vetus ordo</i>', centuries of use etc <i>ad nauseam</i> but the damned thing was only in use between 1962 and Lent 1965 at best.Rubricariushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05050302650867319277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192580971664762668.post-3472630929451685352014-03-01T15:36:04.374+00:002014-03-01T15:36:04.374+00:00I have no interest in Roman legalism, but from the...I have no interest in Roman legalism, but from the point of view of Roman canon law, you have only considered the piece of Papal legislation. There is the aspect of custom and <i>auctoritas</i>. <br /><br />The standard work to consider is Count Neri Capponi's <i>Juridical Considerations</i>. This represents a minority viewpoint as described by Fr Anselm J. Gribbin, <i>Immemorial Custom and the Missale Romanum of 1962 (usus antiquor)</i>.<br /><br />There is the committee of Cardinals of the 1980's that included Ratzinger and Stickler among others. <i>Summorum Pontificium</i> is a sloppy piece of work, but it papered over the cracks in a pastoral objective. What else could he do short of torching the barracks?<br /><br />Indeed, the bane of the Roman Catholic Church over the centuries has been its <i>legalism</i> and will be its undoing.<br /><br />A choice has to be made between <i>Welcome to the brave new Orwellian Church</i> or carrying on without worrying. At one time, legalism was a great way of screwing money out of people for dispensations. Nowadays, as in many situations, everything is forbidden and everything is tolerated. The Italians call it <i>La Combinazione</i>! Fr Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15521671841072661886noreply@blogger.com