The New Mass Is a Valid Catholic Mass

IntroductionMy thanks to Con for his clear opening argument. As we are both Catholics there is much in agreement between us - which will greatly simplify the debate, because we will fully agree on many of the fundamentals upon which the debate hinges.In this section I will note the areas that I am in agreement with Con.1) I take no exception to the use of the Douay-Rheims English translation of the Bible.2) Catholics must show allegiance to the truth.3) The Pope is the successor of Peter and has the authority to loose and bind.4) The Pope is infallible when he speaks Ex-Cathedra5) The Sacrifice of the Mass is the unbloody re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary in the Eucharist - (the source and summit of the Christian life).ArgumentFrom 882 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:"For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." [1]Essentially the Pope is the supreme executive, legislative and judicial office all rolled into one man. However, there are two laws: ecclesiastical laws, which are man-made and divine laws which are ordained by God. Thus, how a new pope is chosen can be changed by the Pope - because this is a man-made law. That there is a Pope cannot be changed, because it was Christ Himself who instituted the office.By this Papal authority, Paul VI promulgated a new Order of Mass (Novus Ordo) in 1969; Apostolic Constitution titled Missale Romanum. [2]Con's opening argument is based on the authority of Popes to set forth the rules and structures that the Holy Mass is to adhere to. As such my argument is:A valid Pope has validly promulgated a New Rite of the Mass, and thus it is valid.The remainder of my argument will focus on refuting Con's assertions that the Pope did not have this authority.RebuttalsThe crux of my opponent's argument is not that Popes do not have this authority, but rather that Pope Paul VI did not have the authority to do this due to Pope St. Pius V's encyclical Quo Primum. Con asserts that this document is not only an absolute legislative decree, but is also an infallible, and thus irrevocable, decree on the part of the Pope.I intend to show that an absolute ban on any changes to the mass from that day in absolute perpetuity was neither the intent of the Pope, nor within his authority to bind future Popes in this manner.IntentI will first argue that the intent was not to prevent any changes to the mass by future popes. First of all one has to understand the sweeping language in the writing style of the times. The Pope most certainly has the authority to dictate which form of the mass must be adhered to. It also certainly seemed that there were many forms of the mass at the time - as Pope St. Pius V noted that only masses that had "been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years" [3] were exempt from this decree.It is also important to note that this decree was issued 7 years after the Council of Trent. The Catholic Church was in effect cleaning house of any heresies, aberrations, etc. that may have become introduced into the liturgy in the 50ish years following the Protestant Revolt. Thus the Pope was making sure that the liturgy was free of any heretical practices that may have crept into the various local liturgies.He used the strongest language possible due the high reverence for, and centrality of, the Mass to the Catholic faith. It went so far as to impose fines on printers who printed non-conforming versions of the missals - 100 gold ducats and forfeiture of the printed missals in lands obedient to the Pope and excommunication to those outside of those lands.[3]Now it is important to note from Quo Primum who this document is applied to:We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence [3]It is important to note that the Pope St. Pius V notes that even cardinals must obey his edict. However, it is important to note that he doesn't say popes. He mentions cardinals by name because they are the highest ranking church officials after the pope. Had Pope St. Pius V intended to bind his successor, those with the very highest possible authority, he wouldn't have specifically mentioned the second highest authorities by name, but instead would have mentioned himself and his successors.This is a clear indication that he was writing according to the style of the times. In fact just one year after Quo Primum was published, Pope St. Pius V altered the missal by adding the feast of our Lady of the Rosary. Additionally, Con is not arguing that when Pius XII made alterations to the mass in 1965, they were invalid. Yet he attempts to use the Baroque language of the document to imply that when Pope Paul VI did something it was invalid.I have clearly shown that the intent of the encyclical cannot be what Con argued.AuthorityCon has stated that the prohibition against changing the Mass was an infallible papal decree. As such we need to look at what makes a Papal proclamation infallible and thus binding on all Catholics in perpetuity.For something to be infallible Vatican I listed the requisite conditions: [4]1. "the Roman Pontiff"2. "speaks ex cathedra (that is, when in the discharge of his office and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority)3. "he defines"4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or moral"5. "must be held by the whole Church"While everything that the Church does has some relationship to faith and morals, it does not mean that the exact form of the mass is not a definition of faith or morals. The liturgical directives that the priest follows are intended to draw forth the mysteries of the faith.This is made obvious in the fact that there are exemptions being made to the rule being instituted. Let's compare this to a recent Infallible proclamation:We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful. [5]This is what an infallible statement looks like. It is infallible because this has been the constant belief of the Church. There are no exceptions for communities that have some other tradition older than 200 years regarding Mary's Immaculate Conception. This is a doctrine of the Catholic Faith. It is Tradition and not tradition.The fact that there are numerous rites with differing yet valid forms of the Mass, attests to the fact that the mass promulgated by Pope St. Pius V cannot be a doctrine of the Church, but is rather a discipline.As such Pope St. Pius could bind his successors against changes to the mass. The reason that an infallible proclamation is binding on all successive popes is because it is a divine law or reality. If on the other hand the liturgical directives are a matter of policy that affect faith, but are not faith themselves, then the Pope cannot bind his successor.For Con to substantiate his claim he would have to show the Jesus on the road Emmaus, or the early Christians performed mass according to the Pius V missal.ConclusionsI have clearly shown that Con's argument does not survive scrutiny on two levels. Pope St. Pius V had neither the intention nor the authority to prevent any and all changes to the rites of the Holy Mass.I look forward to Con's rebuttals.References[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...