Michael Lofton Heard of Quo Primum Long After I Did

Michael Lofton Heard of Quo Primum Long After I Did · Ecclesiology of Mgr Lefebvre - Compared to Pope Michael · No to 1988 Consecrations = Yes to 1990 Emergency Conclave · Marcel Lefebvre - a new St. Athanasius or a new Martin Luther?

Did Pope Pius V Say the Latin Mass Can't Be Changed? (Restream)
Reason & Theology, 8.II.2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IKDf9CTfOU

3:18 Monseigneur Marcel Lefebvre concluded that the New Missal was at least uncanonic due to Quo Primum.

He was before this:

• archbishop of Dakar
• bishop of Tulle

- so are you saying he had no training, neither formal nor informal in theology?

4:50 Not sure that Catholicism (which Quo Primum clearly is) needs to be reconciled with "Paul VI" ...

6:22 Before jumping onto your bandwagon on John XXII as leverage against binding Vatican II "Popes" by Quo Primum, I'd at least need to ask for some details about what John XXII said and in what context.

One would also be able to question whether changing a rite is purely a matter of discipline if the principle "lex orandi lex credendi" gets involved. Indeed, if liturgy is ever purely a matter of discipline. Canonisation involves perpetually raising someone to honour of the altars across the world.

Most changes to liturgy since Pope St. Pius V have been adding new propria to accomodate new saints, sometimes with new but not incompatible spirituality. I may be wrong, but I don't think St. Thérèse Martin, of Infant Jesus and of the Holy Face, also known as "of Lisieux" from her Carmel just got the "commune virginum" ...

6:26 The Apostles didn't reveal all matters of discipline. Examples:

• they did not reveal that Popes have to be chosen by conclaves by cardinals (first millennium Popes prior to 900 or 1000, but no longer from 1000 or 1100 weren't, but voted by acclamation by mostly laymen, like the persons of Milan shouting "axios" about a catechumen named Ambrose)
• they did not reveal that Papal electors have to be more numerous than 6 (Pope Innocent II was elected in haste by six cardinals, and an Antipope favoured by the Emperor, none less, said that nomination was invalid)
• they did not reveal that Popes have to be elected in Rome (after Boniface VIII, one was elected in Perugia and for decades they were elected in Avignon)
• they did not reveal that Popes have to be bishops prior to election, or at least clergy prior to elections (St. Ambrose was not even a layman, just a catechumen, and Cardinal Bishops of Ostia have a tradition of consecrating popes that were not bishops prior to election)
• they did not reveal what exact theological schooling a man needs before being validly elected Pope (Pope Michael seems to have had some catching up to do, between 1990 and his raising to episcopal ontologic status
• they did not reveal how much of the Catholic world needs to accept a man for him to be Pope ...
• they did not reveal a lot of the things that people are commonly using to discredit Pope Michael.

So, do you have a better reason why David Bawden's emergency election cannot have been valid than "John Paul II" was Pope, despite Assisi 86, despite the anti-YEC positions he towted in the early 90's (when on the conclavist view he had become formally schismatic as antipope against an extant one)?

8:45 Do you believe that a consensus of fathers when it exists is binding, is a matter of faith, and is what is meant by Session IV of Trent?

Bc, demanding an absence of opinion in all matters where the fathers do not agree would be grammatically possible as a reading, but absurd.

The Fathers have not unanimousmy agreed on LXX vs Vulgate chronologies in Genesis 5 and 11 - does that mean I cannot use the LXX without the second Cainan (some manuscripts in Alexandria have that) chronology of the Christmas proclamation?

But the fathers do agree that Genesis 5 and 11, correct text version, whichever it be, correctly adds up to the time distance between Adam and Abraham.

9:29 Lefebvrist Apologetics have already adressed that point. Changes to Roman missal after Quo Primum typically involved adding saints and adding propria.

It did not involve adding or subtracting from the Canon Missae (Pope Michael and his now surviving "camerlengo" do not accept the 1962 Missals where St. Joseph is added to the canon).

11:10 I distinctly recall Clement XIII and his changes being mentioned - with above qualifications.

9:57 Yes, Father Cekada did pass away. RIP.

I'd very much like a link to whatever video or online document where Fr. Cekada admits Quo Primum could be revised.

12:02 You got the date right.

When I was 1 month old, mother took me from Vienna to Sweden to visit my grandparents, and we stopped in Munich, there was a Mass, she attended, and it was, certainly, the preconciliar one.

Now, did "Paul VI" believe he was just doing what Clement XIII had done or what St. Pius X had done?

There are indications he did not believe it. He allowed, under certain very restrictive circumstances, the older missals to be used. How I know this?

He allowed retired priests without people attending to continue using them. One who retired to profit from that dispensation was the late Rev Bryan Houghton of venerable memory. That's how I know, it is in his book Unwanted Priest.

12:33 Saying "nobody had a problem with it" is false.

The liturgic reform is when some non-Feeneyites start getting Sedevacantist. At the council or so, you may aleady have had Saenz y Arriaga (while "y" means "and" it is not two people, but one man's double surname), but lots of others turn up around the Mass Reform.

Monseigneur Lefebvre, Rev Houghton and Fr Gérard Calvet withdraw to be able to continue the old missal. All of them will have some degree of modification of the withdrawal to meet perceived pastoral needs, and they all consider they can ignore the "suspensions a divinis" which at least the larger two harvest up to 1988.

Since this date involves the presence of Antonio de Castro Mayer too, recall that in 1969, he obtained the dispensation to maintain the older books in his diocese.

If "Paul VI" momentarily had been dreaming of doing sth like St. Pius V - he was certainly able to see this as not being so, when giving dispensations right and left to not use the new books.

Which is one reason to believe that even if he had been Pope (which I am not granting), he would not have been doing coherently anything like St. Pius V, and he definitely was doing, by an unnecessary liturgic reform, the laying of foundations for the "biritualism within the Roman Rite" which "Pope Francis" is now so eager to end.

1:13 "someone who will go unmentioned"
12:47 "so much for this being a defeater to Catholicism"

If you refuse your hearers the access to what you are responding to, we have no word but yours for the one you answering being an Anti-Catholic.

A Trad could have made the claim.

I think Pope Michael in an interview June last year (before he got the disabling stroke from which he did Aug 2:nd) referred to Quo Primum, might want to rewatch it.

June '22 Interview Of Pope Michael
6th July 2022 | vatican in exile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0UBHcNZu4U

[Breaking off after 1:st third or so, here]

Pray for Michael Lofton, he gave us this masterpiece:

Did Pope Leo III Deny the Filioque?
Reason & Theology, 9.II.2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWBUbAOaYMY