Logical Analysis
The final cause of the TC and RaD documents is confusion. “Confusion” is defined as “the state of being confused mentally, lacking in certainty, orderly thought” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Chicago 1966, p. 477). Rivoire writes, the documents TC and RaD introduce “disorder” (p. 43), because both documents enforce an impossible activity and the rejection of the “Missal of Pius V [1570]” (p. 53) along with the “Missals of Clement VIII [1604], Urban VIII [1634], Pius X [1920], Benedict XV [1920], Pius XII [1955] and John XXIII [1960]” (p. 54). It is impossible to reject the Missal of Pius V and six other Missals, because the Missals “are various successive states of the same rite” (p. 54). Further, it is impossible to reject the Missal of Pius V and six other Missals, because the Missals “cannot be abrogated,” (p. 66) overturned or rejected. Consequently, Rivoire writes, “The surprisingly harsh measures taken” by the authors of TC and RaD are confusing. Thus, because the documents TC and RaD enforce an impossible activity, demand the rejection of the Missals of Pius V and six other Missals, and confuses “the successive states of the same rite” (p. 54), the documents TC and RaD are deceptive
The material cause of the TC and RaD documents is powerlessness. “Power” is defined as the “possession of the ability to wield coercive force, permissive authority, or substantial influence” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Chicago 1966, p. 1779). Rivoire writes, both TC and RaD “look very much like an abuse of power” (p. 53) for five reasons. First, it is impossible to force Catholics to reject the “Missal of Pius V [1570]” (p. 53) along with the “Missals of Clement VIII [1604], Urban VIII [1634], Pius X [1920], Benedict XV [1920], Pius XII [1955] and John XXIII [1960]” (p. 54). Further, no person has the authority to destroy “the traditional Missal” (p. 71). Further, Rivoire writes, “No authority on earth has unlimited power, not even the pope” (p. 11). Further, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily” (New York 1994, no. 1125, p. 47). Further, according to Pope Benedict XVI, “The pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law” (p. 13). Therefore, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive, because the documents TC and RaD are powerless, cannot bring about the rejection of the Missal of Pius V and six other Missals, lack the authority to destroy “the traditional Missal” (p. 71), lack “unlimited power” (p. 11), lack the authority to “change the liturgy arbitrarily” (p. 47), and cannot bring about Church “laws” from committee decisions and “desires” (p. 13). Consequently, Rivoire writes, “A liturgical rite… is a juridically unavailable reality” (p. 59).
The formal cause of the TC and RaD documents is deceitful. “Deceit” is defined as “the practice of deceiving as by falsification, concealment or cheating” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Chicago 1966, p. 584). Rivoire writes, “The motu proprio Traditionis Custodies is formally disciplinary, and not doctrinal” (p. 9). The document TC does not have the approval from Church doctrine to control the use of the “Missal of Pius V [1570]” (p. 53) along with the “Missals of Clement VIII [1604], Urban VIII [1634], Pius X [1920], Benedict XV [1920], Pius XII [1955] and John XXIII [1960]” (p. 54). Further, according to Riviore, the motu proprio Traditionis Custodies “does not… constitute a legal norm” (p. 13). The document TC is not based on law. Further, according to Rivoire, the two documents TC and RaD “are general administrative documents” (p. 17). TC and RaD are weak, conditional suggestions from a manager disguised as a pope. Therefore, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive, because the documents TC and RaD are “not doctrinal” (p. 9), the documents TC and RaD lack approval from Church doctrine, the documents TC and RaD are not “legal” (p. 13) norms, the documents TC and RaD lack the force of law, and involve weak administrative documents that are deceitfully presented as strong papal documents. Riviore supports the conclusion and writes that the two documents TC and RaD are “purely administrative, and not legislative” (p. 17).
The principal agent cause of the TC and RaD documents is God the Father. “God” is defined as a “superhuman person conceived as the ruler or sovereign embodiment of some department of reality and to whom worship is due and acceptable” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Chicago 1966, p. 973). Rivoire writes, “[E]cclesiatical authority is subject to the law” (p. 76). Further, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, “[N]ec Eius lex est aliud ab ipso” – “His law is not distinct from Himself” (Summa Theologicae, I-II, 91, 1, Rep. 3; Marietti 1950, II, p. 413). Further, Rivoire writes that TC and RaD “disregard the autonomy of the ex-Ecclesia Dei institutes, and… unduly encroaches [and disturbs] on the rights of diocesan bishops, against the universal law” (p. 77). Thus, because the documents TC and RaD are not under the rule of God, are outside the department of God, and because the documents TC and RaD are administrative documents that are deceitfully presented as papal documents but lack respect due to God, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive.
The preparing agent cause of the TC and RaD documents is disrespect. “Respect” is defined as “as an act of noticing with attention and the giving of particular attention” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Chicago 1966, p. 1934). Rivoire writes, “[T]he pope… is obviously bound to respect divine law” (p. 12). Every Bishop of Rome must be prepared to give particular attention to the divine law. On the contrary, a man who rejects divine law cannot become a suitable bishop. Further, according to Pope Benedict XVI (Communio, 1977), “Liturgy does not come about through regulation” (p. 34). No administrative regulations have the power to bring about the Missal of Pius V and six other Missals. Thus, because the documents TC and RaD do not give particular attention to divine law, and because the documents TC and RaD do not respect how liturgy grows independently of administrative regulations, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive.
The assisting agent cause of the TC and RaD documents is a Catholic bishop. “Bishop” is defined as “a clergyman of the highest order in the Christian churches usually charged with an administrative function such as the supervision of a diocese” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Chicago 1966, p. 221). Rivoire writes, “[B]ishops are not vicars of the pope, but rather vicars of Christ for their particular Church” (p. 75). Every suitable Bishop understands the difference between “administrative” and “legislative” documents. Further, Rivoire writes, “Under canon 87, no. 1, there is nothing to prevent a diocesan bishop from dispensing, for the good of the faithful, from certain provisions of TC, in particular from article 3 no. 2, which prohibits celebrations in parish churches” (p. 75). All Catholic bishops have the power to assist and protect the Catholic men in their dioceses from administrative documents that are deceitfully presented as papal documents. Thus, because the documents TC and RaD are causing confusion among some Catholic bishops who fail to understand the difference between administrative and legislative documents, and because the documents TC and RaD cause some Bishops to fail in using their power to warn Catholics about administrative documents that are deceitfully presented as papal documents, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive.
The instrumental agent cause of the TC and RaD documents is law. “Law” is defined as “a rule or mode of conduct or action that is prescribed or formally recognized as binding by a supreme controlling authority” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Chicago 1966, p. 1279). Rivoire writes, “It is perfectly irrational to invoke TC… to prohibit the use of liturgical books” (p. 15). The rules and modes of conduct in TC promoted by the supreme controller at the Vatican in Rome are “irrational” and not binding. Further, Rivoire writes, “[T]he accompanying letter [RaD]… does not constitute a legal norm, nor is it binding on those to whom the law is addressed” (p. 13). The rules in RaD from the supreme authority at the Vatican in Rome are irrational, confusing and not binding. Thus, because the documents TC and RaD are irrational and cannot be recognized as binding, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive.
The counseling agent of the TC and RaD documents is Rev. Reginald Marie Rivoire, FSVF, a competent authority on canon law. Rivoire writes, “[T]he Missal of Paul VI went far beyond the conciliar mandate, creating liturgy ex novo, in discontinuity… with the tradition represented by the Missal of St. Pius V” and “with the very will of the Conciliar Fathers” (p. 24) of Vatican Council II. TC and RaD are breaking the liturgical continuity with one Missal and one Church Council. Further, Rivoire writes that TC and RaD acknowledge the existence of two rites from both Pius V and Paul VI. However, their “mistake is to want to prohibit one of the two” (p. 61). Thus, TC and RaD are powerless, because TC and RaD accepts the Missal of Paul VI and then rejects the “Missal of Pius V [1570]” (p. 53) along with the “Missals of Clement VIII [1604], Urban VIII [1634], Pius X [1920], Benedict XV [1920], Pius XII [1955] and John XXIII [1960]” (p. 54). Further, according to “Sacrosanctum Consilium” (December 4, 1963, paragraph four), “[I]n faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity” (p. 82). Equality belongs to the “Missal of Pius V [1570]” (p. 53) along with the “Missals of Clement VIII [1604], Urban VIII [1634], Pius X [1920], Benedict XV [1920], Pius XII [1955] and John XXIII [1960]” (p. 54). Every Missal listed above is an equal part of tradition and every Catholic is bound to recognize, obey and respect every Missal listed above. Thus, because the documents TC and RaD are not faithful to tradition, reject some Missals in the Church, and disrespect the dignity and equality of the Missal of Pius V and six other Missals, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive
The induction from examining the TC and RaD documents is feeling of doubt. “Doubt” is defined as “a state of affairs giving rise to uncertainty, hesitation or suspense” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Chicago 1966, p. 679). Riviore refers to Geraldina Boni who writes, “[P]rovisions, drafted without appropriate legal terminology and coherence with the legal order, create doubts and problems” (p. 8). Rules that are confusing (final cause), powerless (material cause), deceitful (formal cause), disrespectful of universal law (principal agent cause), disrespectful of divine law (preparing agent cause), administrative and not legislative (assisting agent), irrational (instrumental agent cause) and promoting inequality (counseling agent cause) will trigger doubt and suspense in Catholics. Further, Rivoire writes, “[I]t would be easy to show how… the present pontificate is characterized by… a concentration of power in the pope’s hands, unparalleled in the post-conciliar era” (p. 68). Hence, TC and RaD bring about doubt and suspense is “easy to show” (p. 68). Thus, because the documents TC and RaD create doubts, increase problems and increase uncertainty, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive,
The history of the TC and RaD documents is a failure. “Failure” is defined as “a deficiency” and “the fact of being cumulatively inadequate or not matching hopes or expectations” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Chicago 1966, p. 815). Rivoire writes, “The history of canon law does not lack examples of laws that quickly fell into disuse because they were not adequate to the social reality they were intended to order” (p. 82). The documents TC and RaD are failures, because the documents TC and RaD command that Bishops and priests “replace the Missal of Saint Pius V” with “the entire Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI” (p. 52). However, some Catholic Churches today continue to use the “Missal of Pius V [1570]” (p. 53) along with the “Missals of Clement VIII [1604], Urban VIII [1634], Pius X [1920], Benedict XV [1920], Pius XII [1955] and John XXIII [1960]” (p. 54). As a result, the documents TC and RaD do not match the hopes of some Catholics. Further, the documents TC and RaD are deficient, because both TC and RaD command “a kind of ban on what had existed before, a ban, moreover, never seen in juridical and liturgical history” (p. 40). Making an administrative rule that commands Bishops and priests to stop using the Missal of Pius V and six other Missals is a failed product never seen before in “liturgical history” (p. 40). Thus, because the documents TC and RaD fail to match the hopes of some Catholics and fail to find support in history, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive
The analogy supporting the TC and RaD documents is absurd. “Absurd” is defined as “marked by an obvious lack of reason; ridiculously unreasonable” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Chicago 1966, p. 8). Rivoire writes, “It would be absurd to argue that the promulgation of the ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church’ obrogated’ and prohibited the ‘Catechism of the Council of Trent’ (p. 58). It would be absurd and ridiculous to require all Catholics to reject the Catechisms of Pope Pius V [1566], Pope Clement VIII [1597], Cardinal Gibbons [1876], Pope Pius X [1908], and Bishop Morrow [1949] and to accept the Catechism of Pope John II [1994] alone. Similarly, it would be absurd and unreasonable to demand that all Catholics reject the “Missal of Pius V [1570]” (p. 53) along with the “Missals of Clement VIII [1604], Urban VIII [1634], Pius X [1920], Benedict XV [1920], Pius XII [1955] and John XXIII [1960]” (p. 54) and to accept the “Missal of Paul VI” (p. 24) alone. Thus, because the documents TC and RaD are require all Catholics to do something that is rdiculous, unreasonable and absurd, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive.
The message signified by the TC and RaD documents is a neglect of liturgical growth. “Neglect” is defined as “a failure to to give full or proper attention to something or someone that has claim to one’s attention” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Chicago 1966, p. 1513). Rivoire writes, the RaD document fails to respect the General Regulation of the Roman Curia, because the RaD document fails to give full attention to rule 131 §7 in the “Regolamento Generale della Cura Romana” which states the following: “[D]ocuments issued by the Dicastery must be countersigned by their Secretary.” Rivoire writes, “It was not respected in the case at hand” (p. 16, note 20). Further, the TC document fails to give proper attention to the history of the diverse liturgies in the Church. Rivoire writes, the author of TC “treats a liturgical rite of many centuries’ standing as if it were a purely disciplinary matter” (p. 23). Further, the TC document fails to give full attention the rights and legal boundaries of every Catholic. Rivoire writes, the TC document “shows little regard for the fundamental right of the faithful to follow their own rite and spirituality” (p. 78). Further, the TC and RaD documents fail to respect the Code of Canon Law. According to Canon Law, 214, “The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescripts of their own rite approved by the legitimate pastors of the Church and to follow their own form of spiritual life so long as it is consonant with the doctrine of the Church.” However, the TC and RaD documents tell the “faithful” that they do not “have the right to worship God according to the prescripts of their own rite,” since the TC and RaD reject the “Missal of Pius V [1570]” (p. 53) along with the “Missals of Clement VIII [1604], Urban VIII [1634], Pius X [1920], Benedict XV [1920], Pius XII [1955] and John XXIII [1960]” (p. 54). Further, the TC document fails to give full attention the force of law. Rivoire writes how some faithful Catholics follow the “axiom ‘ad impossibilia nemo tenetur’ – ‘no one is bound to do the impossible” (p. 80, note 108). Thus, because the documents TC and RaD fail to show respect for the General Regulations of the Roman Curia, the history of liturgical growth, the Code of Canon Law, and the force of law, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive.
The motive for the TC and RaD documents is fantasy. “Fantasy” is defined as “an idea with no basis in reality” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Chicago 1966, p. 823). Rivoire writes, “Some bishops have thus been able to give free rein to their fantasy” (p. 71). Because the TC and RaD documents promotes rules that are confusing (final cause), powerless (material cause), deceitful (formal cause), disrespectful of universal law (principal agent), disrespectful of divine law (preparing agent cause), administrative and not legislative (assisting agent), irrational (instrumental agent cause), mistaken (counseling agent cause), uncertain (induction), failures (history), absurd (analogy), and neglectful (sign), the TC and RaD documents motivate some Catholic leaders to become illogical by assenting to TC and RaD. Plus, the TC and RaD documents motivate some Catholic leaders to become unethical by enforcing TC and RaD. Further, Riviore writes that some Bishops allow the the “Missal of Pius V [1570]” (p. 53) along with the “Missals of Clement VIII [1604], Urban VIII [1634], Pius X [1920], Benedict XV [1920], Pius XII [1955] and John XXIII [1960]” (p. 54) “only on certain days of the week, or on certain Sundays of the month, or only in certain places, or without the faithful, or during vacation time only” (p. 71). Illogical Catholic leaders have concluded that time and place alone determine the use of the Missals. Further, Rivoire writes, “It is therefore difficult to see how this interpretation could be binding” (p. 73). Thus, because the documents TC and RaD are motivated by fantasies and myths, and because the documents TC and RaD motivate some Catholic leaders to become illogical and unethical, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive.
The passion influencing the TC and RaD documents is fear. “Fear” is defined as “an unpleasant emotional state characterized by anticipation of pain or great distress” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Chicago 1966, p. 831). Rivoire writes, “[O]ne aspect of the new provisions which has not failed to surprise canonists is the lack of a ‘vacatio legis,’ i.e., a period of time between the promulgation of the law and its coming into force” (p. 78). The TC and RaD documents do not include the rational “vacatio legis,” probably because the writers of the TC and RaD documents feel pain and distress while encouraging Catholics to reject the Missal of Pius V and six other Missals in Church history. Further, Rivoire writes, “[C]anonists consider that such reduction of the time period can usually be justified only by some need to act quickly in order to put an end to a dangerous situation” (p. 79). The documents TC and RaD enforce non-legal and administrative rules “quickly,” because the writers of the documents TC and RaD seem to be fearful of “a dangerous situation” where Catholics enjoy the “Missal of Pius V” (p. 53) as well as the “Missals of Clement VIII, Urban VIII, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XII and John XXIII” (p. 54) in every place and at all times, seven days a week and in every country. Thus, because the documents TC and RaD are influenced by an irrational fear of the real equality of the diverse liturgical rites in the Catholic Church, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive.
The statistic of thirteen percent (13% ) shows that the TC and RaD documents are erroneous. Rivoire writes, “As research demonstrates, ‘a mere 13% (165) of the 1,273 prayers of the ‘uses antiquior’ found their way unchanged into the reformed Missal of Paul VI” (p. 24). Thirteen percent of the prayers from the “Missal of Pius V [1570]” (p. 53) along with the “Missals of Clement VIII [1604], Urban VIII [1634], Pius X [1920], Benedict XV [1920], Pius XII [1955] and John XXIII [1960]” (p. 54) are located in the “modern rite” (p. 82). As a result, a statement in the document TC is false, since a statement in the document TC claims that a person “can find in the reformed Roman Missal according to Vatican Council II all the elements of the Roman Rite” (para. 7). It is false to state that the terms “all” and 100% are the same as “some” and 13%. Thus, because the documents TC and RaD are based on the false premise where the weak statistic of 13% is identical and equal to the strong statistic of 100%, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive
I shall now use my freedom to review the reasons in the above deliberation. Hmm… All the reasons above are good. I shall now use my freedom to chose my two favorite reasons. I have decided that I prefer the material cause and the passion. I shall now use my freedom to make a command. Because the documents TC and RaD lack the power to “change the liturgy arbitrarily” (p. 47) and are influenced by an irrational fear of the real equality of the diverse liturgical rites in the Catholic Church, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive.
The first objection to the conclusion above asserts that the documents TC and RaD are not deceptive, because every act of the pope’s magisterium is honest and not deceptive. Further, “this motu proprio is an act of the pope’s magisterium” (p. 8). Consequently, the documents TC and RaD are correct. However, the response to the first objection is to state the obvious. Fr. Rivoire writes, “In and of itself, a motu proprio is not an act of the magisterial power” (p. 8).
The second objection to the conclusion above asserts that the documents TC and RaD are not deceptive, because the the documents TC and RaD use both “the power of magisterium (or teaching) and the power of jurisdiction (or government) in the Church” (p. 10). Consequently, the documents TC and RaD are correct and must “obtain the obedience” of every Catholic man (p. 10). However, the response to the second objection is to state the obvious. Fr. Riviore writes, “To teach is not to command” (p. 10).
The third objection to the conclusion above asserts that the documents TC and RaD are not deceptive, because “Pius V had made the reformed Missal obligatory under his authority” (p. 53) just as TC and RaD are making the Missal of Paul VI obligatory under the pope’s authority. However, the response to the third objection is to state the obvious. Fr. Riviore writes that Pius V’s speech “was merely a papal speech, and cannot be considered as a juridical abrogation” (p. 53).
The fourth objection to the conclusion above asserts that the documents TC and RaD are not deceptive, because “a law is never more than the expression of the will of him who holds legislative power” (p. 59). Consequently, the documents TC and RaD are correct and are promoted by the person who holds legislative power in the Church. However, the response to the fourth objection is to state the obvious. Fr. Rivoire writes, “A liturgical rite… is a juridically unavailable reality” (p. 59).
Therefore, because the documents TC and RaD are not acts of the pope’s magisterium, cannot command the obedience of all Catholics, cannot legitimately “abrogate” and abolish the “Missal of Pius V [1570]” (p. 53) along with the “Missals of Clement VIII [1604], Urban VIII [1634], Pius X [1920], Benedict XV [1920], Pius XII [1955] and John XXIII [1960]” (p. 54), and lacks the power to cancel diverse liturgical rites in the Church, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive.
Ethical Analysis
An ethical person with a clear conscience will acknowledge how the diverse Missals within the Catholic Church complement each other. “Complementary” is defined as “suggestive of completion and perfection brought about by supplementing units” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Chicago 1966, p. 464). Rivoire writes, “[H]eirarchical communities are complementary to Dioceses” (p. 84). Every person who participates in liturgies using the “Missal of Pius V [1570]” (p. 53) along with the “Missals of Clement VIII [1604], Urban VIII [1634], Pius X [1920], Benedict XV [1920], Pius XII [1955] and John XXIII [1960]” (p. 54) completes and perfects the Church. Riviore writes, “Hundreds of thousands of lay faithful throughout the world, thousands of priests, seminarians, and religious men and women, feel attached to… the centuries-old Roman Rite” (p. 81). Therefore, because the documents TC and RaD destroy the complementary parts in the Church and reject the unity in diversity in the Church brought about by the supplementing communities involving millions of Catholic, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive.
An ethical person with the moral virtue of continence must show obedience to the canonical works of previous popes in history. “Canonical” is defined as “conforming to a general rule” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Chicago 1966, p. 328). Rivoire writes, “Institutes have been founded and canonically recognized on the basis of their permanent and exclusive attachment to this [centuries old Roman] rite” (p. 81). Some Catholics have been given permission by previous popes to become attached to the “Missal of Pius V [1570]” (p. 53) along with the “Missals of Clement VIII [1604], Urban VIII [1634], Pius X [1920], Benedict XV [1920], Pius XII [1955] and John XXIII [1960]” (p. 54). Because their attachment various Missals is canonical, their attachment to various Missals cannot be removed. Rivorie writes, “It cannot be abrogated” (p. 81). Therefore, because the documents TC and RaD disobey the canonical works of a diversity of popes in history, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive.
An ethical person with a good memory must try to recall the organic nature of the Roman Rite. “Organic” is defined as “constituting a whole whose parts are mutually dependent or intrinsically related” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Chicago 1966, p. 1590). Rivoire writes, “This is what Msgr. Gamber maintained:… Every liturgical rite constitutes an organically developed, homogenous unit” (p. 49). The “Missals of Clement VIII [1604], Urban VIII [1634], Pius X [1920], Benedict XV [1920], Pius XII [1955] and John XXIII [1960]” (p. 54) are mutually dependent upon the “Missal of Pius V [1570]” (p. 53). Consequently, the “centuries-old Roman Rite” (p. 81) is intrinsically related to the seven Missals listed above and organically developed from them. Therefore, because the documents TC and RaD fail to recall the organic nature of the Roman Rite and attempt to remove the intrinsic parts in the traditional seven Missals from new Missal of Pope Paul VI. Consequently, the new Missal of Pope Paul VI is artificial, non-organic and destructive, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive.
An ethical person with an understanding of law is required to acknowledge the necessity special laws. “Special” is defined as “supplemental to the regular and extra” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Chicago 1966, p. 2186). Rivoire writes, “In the Church, the existence of an ordinary regime of law does not exclude… the existence of special regimes of law. Special law must be considered by as as being in force” (p. 65-66). All special laws supplementing regular laws must necessarily be acknowledged and respected, since all special laws have the force of the ordinary regime of law. Further, the management of the “Missal of Pius V [1570]” (p. 53) along with the “Missals of Clement VIII [1604], Urban VIII [1634], Pius X [1920], Benedict XV [1920], Pius XII [1955] and John XXIII [1960]” (p. 54) is governed by special laws, such as the “Protocol Agreement of May 5, 1988” from “the Holy See” (p. 65). Therefore, because the documents TC and RaD fail to acknowledge the necessity of special laws within an ordinary regime of law, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive
An ethical person with an understanding of law must acknowledge the impossibility of abrogating and overturning some laws. “Abrogate” is defines as “to abolish by authoritative or formal action” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Chicago 1966, p. 6). Rivoire writes, “[W]e have shown [that] the traditional Roman Missal… cannot be abrogated” (p. 66). It is impossible to abrogate and abolish the “Missal of Pius V” (p. 53) as well as the “Missals of Clement VIII, Urban VIII, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XII and John XXIII” (p. 54). Therefore, because the documents TC and RaD fail to understand that it is impossible to abrogate and abolish special laws within an ordinary regime of law, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive.
An ethical person with an awareness of legal possibilities will acknowledge the possibility of Catholics becoming loyal subjects to Canon Law when using the traditional Roman Missals. “Subject” is defined as “one that is placed under the authority, dominion or influence of someone or something” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Chicago 1966, p. 2275). Rivoire writes, “Groups of faithful… would remain subject to the Code of Canon Law with due regard for the special discipline enjoyed by their hierarchical communities” (p. 84). Every Catholic person is subject to the Code of Canon Law and placed under the authority of Canon Law. And because every person using the “Missal of Pius V [1570]” (p. 53) along with the “Missals of Clement VIII [1604], Urban VIII [1634], Pius X [1920], Benedict XV [1920], Pius XII [1955] and John XXIII [1960]” (p. 54) remains subject to the Code of Canon Law, every person who uses the traditional Roman Missals is authentic Catholic. Therefore, because the documents TC and RaD fail to acknowledge the rights of some authentic Catholics with special rites, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive.
An ethical person with the ability to learn new things is required to acknowledge the nature of the liturgy. “Nature” is defined as “the essential character or constitution of something” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Chicago 1966, p. 1507). Rivoire writes, “[A] pontifical liturgical law which does not respect the very nature of the liturgy would not be a law” (p. 47). If a person makes rules about the traditional Roman Missals without understanding the essential character of the liturgy, then the rules about the traditional Roman Missals become confusing (final cause), powerless (material cause), deceitful (formal cause), disrespectful of universal law (principal agent), disrespectful of divine law (preparing agent cause), administrative and not legislative (assisting agent), irrational (instrumental agent cause), mistaken (counseling agent cause), uncertain (induction), failures (history), absurd (analogy), and neglectful (sign), mythical (motive), fearful (passion), statistically tiny (statistic), destructive (conscience), disobedient (continence), destructive (memory), fail to acknowledge the necessity of special laws (necessary), and impossible. Therefore, because the documents TC and RaD fail to acknowledge essential character of the liturgy, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive.
An ethical person who is good a making conjectures must acknowledge the privation of legality in the documents TC and RaD. “Legality” is defined as “attachment to or observance of law” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Chicago 1966, p. 1290). Rivoire writes, “It would seem, therefore, that the principle of legality is not respected” (p. 76). Nothing that is detached from Canon Law has legality in the Catholic Church. However, the document TC makes a “firm decision” (paragraph 10) that is detached from Canon Law. Further, the document RaD “exercises… authority” (paragraph 15) that is detached from Canon Law. Therefore, because the documents TC and RaD have a privation and lack legality, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive.
An ethical person who is reasonable will acknowledge that the “traditional Roman Missal” (p. 66) preserves and strengthens orthodoxy. “Orthodoxy” is defined as “conformity to an official formulation of truth” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Chicago 1966, p. 1290). Rivoire writes that the traditional Roman Missals are “an irreplaceable richness of the Latin tradition and a bulwark of doctrinal orthodoxy” (p. 81). The “Missal of Pius V [1570]” (p. 53) along with the “Missals of Clement VIII [1604], Urban VIII [1634], Pius X [1920], Benedict XV [1920], Pius XII [1955] and John XXIII [1960]” (p. 54) preserve Church history and defend official Church formulas. However, the documents TC and RaD try to abolish and stop the traditional Roman missals. Therefore, because the documents TC and RaD do not preserve Church history and do not defend the official formulas of the Church, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive.
An ethical person with foresight is required to acknowledge that the traditional Roman Missal is permanent and will not disappear. “Disappear” is defined as “to cease to be and become lost” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Chicago 1966, p. 642). Rivoire writes, the “centuries-old Roman Rite… will not disappear” (pp. 81, 82). The traditional Roman Missal is “centuries-old” and includes the “Missal of Pius V [1570]” (p. 53) along with the “Missals of Clement VIII [1604], Urban VIII [1634], Pius X [1920], Benedict XV [1920], Pius XII [1955] and John XXIII [1960]” (p. 54) which must remain in the heart if the Church. Rivoire writes, the traditional Roman Missal “will remain ‘in sinu Ecclesia’” (p. 82). Therefore, because the documents TC and RaD lack foresight, neglect the “centuries-old Roman Rite” in the Church and will fail to influence Catholics in the future, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive.
An ethical person with circumspection must acknowledge that real contrast between the traditional Roman rites and the new rite of Paul VI. “Contrast” is defined as “comparison of like objects by mean of which dissimilar qualities are made prominent” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Chicago 1966, p. 496). Rivoire writes, “[T]he Pontiff contrasted the ‘Roman Missal’ with the ‘new rite’” (p. 33). Pope Paul VI acknowledged a contrast and difference between the Roman Missal and the new rite. However, the letter accompanying the document TC does not acknowledge a contrast between the Roman Missal and the new rite. According to the letter accompanying the document TC, a person “can find in the reformed Roman Missal according to Vatican Council II all the elements of the Roman Rite” (para. 7). If “all the elements on the Roman Rite” are included in the new rite, then Pope Paul VI was wrong to contrast and write about the dissimilar qualities between the ‘Roman Missal’ with the ‘new rite.’ Therefore, because the documents TC and RaD lack circumspection and fail to acknowledge Pope Paul VI’s statement concerning contrast and dissimilar qualities in the traditional Roman missals and the new rite, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive
An ethical person with caution will acknowledge that the Church cannot forbid traditional Missals. “Forbid” is defined as “to exclude or warn off from by express command” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Chicago 1966, p. 496). Rivoire refers to the statement by Pope Benedict XVI as follows, “The authority of the Church has the power to define and limit the use of such rites…, but She never just purely and simply forbids them” (p. 60). However, the document RaD forbids a traditional Missal. According to RaD, “[T]he Missal prior to the reform of 1970” may not be used “in the parochial churches.” Further, according to RaD, “[S]uch a celebration should not be included in the parish Mass schedule” (Q1, paragraph 3). Therefore, because the documents RaD lacks caution and fails to acknowledge that it is impossible to forbid the the “Missal of Pius V (1570)” (p. 53) along with the “Missals of Clement VIII (1604), Urban VIII (1634), Pius X (1920), Benedict XV (1920), Pius XII (1955) and John XXIII (1960)” (p. 54) in some parish churches, the documents TC and RaD are deceptive.
Final remarks. If “God writes straight with crooked lines” (p. 86), then every cloud has a silver lining. And the cloud of deceptive documents from Rome, Italy, help us appreciate the silver lining the solid clouds of Dominican Friars in Chemere-le-Roi, France.
© By Theodore Faulders, January 20, 2023.