Can a pope promulgate bad liturgy?

[eelpis]

Because a pope who becomes a heretic ceases to be pope.

The OF is neither heretical nor harmful. Abuses are harmful to the Church and also to the world because all graces come to us through the Mass (The sacrifice of Calvary.)

 

[AlexV]

Did I ever say it was? Nope. And by the way, “harmful” only applies to the Latin editio typica…not to the whole host of practices that have come to typify the modern liturgy in so many places.

 

[SFD]

Yes, and “ordinary magisterium”, like “infallibility”, is a tad bit more limited in scope than some would have us believe.

Actually, it is very broad in scope contrary to what many believe today. Who teaches us the “scope” of the infallibility of the Church and of the Pope?

Where do you go to learn about it?

SFD

 

[AlexV]

This thread is about “bad liturgy”. Something tells me that an age that ends up worrying near obsessively over what’s infallible, what’s not, an age that reduces liturgy to “whatever the pope, or my bishop, or my pastor says goes”, is an age that isn’t going to produce another Palestrina, or Mozart, or Michelangelo for the Church to patronize for the glory of her liturgy.

Every age gets the liturgy it deserves. And we’re in a real liturgical wasteland, by and large.

 

[peary1]

The term Novus Ordo is a perjorative term for the Mass of Paul VI that was coined by the SSPX. Novus Ordo is not an official term for the mass. The use of a term that is meant to disparage the mass should not be allowed on this forum. In my opinion, the use of the term Novus Ordo is insulting and immoral.

Huh? It was referred to as the Novus Ordo Missa when I was a kid…over 40 years ago. Where are you coming from?

 

[AlexV]

It’s false to say the SSPX coined the term “Novus Ordo Missae”.

I have a nice mint copy of the original printing of the Ordinary of the Mass from the Vatican, and it is neatly stamped “Novus Ordo Missae” in gold on red.

Did the SSPX secretly print those to discredit poor, much-maligned Pope Paul?

Bugnini coined the term, as his memoirs reveal.

 

[SFD]

Quite right! Even Archbishop Lefebvre said the New Mass isn’t invalid or heretical.

Pax Christi tecum.

No, what he (Archbp. Lefebvre) said was that we need not make a judgment on the Novus Ordo…that he left for the Church to do. He also said TO AVOID IT as well. Those two things are perfectly compatible when one takes a minimalist position.

SFD

 

[AlexV]

Well c. 1975, if you wanted the Roman Mass the way it had been celebrated for centuries, you were derided as a kook, a disobedient outsider, who knows what. Finally some modicum of sanity has returned.

 

[SFD]

This thread is about “bad liturgy”. Something tells me that an age that ends up worrying near obsessively over what’s infallible, what’s not, an age that reduces liturgy to “whatever the pope, or my bishop, or my pastor says goes”, is an age that isn’t going to produce another Palestrina, or Mozart, or Michelangelo for the Church to patronize for the glory of her liturgy.

Every age gets the liturgy it deserves. And we’re in a real liturgical wasteland, by and large.

So you don’t know where to learn about it…which means you’ve yet to read any Catholic sources that discuss this explicitly. Is that right?

SFD

 

[AlexV]

Don’t presume (something lots of people seem to do on this forum). My education in Catholic theology and philosophy was quite sound…and not dependent on the apologetics-by-converts crash course many seem to flaunt these days.

 

[SFD]

I would wager the majority of Catholics in the West were ignoring the already-existing bans on artificial contraception long before Humanae Vitae. And, indeed, with all the other changes afoot, the ever-contradictory Paul VI might well have surprised not a few with his refusal to budge on artificial contraception while appearing to budge on everything else.

BUT…it’s always been about the liturgy. The average Catholic connects with the Church through LITURGY. You can’t radically change the way people pray and expect there not to be massive problems.

Of course you don’t have any proof of this statement…nor is it truly relevant. The issue of ABC was settled definitively in 1930 by Pope Pius XI in Castii Connubii.

Both artificial birth control and abortion were condemned in Casti Connubii, Pope Pius XI, Dec 31, 1930. These condemnations are contained in Denzinger 2239 thru 2244. Denzinger is of course, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, 1954. This should be enough for any Catholic.

The following is the text from Casti Connubii, which comprises Denzinger 2239, 2240, and 2241, under the heading “The Abuse of Matrimony”:

1. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify* this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances .

54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

1. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”[45]

56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

57. We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions and others who have the care of souls, in virtue of Our supreme authority and in Our solicitude for the salvation of souls, not to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this most grave law of God; much more, that they keep themselves immune from such false opinions, in no way conniving in them. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words of Christ: "They are blind and leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.[46]

1. As regards the evil use of matrimony, to pass over the arguments which are shameful, not infrequently others that are false and exaggerated are put forward. Holy Mother Church very well understands and clearly appreciates all that is said regarding the health of the mother and the danger to her life. And who would not grieve to think of these things? Who is not filled with the greatest admiration when he sees a mother risking her life with heroic fortitude, that she may preserve the life of the offspring which she has conceived? God alone, all bountiful and all merciful as He is, can reward her for the fulfillment of the office allotted to her by nature, and will assuredly repay her in a measure full to overflowing.[47]

1. Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin. Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

1. We are deeply touched by the sufferings of those parents who, in extreme want, experience great difficulty in rearing their children.

1. However, they should take care lest the calamitous state of their external affairs should be the occasion for a much more calamitous error. No difficulty can arise that justifies the putting aside of the law of God which forbids all acts intrinsically evil. There is no possible circumstance in which husband and wife cannot, strengthened by the grace of God, fulfill faithfully their duties and preserve in wedlock their chastity unspotted. This truth of Christian Faith is expressed by the teaching of the Council of Trent. “Let no one be so rash as to assert that which the Fathers of the Council have placed under anathema, namely, that there are precepts of God impossible for the just to observe. God does not ask the impossible, but by His commands, instructs you to do what you are able, to pray for what you are not able that He may help you.”[48]

SFD

 

[AlexV]

Spare us the spam-like quotes; I am well aware of Casti Conubii, and have read it (in Latin, for that matter).

Indeed, given Casti Conubii, what need was there for Paul’s 1968 encyclical? The former is better written from a stylistic point of view, incidentally.

 

[SFD]

Don’t presume (something lots of people seem to do on this forum). My education in Catholic theology and philosophy was quite sound…and not dependent on the apologetics-by-converts crash course many seem to flaunt these days.

I’m not presuming anything Alex. I’m asking what books have you read on this subject? What sources can we agree upon to settle this dispute?

SFD

 

[AlexV]

There’s no dispute here, save the glaring fact this is a thread about BAD LITURGY and not papal infallibility or artifical contraception.

 

[SFD]

Spare us the spam-like quotes; I am well aware of Casti Conubii, and have read it (in Latin, for that matter).

Indeed, given Casti Conubii, what need was there for Paul’s 1968 encyclical? The former is better written from a stylistic point of view, incidentally.

No, Alex, the real question is why was a “theological commission” allowed to “study” the issue when is was already settled?

Just admit to yourself that you don’t know everything.

SFD

 

[SFD]

There’s no dispute here, save the glaring fact this is a thread about BAD LITURGY and not papal infallibility or artifical contraception.

So you haven’t read any books…that’s what I thought.

SFD

 

[AlexV]

More (rather arrogant) presumption. Did I say I knew everything? Nope.

As for your commission question, you’d have to ask Paul VI.

 

[AlexV]

Thanks for still more presumption with your assertion I’ve read no books, just because I choose not to provide you with a bibliography of my Catholic theology and philosophy reading.

 

[SFD]

More (rather arrogant) presumption. Did I say I knew everything? Nope.

As for your commission question, you’d have to ask Paul VI.

It’s about the infallibility of the Church. I was making the point that you don’t know the extents of the infallibility of the Church. You haven’t read or studied too much about it have you?

SFD

 

[SFD]

Thanks for still more presumption with your assertion I’ve read no books, just because I choose not to provide you with a bibliography of my Catholic theology and philosophy reading.

What sources can we agree upon to settle this dispute?

SFD