Can a pope promulgate bad liturgy?

[otjm]

And try reading what I wrote. I’m not trying to prove what you say here…I’m merely trying to use Catholic principles to analyze the two forms.

and I have no problem with analysis. What I have a problem with is using too little in the way of facts to try to reach a conclusion; too often what one ends up with is an esoteric answer that relates not particularly well with reality.

But you provide no evidence for this idea. Tell us why then, that the catechisms were destroyed and replaced with new ones that were “less doctrinal”. The Church says that “The Law of Prayer is The Law of Belief”.

The older I get, the more I realize that the study of history is a dry academic exercise that makes for an exteremely poor understanding of what was happening at any time. You are asking me to explain a plethora of events that you want to reduce to a simplistic pattern, and voial! out pops your answer.

Vatican 2 did not exist in a vacuum, but to listen to those who object to it is to listen to people who have zilch for understanding what was happening in the world, and to listen to people who think there is some simplistic answer to what motivated anyone, some of the people, or all of the people at any given moment. People lived life at the time, and life was more than what was going on in Rome. People knew not a whole lot about the day to day activities in Rome; what they heard was primarily through the secular media (the Catholic media not being anywhere near as widespread as it is today, and the average Catholic today not particularly acquainted with it now - take that back and the average Catholciic then had precious little to rely on). Bishops then were more involved in what was going on in Rome (hint - that is where they were), and they were not particularly adept at getting anything out to the people in the pews. What came out of Rome was mish-mash of secularly reported information. Most of the people in the pews were not at all sophisiticated about Church matters; their knowledge of the faith might include 8 grades of Baltimore Catechism and not much else, and many didn’t have that much. There was a strong feeling in the Church, above the parish level, that most Catholics might know rote answers to faith, but faith too often consisted of rote answers, little or no understanding of what the OT and the NT had to say about anything, and little or no real connection between attending Mass on Sunday and daily life. Vatican 2 wanted, among other things, to deal with that.

What spun out of that is that people - liberals and others - took off to the races; they had little or no supervision by bishops, themselves often more involved in the corporate aspects of the Church than in the pastoral aspects - and it is still thus in many dioceses - and in what often was an honest but seriously misguided attempt, catechisms and religious instructions moved away from doctrinal memorization and towards what the Gospels call us to do - to be leaven in the world. The attempt was to teach the social Gospel. What we ended up was with the social, but without the Gospel. That it failed and failed miserably we can see now in 40 years of hindsight. What they did was throw the baby out with the bathwater. We still have Catholics who get seriously angry when challenged that they need to be guided by the Gospel in the world out there - the world of national politics, the world of immigration issues, the world of civil and criminal law, the world of poverty - economic, moral, social, and every other type of poverty. Some of the people leading that charge to change catechesis were of very good will, and not entirely off the point. Some were of questionable integrity, to put it mildly; the Church has had those in every age who want to change it to their own image and likeness. Clericalism was widespread; that is not to say that all bishops and priests were clericalists, but clericalism still is pervasive in the Church, and if you don’t believe that, re-read what has gone on over the sexual abuse crisis. And as things were starting to trickle down about Vatican 2, life went nuclear over the issue of the Pill. The abrupt and immediate reaction to the Pill from theologians, some bishops, priests and laity was immediate, widespread, highly emotionally charged, and did more to bring dissent into the Church than any changes in the Mass. In one fell swoop, people - hugh amounts of people - were convinced that Rome was isolated, out of touch, simply didn’t “get it”, off in their own world, caught up in an esoteric intellectual argument that had no realitonship to reality… fill in the blank. That one issue did more to disrupt the faithful, and the faith, than anything that has occured since at least the Protestant reformation; and it did it far mor rapidly than the reformation. At once, the collective wisdom of the Church was put under the scope and found lacking by a vast multitude of people. And the bishops stood by while Rome burned… Paul 6th begged the bishops to do somthing to reign in the theologians who were leading the charge, and they did - what? About as much as they have done over the mandatum. There was a massive failure on the part of many, if not most bishops to do anything but dither. One Cardinal was set to lower the boom, and Rome called him off.

And once Rome’s decision, and decision making ability was called into question, it was a mere step from there to start questioning any and everything that Rome said about anything else.

And as I have tried to point out, the bishops who couldn’t or wouldn’t deal with the rebellion in their ranks over the Pill were not any more eager to deal with catechetical teachings that were going lame. That is, if they even personally knew what was happening.

The Church was seen by many as a force telling them what they could and could not do. Once the rebellion broke about wether or not they could use the Pill, it was an extemely short step to saying that the Church had little or no authority to tell them what they could do in another area of life.

And that is a very short, truncated note about what was going on in the 60’s. In the US, we had the civil rights pot that had bveen coming to a boil. TV was relatively new to many; and it was more than a bit shocking to see the police dogs and the water cannons turned on people who wanted something as simple as being able to go to a school or a lunch counter and not be refused simply because of the color of their skin. We had the Viet Nam war, and if you think a lot of people have been killed in Iraq, you might want to revist how many we lost over there, how long we were involved, and how the US turned from complacent acceptance of our need to be there to outright rebellion about it. Neither Vatican 2 nor the subsequent rebellion over the Pill happened in a vacuum; society at large was going through a massive change in beliefs and in attitudes towards authority. The Church, the Pill, changes in catechesis all were impacted by the radical shifts in society in general towards authority, towards change and towards beliefs.

 

[SFD]

and I have no problem with analysis. What I have a problem with is using too little in the way of facts to try to reach a conclusion; too often what one ends up with is an esoteric answer that relates not particularly well with reality.

The older I get, the more I realize that the study of history is a dry academic exercise that makes for an exteremely poor understanding of what was happening at any time. You are asking me to explain a plethora of events that you want to reduce to a simplistic pattern, and voial! out pops your answer.

Vatican 2 did not exist in a vacuum, but to listen to those who object to it is to listen to people who have zilch for understanding what was happening in the world, and to listen to people who think there is some simplistic answer to what motivated anyone, some of the people, or all of the people at any given moment. People lived life at the time, and life was more than what was going on in Rome. People knew not a whole lot about the day to day activities in Rome; what they heard was primarily through the secular media (the Catholic media not being anywhere near as widespread as it is today, and the average Catholic today not particularly acquainted with it now - take that back and the average Catholciic then had precious little to rely on). Bishops then were more involved in what was going on in Rome (hint - that is where they were), and they were not particularly adept at getting anything out to the people in the pews. What came out of Rome was mish-mash of secularly reported information. Most of the people in the pews were not at all sophisiticated about Church matters; their knowledge of the faith might include 8 grades of Baltimore Catechism and not much else, and many didn’t have that much. There was a strong feeling in the Church, above the parish level, that most Catholics might know rote answers to faith, but faith too often consisted of rote answers, little or no understanding of what the OT and the NT had to say about anything, and little or no real connection between attending Mass on Sunday and daily life. Vatican 2 wanted, among other things, to deal with that.

What spun out of that is that people - liberals and others - took off to the races; they had little or no supervision by bishops, themselves often more involved in the corporate aspects of the Church than in the pastoral aspects - and it is still thus in many dioceses - and in what often was an honest but seriously misguided attempt, catechisms and religious instructions moved away from doctrinal memorization and towards what the Gospels call us to do - to be leaven in the world. The attempt was to teach the social Gospel. What we ended up was with the social, but without the Gospel. That it failed and failed miserably we can see now in 40 years of hindsight. What they did was throw the baby out with the bathwater. We still have Catholics who get seriously angry when challenged that they need to be guided by the Gospel in the world out there - the world of national politics, the world of immigration issues, the world of civil and criminal law, the world of poverty - economic, moral, social, and every other type of poverty. Some of the people leading that charge to change catechesis were of very good will, and not entirely off the point. Some were of questionable integrity, to put it mildly; the Church has had those in every age who want to change it to their own image and likeness. Clericalism was widespread; that is not to say that all bishops and priests were clericalists, but clericalism still is pervasive in the Church, and if you don’t believe that, re-read what has gone on over the sexual abuse crisis. And as things were starting to trickle down about Vatican 2, life went nuclear over the issue of the Pill. The abrupt and immediate reaction to the Pill from theologians, some bishops, priests and laity was immediate, widespread, highly emotionally charged, and did more to bring dissent into the Church than any changes in the Mass. In one fell swoop, people - hugh amounts of people - were convinced that Rome was isolated, out of touch, simply didn’t “get it”, off in their own world, caught up in an esoteric intellectual argument that had no realitonship to reality… fill in the blank. That one issue did more to disrupt the faithful, and the faith, than anything that has occured since at least the Protestant reformation; and it did it far mor rapidly than the reformation. At once, the collective wisdom of the Church was put under the scope and found lacking by a vast multitude of people. And the bishops stood by while Rome burned… Paul 6th begged the bishops to do somthing to reign in the theologians who were leading the charge, and they did - what? About as much as they have done over the mandatum. There was a massive failure on the part of many, if not most bishops to do anything but dither. One Cardinal was set to lower the boom, and Rome called him off.

And once Rome’s decision, and decision making ability was called into question, it was a mere step from there to start questioning any and everything that Rome said about anything else.

And as I have tried to point out, the bishops who couldn’t or wouldn’t deal with the rebellion in their ranks over the Pill were not any more eager to deal with catechetical teachings that were going lame. That is, if they even personally knew what was happening.

The Church was seen by many as a force telling them what they could and could not do. Once the rebellion broke about wether or not they could use the Pill, it was an extemely short step to saying that the Church had little or no authority to tell them what they could do in another area of life.

And that is a very short, truncated note about what was going on in the 60’s. In the US, we had the civil rights pot that had bveen coming to a boil. TV was relatively new to many; and it was more than a bit shocking to see the police dogs and the water cannons turned on people who wanted something as simple as being able to go to a school or a lunch counter and not be refused simply because of the color of their skin. We had the Viet Nam war, and if you think a lot of people have been killed in Iraq, you might want to revist how many we lost over there, how long we were involved, and how the US turned from complacent acceptance of our need to be there to outright rebellion about it. Neither Vatican 2 nor the subsequent rebellion over the Pill happened in a vacuum; society at large was going through a massive change in beliefs and in attitudes towards authority. The Church, the Pill, changes in catechesis all were impacted by the radical shifts in society in general towards authority, towards change and towards beliefs.

No one is suggesting it happened in a vacuum…nothing happens in a vacuum. Take a deep breath. Btw, old wise sage…I’m probably not quite as young as you think I am.

SFD

Btw, ojtm…I’ve had this ABC discussion with you before and if I recall correctly…you abandoned the debate when I asked you for some documentation to back up your opinions.

 

[otjm]

Response to SFD cont.

I have no problem in agree3ing that some of the translations we got originally our of the ICEL were less than stellar. I have no problem with consideration of whether or not some prayers of the EF could be inroduced into the OF. I have no problem with the concerns that all too often with the OF, we have had a lack of reverence to a greater or lesser degree, and doing something to move us back to reverence. But I submit that the lack of reverence is more largely an issue of the rebellious nature of a large portion of Catholics - laity, priests and bishops included in that - and is due to the reaction of rejection of authority stemming from the Pill blowup than it has to do with anything about the OF itself intrinsically. I attended Mass as a child and young adult in the EF, as I grew up during that time, before the OF was introduced. I have seen irreverant Masses in the EF as well as the OF. here have been more in the OF. I have also seen and participated in very reverant Masses in the OF. The average person in the pew is far less at risk from the OF than they are from the stuff that has passed as catechesis. With adequate catechesis, the OF is the law of belief. The EF focuses on God transcendent, and the OF brings in aspects of God imminent that the EF doesn’t. There are some who seem to insist that any focus on God imminent is theologically wrong. I disagree.

I also think that we have far more serious problems than the issues you feel exist between the EF and the OF, and I don’t see those problems as having anything to do with either or both forms. I consider both John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 to be fantastic choices for popes; and for bishops, Chaput is at the top of my list. and there I will leave it.

 

[SFD]

ojtm:

The average person in the pew is far less at risk from the OF than they are from the stuff that has passed as catechesis.

But this flies in the face of the truth (given to us by the Church) that “The Law of Prayer is The Law of Belief”. You can’t just alter the catechism to effect a widescale change in beliefs…you must also change the worship. The 16th century"reformers" knew this…that’s why they changed the prayer, the worship, to effect their new beliefs.

But this is too “simplistic” for you ojtm…isn’t it?

SFD

 

[I_Believe]

Thanks for your reply. I have been to ten different parishes in the last five weekends, and plan to make close to ten more in the next six weeks or so.

I purposely picked a large variety, covering two states and three dioceses. Old/New, Ornate/Spartan, Wood/Stone/Brick, diocesan/order staffed, etc.

While I have seen many differences in “customs”, I have not seen anything that struck me as “abuse”.

Yes, the architecture is quite interesting. I am not “shopping” per se, just trying to get a feel for what else is out there, and if/how it relates to what I read here at CAF.

You’re welcome.

 

[I_Believe]

Because that’s all they had?

Point noted.

Did you ever answer about the Jewish offeratory prayers ?
(I could have missed it. Lot’s of posts since then)

 

[I_Believe]

The “What a mystery” comment turned me off, too. I think part of the problem with that statement is that we’re not native French speakers, and his exact meaning was lost in translation (i.e. he was talking about a European liberal, a la Montesquieu, not Nancy Pelosi). I also think this European bias affects how they see religious liberty issues, since their main bases are in countries that are beginning to outlaw Christianity.

I still don’t think the criticism applies, though.

Bishop Williamson- He turned me away from day 1. The stuff about 911, the stuff about “Jewry,” etc., are unacceptable. In my view, he might as well have been talking about Area 51.

The way people have attacked the Transalpine Redemptorists is disgusting in my view. I watched a video where they pretty much converted an atheist journalist. I’d like to visit them one day.

What really annoys me, is how the TR’s were treated even before they regularized. They were affiliated with the S.S.P.X., not under their jurisdiction. It’s like the S.S.P.X. was saying “chill out and let us handle this”. At least that’s the impression I got from the forums chatter.

Jesus through Mary ? Right on !

Full communion only through the S.S.P.X. ? "Regularization goes through us " ? A bit much.

In fairness, not all the comments on FE and AQ were mean spirited, but most were.

It’s a mess.

 

[peary1]

Of course. The Pope can (and has) erred in many realms: liturgy, politics, history, science, etc.

The Pope is ONLY protected by the Holy Spirit when exercising the **Magisterium of the Church **to speak on faith and morals. Not in any other sphere.

God Bless

You forgot to mention that to foster an accurate FAITH, you need an accurate LITURGY.

 

[otjm]

But this flies in the face of the truth (given to us by the Church) that “The Law of Prayer is The Law of Belief”. You can’t just alter the catechism to effect a widescale change in beliefs…you must also change the worship. The 16th century"reformers" knew this…that’s why they changed the prayer, the worship, to effect their new beliefs.

But this is too “simplistic” for you ojtm…isn’t it?

SFD

No, it doesnt fly in the face of an axiom. an axiom is not an absolute, and the Church has never promulgated it as such. You are stuck in a rut. I have tried to help, but you insist that your axiom means more than it does.

If the Mass is as bad as you seem to imply, then tell me why one of the most brilliant theologians the Church has seen in a goodly long time hasn’t by fiat changed it. The answer - I’ll give you a clue - is that there may be issues with the OF, but they are nowhere near as drastic as you indicate.

 

[otjm]

But this flies in the face of the truth (given to us by the Church) that “The Law of Prayer is The Law of Belief”. You can’t just alter the catechism to effect a widescale change in beliefs…you must also change the worship. The 16th century"reformers" knew this…that’s why they changed the prayer, the worship, to effect their new beliefs.

But this is too “simplistic” for you ojtm…isn’t it?

SFD

You also are conveniently overstating what Trent did. It made a "cease and desist " order on any canon of the Mass that had not been in existence for 200 years at the time of the order; it did not promulgate one canon for all of the rite, because it allowed those canons which had existed for more than 200 years to continue. Was there a need for Change? The Church felt so. Did it promulgate the only Mass Canon as a singular statement to the world, and most specifically the Protestant reformers, of their new beliefs? No, on both counts; there were other canons which were permitted, and it wasn’t a statement of new beliefs, but rather a statement which reflected the beliefs of the Church back through time to Christ. It, however, was not the only statement.

We now have a Mass which in its form mirrors the EF - we still have the Liturgy of the Word, profession of faith, Liturgy of the Eucharist, reception of Communion and dismissal. Can it be improved upon? well, since Trent, there have been changes to the EF, most of them not as great as teh OF. But it is well established that the Mass of Trent is not the universal Mass of the Church; it is one of two forms the the Roman rite, and is not as old as some of the forms in the Eastern Church.

Does it appear that the OF will be modified further? Most certainly. And reading the motu propio and Benedict’s accompanying letter, it would appear that there is a possiblity that eventually what we may have is a Mass which blends the two, and the Roman rite will ulitmately at that point have one form. But I suspect it will not be in your lifetime or mine, nor our childrens, nor even our grandchildrens.

and as to your comment that you can’t just alter the catechisms to effect a change in beliefs, I submit that the evidence of the last 30 to 40 years has done jsut that. Theoologians better trained than you disagree with you that the OF is so theologically unsound. Considering that one of them leads the Church, I think I will probably follow him. I agree with him that workd needs to be done on it. I disagree with you that it is so profoundly theologically wrong, weak, or whatever adjective you wish to supply.

 

[Joannm]

No, it doesnt fly in the face of an axiom. an axiom is not an absolute, and the Church has never promulgated it as such. You are stuck in a rut. I have tried to help, but you insist that your axiom means more than it does.

If the Mass is as bad as you seem to imply, then tell me why one of the most brilliant theologians the Church has seen in a goodly long time hasn’t by fiat changed it. The answer - I’ll give you a clue - is that there may be issues with the OF, but they are nowhere near as drastic as you indicate.

Actually the original “axiom” was coined by Prosper of Aqutaine and states “legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi”, which is to say, "the law of prayer determines the law of belief’. The arrow points in one direction, they are not equal. Prayer is what is primary, the relationship with the Trinity. All else is secondary.

 

[SFD]

Of course. The Pope can (and has) erred in many realms: liturgy, politics, history, science, etc.

The Pope is ONLY protected by the Holy Spirit when exercising the **Magisterium of the Church **to speak on faith and morals. Not in any other sphere.

God Bless

This is incorrect. The liturgy (the official worship of the Church!) is certainly a matter of faith and morals. It is theologically certain that the Church is protected form promulgating errors in the liturgy.

From Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, by Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D.:
VanNoort:

…IV. The Object of Infallibility In the definition given above the object of infallibility was expressed in these words borrowed from the Vatican Council: “when it defines a doctrine of faith or morals.” It remains now to fix more accurately the meaning and the scope of this formula. This will be done on the basis of the words of Christ and of the apostles cited in the course of the proof; and on the basis, too, of the purpose for which the privilege of infallibility was granted.

It is important to pay attention above all to the word doctrine; for infallibility concerns the teaching office and so has as its special object doctrines, or at least doctrinal decisions by which some truth is presented to be believed or maintained by everyone. The formula, “a doctrine of faith or morals,” comprises all doctrines the knowledge of which is of vital concern to people if they are to believe aright and to live uprightly in accordance with the religion of Christ. Now doctrines of this sort have either been revealed themselves or are so closely allied with revelation that they cannot be neglected without doing harm to the latter. Consequently the object of infallibility is twofold: there is a primary and a secondary object.

…]

Assertion 3: The Church’s infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain. By the term “general discipline of the Church” are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. Note the italicized words: ecclesiastical laws, passed for the universal Church.

The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church’s rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment:

1. “This law squares with the Church’s doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree.
2. “This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.

Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church’s rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.

1. From the official statement of the Church, which stigmatized as “at least erroneous” the hypothesis “that the Church could establish discipline which would be dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition and materialism. (16)

Corollary:

The well-known axiom, Lex orandi est lex credendi (The law of prayer is the law of belief), is a special application of the doctrine of the Church’s infallibility in disciplinary matters.** This axiom says in effect that formulae of prayer approved for public use in the universal Church cannot contain errors against faith or morals.** But it would be quite wrong to conclude from this that all the historical facts which are recorded here and there in the lessons of the Roman Breviary, or all the explanations of scriptural passages which are used in the homilies of the Breviary must be taken as infallibly true.(17) As far as the former are concerned, those particular facts are not an object of infallibility since they have no necessary connection with revelation. As for the latter, the Church orders their recitation not because they are certainly true, but because they are edifying.

SFD

 

[strugglingalong]

This is incorrect. The liturgy (the official worship of the Church!) is certainly a matter of faith and morals. It is theologically certain that the Church is protected form promulgating errors in the liturgy.

From Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, by Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D.:

SFD

But infallibility only pertains to Ecumenical Councils and the Pope from the “chair of St. Peter.” Not every action and decision that pertains to faith and morals is an object of infallibility or we’d have to say that all the Church, or perhaps the Pope at times, decides and says is infallibly true.

The New Mass originates from the Consilium, not from an Ecumenical Council, and thus enjoys no protection of infallibility. Many argue that since Vatican II was a pastoral council, as Cardinal Ratzinger himself stated, there was nothing infallible about it either.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[AlexV]

The pope can indeed promulgate bad liturgy. A good reminder of just how bad things were back in the late 60s was the original version of Eucharistic Prayer IV (I like to call it the Gnostic Canon, but I digress). The original Latin, officially promulgated and published, read, “Pater, tu es solus Deus.”

Arius would have been proud.

It was, of course, hastily corrected to “Pater, tu es unus Deus.”

 

[strugglingalong]

The pope can indeed promulgate bad liturgy. A good reminder of just how bad things were back in the late 60s was the original version of Eucharistic Prayer IV (I like to call it the Gnostic Canon, but I digress). The original Latin, officially promulgated and published, read, “Pater, tu es solus Deus.”

Arius would have been proud.

It was, of course, hastily corrected to “Pater, tu es unus Deus.”

Yikes!!! I had never heard that! “Father, you alone are God” Wow.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[otjm]

But infallibility only pertains to Ecumenical Councils and the Pope from the “chair of St. Peter.” Not every action and decision that pertains to faith and morals is an object of infallibility or we’d have to say that all the Church, or perhaps the Pope at times, decides and says is infallibly true.

The New Mass originates from the Consilium, not from an Ecumenical Council, and thus enjoys no protection of infallibility. Many argue that since Vatican II was a pastoral council, as Cardinal Ratzinger himself stated, there was nothing infallible about it either.

Pax Christi tecum.

That is not correct. Infallibilty also extends to the Magisterium, the bishops in union with the Pope teaching faith or morals.

The most recent obvious example of that is the statement by John Paul 2 that women could not be ordained. A discussion ensued as to whether or not that was an ex-cathedra statement; the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith, through then Cardian Ratzinger confirmed that it was not; that it simply was an infallible statement of the continuing doctrinal teaching of the Church for 2000 years. The statement was not ex cathedra; it was part of the infallibile Magisterial teaching of the Church. In other words, it was not ex cathedra, nor a Council statement but it was infallible in a teaching.

 

[strugglingalong]

That is not correct. Infallibilty also extends to the Magisterium, the bishops in union with the Pope teaching faith or morals.

The most recent obvious example of that is the statement by John Paul 2 that women could not be ordained. A discussion ensued as to whether or not that was an ex-cathedra statement; the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith, through then Cardian Ratzinger confirmed that it was not; that it simply was an infallible statement of the continuing doctrinal teaching of the Church for 2000 years. The statement was not ex cathedra; it was part of the infallibile Magisterial teaching of the Church. In other words, it was not ex cathedra, nor a Council statement but it was infallible in a teaching.

Yes it was infallible because it has been always taught by the Church. There is an infallibility attached to the consensus of the Fathers when they are agree together. It sounds like it was more that.

The Ordinary Magisterium, of which you speak of the Bishops in union with the Pope outside of an Ecumenical Council, is not infallible. It deserves our obedient assent so long as it remains true to the Faith but it is not infallible.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[AlexV]

Unfortunately, most people who enter these liturgy debates get stuck on “Is it infallible or not?” Red herring indeed. Leaving aside the errors that existed in the first printed edition of the Novus Ordo Missae in 1967 and had to be corrected, the question of the thread is about BAD liturgy. Something can be BAD even if perfectly orthodox. The 1967-1969 Ordo Missae can be banal, fabricated, trite, insipid, and any number of other BAD things even if perfectly orthodox.

 

[strugglingalong]

By the way, I correct myself. The Ordinary Magisterium is infallible when the Bishops in union with the Pope all teach one thing in agreement and do so definitively. That is extremely rare since I think we all know how little agreement we can see at times in the Ordinary Magisterium. Not everything they do or say is infallible at all.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia on Infallibility:

"As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ’s promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.

But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences – unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision."

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[strugglingalong]

Unfortunately, most people who enter these liturgy debates get stuck on “Is it infallible or not?” Red herring indeed. Leaving aside the errors that existed in the first printed edition of the Novus Ordo Missae in 1967 and had to be corrected, the question of the thread is about BAD liturgy. Something can be BAD even if perfectly orthodox. The 1967-1969 Ordo Missae can be banal, fabricated, trite, insipid, and any number of other BAD things even if perfectly orthodox.

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

Pax Christi tecum.