Can a pope promulgate bad liturgy?

[JKirkLVNV]

Fair enough, I’m not a supporter of scrapping the OF. I was just making a point that has to be considered. We cannot blame “traditionalists” for being disloyal.
In the end though, we’ll not be judged according to our understanding of liturgy but on charity.

That is quite correct and I agree completely.

 

[I_Believe]

I posted in response to your assertion that someone was out of step with Rome, which I don’t see how you can make given that person’s post. But in line with the OP’s assertion that a Pope can make a fallible error in prudential wisdom in regards to the promulgation of a liturgy (and here we would have to agree to distinguish between the Holy Sacrifice and the form that clothes the Holy Sacrifice), I would assert that since Blessed John XXIII (he is now among the beatii, you know) was not addressing an issue of faith and morals, but a disciplinary norm, one would be free to disagree with him. Latin’s use in the Church (and it is terribly useful for the universal Church to have a universal language) is not a part of Apostolic teaching, doctrine or dogma. It was not handed down by the Apostles. It’s just a language and it isn’t ontologically sacred, though it is used for sacred purposes.

One would be free to disagree with Blessed John, but would not be free to disobey him. Fortunately, it has not been a matter of disobedience. The Holy See permitted each bishops conference to determine the extent to which the Mass would be offered in the vernacular, with each conference’s determination ratified by the Holy See. The all-vernacular Mass exists by the proper and legitmate authority.

My point (NOW) would be this: If “traditionalists” can argue against the OF (forma extraordinaria, if it pleases you) and hope, citing what the OP cited, that the OF will be scrapped, surely those who prefer the Mass in their own tongue can argue for the vernacular on the same grounds, ie, that Blessed John XXIII wasn’t speaking any more infallibly than Pope Paul III. The use of Latin is not the topic of this thread and I suppose you could start a new one, but we both know it wouldn’t be new. The regular posters already have their opinions, as I’m sure you would see by doing a search of the fora, indeed, I’m sure you and I have probably discussed this ourselves.

I would sum up by saying, yes, there are men in the Holy See that “traditionalists” might cite as their allies, but I would be willing to bet that A) some of those men might be startled to find that they are having projected onto them such a pronounced agenda as SOME “traditionalists” have and B) the shepherds will be very careful about the direction in which they prod the sheep and may not regard as essentials what some “traditionalists” regard as “essentials.”

Fair enough, but you stated that venacular is the main lure of the OF as far as yourself and others.

Please note, I’m talking about Eccesiastical Latin, not classical latin. No, it’s use is not Dogma or Doctrine, but it’s tough to diss it considering the reasons given by the Church for using it in the liturgy. For me anyway.

It’s true though, that the reverence issue can be taken too far. Of all the priests I’ve met, the one I love the most, has said that back when Churches were not air conditioned, it was common to skip the homily on hot days. To question that, would be an example of taking it too far.

Some of these arguments will never be settled. As John Prine sings in one of his songs "It’s a big ole goofy world "

 

[I_Believe]

And here’s the deal with what we project on pontiffs. I love the man, too. There’s very little he’s done with which I would quibble (just that huge gold cross, really). When you speak of pendulum and wolves, what precisely do you mean? It is the nature of a pendulm to stop in the MIDDLE GROUND between extremes when it stops swinging… Are those of us who hope we don’t go back to the EF as the only form or to an all-Latin Mass wolves?

lol, No, the laity are not wolves. The wolves are those BXVI mentioned in his inaugural Mass. He asked that we pray for him so he doesn’t flee from them.

For example, the bishops who raised such a fuss over the Pope’s SP, which took away their power to suppress it. Of course there are some of them who have become disobedient and schismatic by blocking the EF, despite the SP.

Read The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita to see what drives, or at least, hoodwinks, these wolves.

Christ Himself promised they would not win, and that’s good enough for me. The fact that the last conclave elected BXVI comforts me. It indicated the wolves are dying out. Thus the swing of the pendulum in the right direction.

Fr. Michael Mary, whom I don’t pretend to speak for, seems to see this IMO. The Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer have taken the hand of H.H. BXVI and acheived full unity with Rome. Deo gratias.

 

[I_Believe]

JKIRK:

It is the nature of a pendulm to stop in the MIDDLE GROUND between extremes when it stops swinging…

Btw, this middle ground is where I now stand. I assist at both forms of the Liturgy now. I embrace the SP of H.H.

I’ll still voice concern over liturgical abuse in the OF, just as I’ll voice my sadness over the bitterness and arrogance of some traditionalists.

 

[ProVobis]

That’s true. If one opens a Missal and examines the Ordinary of the Mass, there is nothing non-catholic there.

Aren’t there old Jewish prayers in the OF Offertory?

Of course, they’re Catholic now.

 

[ProVobis]

Sure…but can the “traditionalists” acknowledge that many faithful, orthodox Catholics don’t share their concerns, indeed, that MOST faithful and orthodox Catholics don’t share those concerns? We should all be concerned with reverence, obviously, but that cannot be absolutely equated with scrapping the OF. Many times, I’ve read “traditionalists” state that the EF is “objectively” superior. It isn’t, it’s only subjectively superior to THEM. It features things that I might agree are superior, but overall, I find the OF superior for a variety of reasons and I strongly suspect that most Catholics (and yes, THINKING, reverent, faithful, Orthodox Catholics) would make a decision, if it were put up them, based solely on the use of the vernacular.

But didn’t Trent forbid the use of vernacular only in the liturgy? Those that insisted on it excommunicated themselves.

 

[I_Believe]

Aren’t there old Jewish prayers in the OF Offertory?

Of course, they’re Catholic now.

Enlighten me with an example

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

The TLM is not “better” than any other liturgy; that is your choice of words and your personal preference. Going to TLM is not going to make you holier, more saintly or get you into heaven any sooner than anyone else. I suggest that you dispense with this juvenile mentality in regards to the Mass and the way it is celebrated and focus upon your own place in God’s universe.

Hi Tim,

You may not have read it yet, but feel free to take a look at the article in my signature line “The Case for the Latin Mass” by Dietrich von Hildebrand.

In it you can simply bask in von Hildebrand’s juvenile mentality since he argues that the Gregorian rite is better than the New Mass and is more conduce to lifting our hearts and minds to God and is more conducive to reverence.

 

[ethelzguy]

Yet another attempt to find an occasion in the past to set a false precedent to disparage something that you don’t care for in the today’s Church…

No Kidding. It never stops does it?

 

[ethelzguy]

Hi Tim,

You may not have read it yet, but feel free to take a look at the article in my signature line “The Case for the Latin Mass” by Dietrich von Hildebrand.

In it you can simply bask in von Hildebrand’s juvenile mentality since he argues that the Gregorian rite is better than the New Mass and is more conduce to lifting our hearts and minds to God and is more conducive to reverence.

I suspect that anyone that wanted to read your favorite article has done so by now. At least ten percent of your posts reference von Hildebrand, in addition to your signature line.

It is an article with an opinion. It does not trump anything the Church has, or will do.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Fair enough, but you stated that venacular is the main lure of the OF as far as yourself and others.

On the contrary and with all due respect, this is what I said:
**“but overall, I find the OF superior for a variety of reasons and I strongly suspect that most Catholics (and yes, THINKING, reverent, faithful, Orthodox Catholics) would make a decision, if it were put up them, based solely on the use of the vernacular.” I did not say it was the main lure for me, though it certainly does weigh in the OF’s favor, IMHO, and I said that I believed that most Catholics (an orthodox, thinking ones at that) WOULD elect to hear the Mass in their own language. Now, if there were way for the EF to be in the vernacular, they might react differently, but I’d be willing to bet that they would ALSO prefer an audible consecration. **

Please note, I’m talking about Eccesiastical Latin, not classical latin. No, it’s use is not Dogma or Doctrine, but it’s tough to diss it considering the reasons given by the Church for using it in the liturgy. For me anyway.

**I assumed that you were talking about Ecclesiastical Latin, not classical. I’m not dissing anything, I just happen to believe that the Mass in the vernacular has been to the Church’s good. **

Some of these arguments will never be settled. As John Prine sings in one of his songs "It’s a big ole goofy world "

Let’s us all pray we are not making it goofier!

 

[AJV]

But didn’t Trent forbid the use of vernacular only in the liturgy? Those that insisted on it excommunicated themselves.

No, Trent forbade those who **said **that the Mass must only be celebrated in the vernacular. An isnight into what they were talking about is gained by looking at proposition they were treating: Calvin’s assertion that services not in the vernacular were of no benefit whatsoever to people.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

lol, No, the laity are not wolves. The wolves are those BXVI mentioned in his inaugural Mass. He asked that we pray for him so he doesn’t flee from them.

For example, the bishops who raised such a fuss over the Pope’s SP, which took away their power to suppress it. Of course there are some of them who have become disobedient and schismatic by blocking the EF, despite the SP.

I will agree with the wolves Pope Benedict mentioned, but I’m not exactly convinced that he meant those bishops who are not thrilled with the EF. If, as the OP suggested, we can disagree with a pope’s prudential judgement in the promulgation of a liturgy, we can certainly disagree with him in the liberation of one (and I don’t disagree with the Holy Father, just to be clear). I assume that freedom to disagree also applies to bishops. Naturally, they owe him their obedience.

Christ Himself promised they would not win, and that’s good enough for me. The fact that the last conclave elected BXVI comforts me. It indicated the wolves are dying out. Thus the swing of the pendulum in the right direction.

**I quite like the way the pendulum has swung (as if it mattered), but I go back to the fullness of the analogy. The pendulum stops midway between its two extremes. **

Fr. Michael Mary, whom I don’t pretend to speak for, seems to see this IMO. The Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer have taken the hand of H.H. BXVI and acheived full unity with Rome. Deo gratias.

Yes, let us pray that all of those who find themselves in the sin of schism find their way home and that we are humble enough to beg the grace to be kept from the same sin.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Btw, this middle ground is where I now stand. I assist at both forms of the Liturgy now. I embrace the SP of H.H.

I’ll still voice concern over liturgical abuse in the OF, just as I’ll voice my sadness over the bitterness and arrogance of some traditionalists.

Then not much seperates us, I’m glad to say.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

No, Trent forbade those who **said **that the Mass must only be celebrated in the vernacular. An isnight into what they were talking about is gained by looking at proposition they were treating: Calvin’s assertion that services not in the vernacular were of no benefit whatsoever to people.

Beat me to it!

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I suspect that anyone that wanted to read your favorite article has done so by now. At least ten percent of your posts reference von Hildebrand, in addition to your signature line.

It is an article with an opinion. It does not trump anything the Church has, or will do.

It’s an article with an argument. And no, I don’t assume everyone who has wanted to (or ought to) read it has read it. I could just as easily have referred him to something like the Ottaviani Intervention for another wonderful example of a “juvenile mentality.”

And thanks for noting the percentage I quote von Hildebrand in my posts. I’m trying to get it up to 75% and your observation helps me realize I have a long way to go.

Oh, by the way, I never said anything von Hildebrand has written will trump anything the Church does, but thanks for setting me straight on that anyway. I thought maybe if I just sent the article to the hierarchy in Rome it would force them all to completely reinstate the Gregorian rite.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

No, Trent forbade those who **said **that the Mass must only be celebrated in the vernacular. An isnight into what they were talking about is gained by looking at proposition they were treating: Calvin’s assertion that services not in the vernacular were of no benefit whatsoever to people.

Why does Calvin’s argument somehow sound so familiar…?

 

[I_Believe]

…would make a decision, if it were put up them, based solely on the use of the vernacular."

I was paraphrasing you You did say solely.

No matter though.

lol, At first, I’ve had all the contemporary catholics here mad at me. Now, I’ve got the trads mad at me as well.

Good. I’ve found a balance I invoke the “double jeopardy” law as my defense !

Kyrie eleison

 

[Rogerteder]

History seems to say so, in 1535 pope Paul III promulgated a new breviary that was composed by Card Quignonez-32 years later it was scrapped. Much of the critique against that breviary could be applied to the Novus Ordo. Knowing this, it seems that the pope can err in promulgating a liturgy and that critique can be justified vis avis the liturgical reform after the second Vatican Council. And it seems that hoping the Novus Ordo be scrapped is morally justafiable

I dont mean to be mean or uncharitable, but the question really seems stupid. Of course the Pope can proclaim bad liturgy or bad practices. Th whole notion of whether something is “bad” liturgically speaking is very subjective. Obviously, since this does not involves doctrine the Pope can err. I mean it is very obvious.

 

[Timothysis]

Tim, can you at least acknowlege that there are men walking the halls of the Vatican that share the concerns of the traditionalists ?

I have no idea what kind of men are walking the halls of the Vatican. I, personally, do not believe in any such thing as a “traditionalist.” It seems to be a very convenient way for those who don’t like what’s going on in the church today to use it as a way or means of criticizing any and every thing they don’t like.