Can a pope promulgate bad liturgy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter eelpis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brennan_Doherty said:
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.
Click to expand...
A validly celebrated Mass gives us the opportunity to receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, be it celebrated from the 1962 missal or the missal of Pope Paul VI. One is not “better” than the other. The soul of the of the one receiving is either sanctified or it is not. You seem to imply that “my Jesus is better than your Jesus.” I respectfully disagree.

Christ gave us the sacraments as a means of grace and as a way to know Him in this life and to be with Him in the next. It seems apparent that some are more intent on worshiping the liturgy itself than Christ in the liturgy.
 
yes, pope paul vi did with the novus ordo. if it was good, then why the subsequent liberation of the tridentine mass? obviously the new mass was to replace it and bring the protestants back to the church.
 
Dee_Dee_King said:
yes, pope paul vi did with the novus ordo. if it was good, then why the subsequent liberation of the tridentine mass? obviously the new mass was to replace it and bring the protestants back to the church.
Click to expand...
Pope Benedict’s liberation of the Tridentine Mass was not a commentary on the Novus Ordo Missae. He “liberated” it because people who aspired to it had a legitimate asperation and he clarified that it had not been abrogated.

I personally am all for Protestants coming back to the Church. Since the OF doesn’t sacrifice Catholic doctrine, if it’s bringing them back, how is that a bad thing?
 
I personally am all for Protestants coming back to the Church. Since the OF doesn’t sacrifice Catholic doctrine, if it’s bringing them back, how is that a bad thing?
Click to expand...
that’s a wonderful thing. but i think there would be more conversions if there was a true organic reform of the liturgy.
 
Dee_Dee_King said:
that’s a wonderful thing. but i think there would be more conversions if there was a true organic reform of the liturgy.
Click to expand...
I think that’s what Pope Benedict is aiming for. I’ve heard it expressed that the EF will move forward and the OF recover some things and that both will benefit the other. I rather imagine that it will be a hybrid of the two eventually.
 
Timothysis said:
A validly celebrated Mass gives us the opportunity to receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, be it celebrated from the 1962 missal or the missal of Pope Paul VI. One is not “better” than the other. The soul of the of the one receiving is either sanctified or it is not. You seem to imply that “my Jesus is better than your Jesus.” I respectfully disagree.

Christ gave us the sacraments as a means of grace and as a way to know Him in this life and to be with Him in the next. It seems apparent that some are more intent on worshiping the liturgy itself than Christ in the liturgy.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone is arguing that a Eucharist from TLM is somehow better than a Eucharist from an NO Mass.

What we are saying is that the NO often leaves a lot of room for abuses on the celebrant’s part, and in the American Church such abuses are quite common.

That doesn’t make the Eucharist any better or worse, but it can certainly have a negative impact on the more impressionable members of the congregation.
 
OnlyAmbrose said:
I don’t think anyone is arguing that a Eucharist from TLM is somehow better than a Eucharist from an NO Mass.

What we are saying is that the NO often leaves a lot of room for abuses on the celebrant’s part, and in the American Church such abuses are quite common.

That doesn’t make the Eucharist any better or worse, but it can certainly have a negative impact on the more impressionable members of the congregation.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think Brennan Doherty is arguing exactly that. I quote

“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.”

Also, the EO is open to abuses, too, though they may not be as easily discerned since most of TLM is in silence. We can’t be so naive to think that no TLM has any abuses in it.
 
Timothysis said:
A validly celebrated Mass gives us the opportunity to receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, be it celebrated from the 1962 missal or the missal of Pope Paul VI. One is not “better” than the other. The soul of the of the one receiving is either sanctified or it is not. You seem to imply that “my Jesus is better than your Jesus.” I respectfully disagree.

Christ gave us the sacraments as a means of grace and as a way to know Him in this life and to be with Him in the next. It seems apparent that some are more intent on worshiping the liturgy itself than Christ in the liturgy.
Click to expand...
Hi Tim,

Thanks for the response. By the way, you are correct in post #50 above when you note I am not talking about abuses. I actually don’t really discuss abuses much as I think we can all agree that we don’t want abuses in either form. So I am discussing both forms of the litugy regardless of any abuses.

I am of course not discussing the Holy Eucharist itself which is infinitely valuable regardless of the liturgy it is consecrated in.

I am discussing the form of the liturgy which is supposed to prepare the soul for reception of Holy Communion, lift our hearts and minds to God, and form the soul of the Catholic. This debate regarding the liturgy has gone on for forty years now with people like Cardinal Ottaviani, Fr. Fessio, Fr. Brian Harrison, not to mention books published by the likes of Ignatius Press and conferences held (one presided over by Cardinal Ratzinger).

If I spent a couple of days making up my own liturgy and (God forbid) it was accepted and promulgated by Rome and was valid, I would think not too many people would say it was equal to the Gregorian rite and just as conducive to worship and the lifting of the soul up to God.

God bless.
 
AJV said:
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.
Click to expand...
A nice spin there. I (and probably young Kirk too) feel much better. 🙂

Makes you wonder: why did Trent bother?
 
Timothysis said:
A validly celebrated Mass gives us the opportunity to receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, be it celebrated from the 1962 missal or the missal of Pope Paul VI. One is not “better” than the other. The soul of the of the one receiving is either sanctified or it is not. You seem to imply that “my Jesus is better than your Jesus.” I respectfully disagree.

Christ gave us the sacraments as a means of grace and as a way to know Him in this life and to be with Him in the next. It seems apparent that some are more intent on worshiping the liturgy itself than Christ in the liturgy.
Click to expand...
The Mass is foremost the Holy Sacrifice, it’s not just an opportunity to recieve Holy Communion. It’s strange that so many Catholics have adopted Protestant notions regarding the Eucharist.🤷
 
JKirkLVNV said:
I personally am all for Protestants coming back to the Church. Since the OF doesn’t sacrifice Catholic doctrine, if it’s bringing them back, how is that a bad thing?
Click to expand...
While I could comment on many different things that have been said in this thread this is the one that I find most interesting…

IFit is acceptable to change the Mass in order to make it more attractive to Protestants, then what evidence do we have to support whether or not this effort worked?

I’m not doubting the existence of this evidence I’m just honestly curious about it.

I do know that since the New Mass has been around there has been a drastic fall in the number of people answering the call to the priesthood and religious life. (I apologize for not having a source on hand). Perhaps this has nothing to do with the New Mass but I doubt it. :hmmm:
 
Ad_Deum said:
While I could comment on many different things that have been said in this thread this is the one that I find most interesting…

IFit is acceptable to change the Mass in order to make it more attractive to Protestants, then what evidence do we have to support whether or not this effort worked?

I’m not doubting the existence of this evidence I’m just honestly curious about it.

I do know that since the New Mass has been around there has been a drastic fall in the number of people answering the call to the priesthood and religious life. (I apologize for not having a source on hand). Perhaps this has nothing to do with the New Mass but I doubt it. :hmmm:
Click to expand...
The new mass has not been successful in getting the Protestants back, there is clear evidence for that-however a lot of Catholics have adopted Protestant approaches and notions to many things, and alas many Catholics have left the Church for Protestant sects. So if the goal was bring Protestants back, it has failed.
 
ProVobis said:
A nice spin there. I (and probably young Kirk too) feel much better. 🙂

Makes you wonder: why did Trent bother?
Click to expand...
Young Kirk is 46, bald, and beginning to feel the brush of the wings of the angel of Death…but thanks for the compliment.

Trent was quite correctly answering the erroneous notion that the language of the Mass had to be understood by the faithful in order for it to be efficacious, ie, in order for it to DO what the Church professes that it does. Trent did not say that the Mass could not ever be in any other language.
 
eelpis,

Whatever the factors may be, at the beginning of the 20th century there were more non-Catholic Christians than Catholics. By the end of the 20th century (and into today) there were more Catholics than non-Catholics:

From the Catholic Encyclopedia(1909) “Statistics of Religions”, Table VIII:newadvent.org/cathen/14275a.htm

Ratio of Catholic/Non-Catholic Christians: 0.900

From Encyclopedia Britannica’s “Adherents of All Religions by Six Continents - Mid- 1995”: zpub.com/un/pope/relig.html

Ratio of Catholic/Non-Catholic Christians: 1.008

Saying Catholics have been fleeing to other sects moreso now than in times past would be inaccurate.

Anyway, heretical and schismatic groups grew after many Councils–the Arians, Nestorians, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants are all examples–where do you think most of their adherants came from? Would you say the respective Councils concerned with those groups failed?

There will always be those coming in and sadly, those leaving. It’s part of man’s fallen nature. Where virtue lacks, so does unity.
 
Ad_Deum said:
I do know that since the New Mass has been around there has been a drastic fall in the number of people answering the call to the priesthood and religious life. (I apologize for not having a source on hand). Perhaps this has nothing to do with the New Mass but I doubt it. :hmmm:
Click to expand...
Why do people refuse to include outside influences when discussing the potential “whys” of falling vocations?

The world has changed dramatically in the last 50 years. Nobody wants to sacrifice “the good life” to pursue vocations.

A few months ago, with my own ears, I heard a priest ask my grandson if he had considered the priesthood. His response was, “what, and give up the good things in life”? “Like what?” I interjected. “You knowwwwwwwwwww” (alluding to sex).

People are bombarded with the lure of “the good life”. No wonder vocations are down.

But, I wander off topic…:o
 
Brennan_Doherty said:
If I spent a couple of days making up my own liturgy and (God forbid) it was accepted and promulgated by Rome and was valid, I would think not too many people would say it was equal to the Gregorian rite and just as conducive to worship and the lifting of the soul up to God.
God bless.
Click to expand...
"as conducive to worship and the lifting of the soul up to God" is more emotional than intellectual. I’ve always understood that the worship of God was with the intellect, for emotions can be very wishy washy.

One can argue that certain parts of the missal of Pope Paul VI are not very rich in language and I would agree. My hope is that, since a new translation is on the way, we’ll see a general revision in the upcoming years that might elevate it a bit. However, it is still a valid and efficacious liturgy that heals our souls, which is the point of the Eucharist.
 
eelpis said:
The Mass is foremost the Holy Sacrifice,
Click to expand...
No kidding.
eelpis said:
it’s not just an opportunity to recieve Holy Communion.
Click to expand...
You are correct.
eelpis said:
It’s strange that so many Catholics have adopted Protestant notions regarding the Eucharist.🤷
Click to expand...
Protestant notions? You’ll forgive me but I thought that most of the mainline protestant denominations regard Holy Communion as a “symbol” and not a true sacrifice whereas we catholics believe it to be. How do you come up with “protestant notions” in anything I’ve written?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top