Can a pope promulgate bad liturgy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter eelpis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JKirkLVNV said:
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.
Click to expand...
Young Kirk, if it’s serious enough to warrant anathema, I don’t think I’d want to try to reinterpret it or word it like that to suit my fancy. There is the spirit of Trent after all. I notice you and LilyM are quick to point out that anyone crying out against piety in Church liturgy is anathema and you’re not willing to bend on that matter, but it’s not the only canon that Trent wrote. If the council fathers voted in include a phrase to preserve Latin in the liturgy, however they worded it, I’ll take it seriously. Relaxing the rules or stating the contrapositive or inverse or converse usually sends out wrong messages.

Just don’t die on us yet, OK?
 
eelpis said:
You may right, but what’s the future of the Chuch? - another megachurch- according to american standards? Is there room for a liturgical Church? A church where the sacrifice of Christ is center-stage?
Click to expand...
If you are making a snide comment about Christ not being the center of the OF, then you need to perhaps learn a bit more theology.

My parish uses the OF exclusively ( which seems to be the Archdiocese pattern - but that is another issue)>

We also have 24 hour Perpetual Adoration.

We don’t seem to have a problem with the OF and being Christ centered; for those who do, I would suggest the issue is not the OF.
 
Frosty said:
I realize that this is basically an American forum and that probably the majority of posters are American. With all due respect, so many of the posters arguing that either Vatican II and/or the Pauline Mass are responsible for the decline in Mass attendance only serve to reinforce the stereotype of Americans as believing that they are the centre of the world and what is true for the U.S.A. must be true everywhere else.
Click to expand...
Hey… if this were a Canadian forum the same thing would be going on! Why state the obvious and attack us for it.
Frosty said:
It seems to be a common practice for some to either totally dismiss the enormous cultural upheaval that took place in the 60’s and 70’s as irrevelevant or to grudgingly agree that “yeah, maybe it had some effect but it was pretty marginal”. I have a question for those posters. How do you square this line of thinking with what has happened to the Church fairly recently in countries such as Poland, Ireland or those in South America? Or are they irrelevant and inconvenient because they don’t fit into a preconceived idea?
How can one honestly blame the Pauline Mass for the decline of Mass going Catholics in Poland? Did it take the Poles 20 years to decide that they didn’t like that Mass and thought it was irreverent or was it conceivably that the societal change and prosperity that came after the fall of Communism had much to do with it? The same with Ireland, only substitute the entry into the EEC and the astonishing economic growth that changed the country literally overnight from relative poverty to prosperity. The decline in South America is much more recent as well, but the factors are even more complex than the intrusion of Western culture or any economic gain.
Click to expand...
To a certain extent we will never know the effect of the changes.

However, we DO KNOW that before Vatican II, despite the commercialization of American culture and despite materialism, and despite a creeping culture of death, the Church grew in America.

After Vatican II it declined.

When American style materialism and the culture of death reached Poland, had she been traditional in practice, we can not know how that country would have resisted. With the changes, she hasn’t resisted much at all.

The same is true of South America.

Wealth brings apostasy. Traditional Catholicism SEEMS to have better weathered the storm in the U.S. This may have been true for other areas of the world as well. We will never know.
 
Timothysis said:
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.
Click to expand...
In case you don’t read Fr. Z’s blog, it’s all about copyrights. 😉

Who knows, there just might be a little bit of truth in that.
 
Binx said:
Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II, by Kenneth C. Jones

Here is Pat Buchanan’s review of the book.
Click to expand...
I have nothing against Pope John XXIII, in fact, I’m a huge 1962 Missal fan, but I wonder if it’s Vatican II or the Popes who presided over the council. After all, in some countries Catholics had already been leaving in droves after Pius XII died.
 
eelpis said:
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
Click to expand...
Can you detail these critiques and how they are similiar?

Can you define what is meant by a “bad” liturgy?

Which Catholic sources did you use to learn about the infallibility of the Church’s disciplines?

SFD
 
ethelzguy said:
I think the Church leaders back then were a lot smarter than some of us give them credit for.
Click to expand...
Well, I hope a lot smarter than those that came up with the 8-track. 🙂

But I still have a lot of 33’s and 45’s. 😃
 
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.
 
jfoges said:
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.
Click to expand...
WOAH.

This is an oversimplification if there ever was one!
 
jfoges said:
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.
Click to expand...
New Order of Mass…what’s insulting about the name?
 
SFD said:
Can you detail these critiques and how they are similiar?

Can you define what is meant by a “bad” liturgy?

Which Catholic sources did you use to learn about the infallibility of the Church’s disciplines?

SFD
Click to expand...
I don’t mean bad as evil, just not good enough. Some of the similarities: antiquarianisms, just because they stood up for the canon in the primitive church it doesn’t mean we should, after all the meaning and symbolism of postures change according to the times and the culture.(They did not have central heating either, but I doubt anyone would argue that we ought to live exactly as they did in that regard.) Communion in the hand was allowed in the primitive church but the respect and reverence for the Eucharist was way greater then. Antiquarianisms and simplifications because of pastoral reasons “it’s easier” It was not so easy for Our Lord. Well that’s just a few similarities. I already knew that the Church is not infallible in promulgating liturgy. But many Catholics seem to think so anyway and equate that holding to the TLM would be disloyalty to the pope.
 
eelpis said:
The term Novus Ordo was first used by the Vatican. All it means is new order and that’s what it was.
Click to expand...
Technically, any new edition of a missal is a “novus ordo.” Somehow, the missal of Pope Paul VI has been branded as THE novus ordo in a way to disparage the liturgy. The 1962 missal of Pope John XXIII was a “novus ordo,” but it is referred to as “the 1962 missal.” I think that that is what the original writer was referring to.
 
Timothysis said:
Technically, any new edition of a missal is a “novus ordo.” Somehow, the missal of Pope Paul VI has been branded as THE novus ordo in a way to disparage the liturgy. The 1962 missal of Pope John XXIII was a “novus ordo,” but it is referred to as “the 1962 missal.” I think that that is what the original writer was referring to.
Click to expand...
Yes, they called it Novus Ordo Missae. The new order of the mass.

I just use the term because I find it easy: NO, TLM, but if you prefer OF and EF it’s fine with me.
 
Timothysis said:
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…
Click to expand...
Actually, if you understand the meaning of the word ‘precedent,’ it is a very real one. You know, because it happened.
 
jfoges said:
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.
Click to expand...
It’s a shortening of Novus Ordo Missale Romanum, the term used at the time to distinguish it from the Vetus Ordo Missale Romanum, both of which were presented in documents entitled Missale Romanum.

New Order of the Roman Missal vs Old Order of the Roman Missal.

Pope Benedict has used both Novus Ordo Missale Romanum and also “Ordinary Form.”
 
belgianwaffles9 said:
Actually, if you understand the meaning of the word ‘precedent,’ it is a very real one. You know, because it happened.
Click to expand...
Really? Well, shazaam. Still, the Church is not run by common law, regardless of any past ‘precedents.’ And the original author was using the word in a way to cast authority against the current OF. Thanks for the concern.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top