Can a pope promulgate bad liturgy?

[eelpis]

Really? Well, shazaam. Still, the Church is not run by common law, regardless of any past ‘precedents.’

No of course not but the pope might scrap the NO anyway, or reform it. He’s got the authority you know.

What do you mean by “casting authority against”?

 

[ethelzguy]

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.

I resemble that remark

 

[eelpis]

Quite likely.

Think back to the 50’s. Daddy brought home the bacon and Momma cooked it. Life was simple. People respected each other, and feared God. FEAR of God played a huge role in our lives back then. We had very little in the way of material things, and made do with it.

One TV in the house (maybe) and if you were REALLY fortunate, by the mid 60’s you had a COLOR set!

One car in the garage. Mom fixed your clothes. Dad fixed everything else. We didn’t have money to blow on every new gadget that came out. Of course, there weren’t that many gadgets back then either.

Kids played ball in the back yard. Boys scoured the neighborhood for broken lawnmowers and such to cobble together go-carts…the list goes on and on…

But nobody dreamed of not going to Church on Sunday, Catholic or otherwise. If you didn’t go to Church you didn’t allow your kids to play “with those kind of people”.

Times have changed. Fear of God has evolved into “God Loves You Just The Way You Are”…as a means of brushing off a more sinful lifestyle.

I truly believe that the realization of this coming trend by the Church leaders is what drove Vatican II and what happened afterwards. I shudder to think of what would have happened if the Church stood idly by and did nothing, while the world changed rampantly around it.

I think the Church leaders back then were a lot smarter than some of us give them credit for.

You are a very meanspirited trooll. May God have mercy on your black sooul.

 

[ethelzguy]

You are a very meanspirited trooll. May God have mercy on your black sooul.

If that’s how you treat people when they agree with you, I shudder to think how you treat those who don’t.

 

[ethelzguy]

You are a very meanspirited trooll. May God have mercy on your black sooul.

How was that post “mean-spirited” in any way?

I was AGREEING with you.

 

[eelpis]

If that’s how you treat people when they agree with you, I shudder to think how you treat those who don’t.

I’m neither English nor American so I don’t have such a good command of your language. And you make fun of my spelling and my grammar. You could go on and on, and I just smile, because you know what there’s no way you would understand my language.

 

[eelpis]

How was that post “mean-spirited” in any way?

I was AGREEING with you.

Alrightie then. Let’s shake hands.

 

[SFD]

The term Novus Ordo was first used by the Vatican. All it means is new order and that’s what it was.

Yes. A New Order of Mass.

The Law of Prayer is the Law of Belief. The idea that these changes were not significant is what is at issue here. Benedict XVI says that the two rites express the same theology. The results of the NOM was significant…it changed the beliefs of the typical “man in the pew”…at least for those who remained in their pews long enough to be affected.

SFD

 

[eelpis]

Yes. A New Order of Mass.

The Law of Prayer is the Law of Belief. The idea that these changes were not significant is what is at issue here. Benedict XVI says that the two rites express the same theology. The results of the NOM was significant…it changed the beliefs of the typical “man in the pew”…at least for those who remained in their pews long enough to be affected.

SFD

I read “The Heresy of Formlessness” a while ago and I think the author made a point of how the Church’s teaching has not changed regarding the Eucharist and yet the faith in the Eucharist is waning ie no kneeling, no adoration etc.

 

[SFD]

I read “The Heresy of Formlessness” a while ago and I think the author made a point of how the Church’s teaching has not changed regarding the Eucharist and yet the faith in the Eucharist is waning ie no kneeling, no adoration etc.

We’re not speaking of the “Church’s teaching changing” here…we are discussing the expression of that teaching in Her official worship. Worship has substantially changed and consequently, beliefs have changed.
Monsignor G. Van Noort:

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.

Now, “faith and morals” is not solely comprised of dogmas…the Church cannot even issue a universal disipline that is injurious to souls in the least.
Monsignor G. Van Noort:

But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. It would not be a guardian of revealed doctrine, for the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the Church had commanded squared with sound doctrine. It would not be a teacher of the Christian way of life, for by its laws it would induce corruption into the practice of religious life.

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.

SFD

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

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.
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.

I do remember listening to a talk by Dr. William Marra, a professor at Fordham University, who stated that the way the Poles celebrated Mass after Vatican II you could hardly tell there had been any changes.

keepthefaith.org/detail.aspx?ID=479

Which is entirely possible. You could still celebrate ad orientem and in Latin. There was no requirement to rip out altar rails or forbid kneeling to receive Holy Communion.

Thus I would suspect that those countries, like Poland, which weren’t quite so “gung ho” on de-sanctifying the liturgy and the churches probably would not experience as much devastation as far as the practice of the Faith goes. But unfortunately they may be catching up.

 

[jfoges]

In response to everyone who disagreed with me that the Novus Ordo is not the correct term, I want to say a few things. The term Novus Ordo originally appeared in a document written by Paul VI, I believe. It was never intended to be an official title of that edition of the Roman Mass. SSPX latched onto this term and started to use it in their writings which insulted the Mass of Paul VI. It has since come into common usage. However, it has never been, and still is not the correct term for the Roman Mass. If you read the recent Summorum Pontificum Motu Proprio Datae by Pope Benedict XVI you should note that he never refers to the mass as the Novus Ordo, only as the Mass of Paul VI.

I don’t think its right to use a term that was coined by SSPX, because SSPX is guilty of many errors. One significant error is that they believe the Mass of Paul VI reflects a different and false understanding of Catholic doctrine. There is no difference between the doctrine expressed by the Mass of Paul VI and the Mass of John XXIII.

 

[I_Believe]

The Pill ? What’s love got to do, got to do with it ? What’s love, but a second hand emotion…

Sorry, lol, …

Of those attending Mass, there is a very good likelyhood that better than half attended Mass regularly as children and young adults under either the 1962 Missal, or the missal prior to that.

Do you mean those attending Mass today ? Well, in the US, the 1962 Missal was short lived. Anyone that was raised on the Gregorian Rite, and by that I mean those who were adults before the OF was introduced, would be about 60 years old or older now.

I don’t believe I’ve ever been to a diocean Mass where over half of the faithful were pushing 60 or more. I’ve been to 12 or so parishes in my town.

I assist at a Forma extraordinaria on Sunday, originally an indult Mass. I’d bet that if I did an exit poll after Mass there, the majority would not know who Fr. Michael Mary, Archbishop Burke, Archbishop Ranjith, Cardinal Hoyos, or Archbishop Lefevbre is.

Let alone asking after an OF Mass.

Most catholics don’t know what all the fuss is about. I’m talking about the average catholic. And only a small percentage have ever assisted at the TLM as adults.

And I’ll have to disagree with the end of your post. The SP is bearing fruit.

If I hadn’t found this forum, I’d have wound up at the closest parish when I returned to the Church, and wouldn’t have a clue what the fuss is all about. I’ve been to Mass there, once. It is a cornucopia of …, well, let’s put it this way…there was a car in the parking lot with a Call to Action bumper sticker on it. Drum kit, keyboards, elecric bass and guitar. Yea buddy, the whole package.

Anyhow, I’m not speaking ex cathedra, so fell free to disagree

 

[JReducation]

Yes, I really think that more grace come to us with a liturgy that is reverent, “ex opero operato” nonetheless. With more graces available it’s easier to get to heaven. The liturgy is just a part of the whole of Christian life but since it’s the source and summit, it has got to be important, don’t you think?

I believe the problem that some people have with certain traditionalist individuals is the common use of ther term “superior” when speaking of the extraordinary form.

Those of us who studied theology for many years are very uncomfortable with that term for several reasons.

1. It is not the language of the Church. The Church has not said that the extraordinary form is superior. In fact, the Motu Proprio and the cover letter that went out with it made sure to clarify and guarrantee that the two forms were one and he same and there should be no divisions over them. Superior is a word that invites to division. A much better way of expressing it would be that it is my preferrered form of the mass.
2. The other problem is the fact that we have an entire generation of people who never saw the extraordinary form. When they are told that there is a superior form of the mass, it can be misleading to them. It can encourage them to believe that they have been given a less than holy form of the mass for more than 40 years. This is not fair to them, because it causes them a great deal of pain and confusion.
3. On the other side of the aisle, there are those who mistakenly believe that the more creative you make the mass the more superior it is. That’s so wrong at so many levels. The mass is not about creativity. It is about worship. When you play with the rules, in this case we’re speaking about the ordinary form, you are not making the mass superior. In fact, you are derailing it. This is totally unacceptable. I for one, have no qualms about tellling someone that they have to stop that. I believe that it has to be said charitably, in the right setting and with the proper intention. But it can be said or reported to the right authority.

For some of us, such as I, the term superior was first used by very liberal Catholics who wanted to persuade us that we were too orthodox and thus we were not as “superior” Catholics as we should be, because we supported Humanae Vitae, the Vatican Council, celibacy, male priesthood, Marian doctrines, the authority of the papacy, the Church’s teaching on abortion, the Church’s teaching on same-sex marriage, the Church’s teaching on women and the Chruch’s theology of the body, just to name a few examples.

Then came this other group of people who said that they had soemthing superior called the Tridentine mass. Now we were getting blasted from two fronts. Those who were very liberal claimed they had superior form of Catholicism and superior liturgies and those who were more conservatives or traditional said they had a superior form of Catholicism and superior liturgy.

When you hear that word too much, it sound arrogant. It does not sound inviting.

I have been to mass in the extraordianry form. It is very humble and very beautiful. I have also been to mass in the ordinary form and have seen great beauty and humility. In fact, I was at mass with the Holy Father presiding on December 24 for the Midnight Mass. It was the ordinary form. It was beautiful, though the music was disappointing. Maybe the acustics were bad or something. It didn’t fill the bascilica of St. Peter. It sounds better on TV than it does in person.

I have also been to the Divine Liturgy in the Greek Orthodox Church and it is very beautiful. It left me in awe. But it was not superior either. There was an element of humility that came through.

Maybe the word we have to get out of the middle, is the word “superior”. Maybe we have to express it in personal terms. “It’s my favorite form of the mass.”

For example, my favorite form of the mass is the Eastern rite. It is not superior to the Western rite. It’s just my favorite, because I find all the pomp and circumstances to be very beautiful and very mystical. But I studied mystical theology, so what can you expect from me? I get into the mystical.

I have to attend the ordinary form because I have a son with autism who cannot tolerate the extraordianry form or the Byzantine rite. He needs the visual and auditory (name removed by moderator)ut to understand. When he does not understand he becomes upset and wants to leave. I’m not about to tackle a 19-year old man to make him stay at mass.

But if we could change the word or eliminate the word superior from our vocabulary, both by traditionalists and liberals, we would feel more comfortable and less antagonized.

This is just a thought.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[ethelzguy]

I’ve been to 12 or so parishes in my town.

Just curious as to what moved you to attend 12 different parishes in the same city?

 

[I_Believe]

Just curious as to what moved you to attend 12 different parishes in the same city?

Many reasons. Most of them are the older churches, and I wanted to see them. I love older churches.

I wanted to experience the difference in the way different priests offer a homily. For example, a Franciscan, versus a Dominican. Not to compare them for “the best method”, but to experience it. I’ve found that it varies more from priest to priest, rather than from one order to the next.

Part of it is because I wanted to find a parish I felt comfortable with. I admit, at first I was a bit judgemental. During this “parish shopping” period in late '06, I had been on this forum and was, and remain, influenced by Traditional Catholicism.

Anyone who frequents this forum and was a member before I signed up probably noticed how much I’ve jumped back and forth on the issues. I’ve never, nor will I ever, embrace the “chair is vacant” view, but I went through a period where I was almost convinced that a S.S.P.X. Chapel or independent Chapel was where I belonged. I was very close to formally joining and supporting the local S.S.P.X. Chapel. Then came the “perfect liberal/what a mystery” comment from Bishop Fellay, followed by some troubling words from Bishop Williamson. This, and the attitude taken on the FE and AQ forums concerning the Transalpine Redemptorists (now Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer), regarding their regularization, was a huge turn off. Sorry folks, “see ya”.

I must say though, in my brief encounter with the local S.S.P.X. Chapel flock and priest, I sensed no bitterness. Certainly not from the pulpit. I have not been to a Mass there since what I mentioned above, so I’m not sure if these things have been spoken of from the pulpit there.

 

[otjm]

Yes. A New Order of Mass.

The Law of Prayer is the Law of Belief. The idea that these changes were not significant is what is at issue here. Benedict XVI says that the two rites express the same theology. The results of the NOM was significant…it changed the beliefs of the typical “man in the pew”…at least for those who remained in their pews long enough to be affected.

SFD

That comment does not take into account the changes in catechesis starting in the early 1970’s and continuing well into the mid 90’s. It is widely accepted that catechetical teachings moved away from a doctrinal focus. That in and of itself is the largest problem with belief in the Eucharist - before Vatican 2 and before the changes in the Mass, the priest was not getting up and giving a sermon on transubstantiation. They are not doing so now either, for the largest part. But the continual blaming of loss of understanding of the Eucharist is constantly being focused on the changes in the Mass, which is simply one more post hoc ergo propter hoc arguement, without any evidentiary foundation.

For all the ink that has been spilled over the issue of pro multis, no one has ever shown any survey of people in the pew identifying that it - the translation - has had anything to do with their understanding of the Eucharist. For that matter, no survey appears to have been done as to the Masss changes in general. We simply have one more urban myth making the rounds as gospel truth, mostly by people who do not like the OF and seek to blame any and every issue they can find on the changes in the prayers of the Mass. They completely ignore issues, such as changes in catechesis, that go to the heart of the issue - loss of understanding of our faith. Failure to think critically usually results in simplistic answers to complex questions; this is one more example.

 

[MikeDunphy]

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.

Pope Paul VI used the term Novus Ordo in a speech you can read here.

 

[ethelzguy]

Many reasons. Most of them are the older churches, and I wanted to see them. I love older churches.

I wanted to experience the difference in the way different priests offer a homily. For example, a Franciscan, versus a Dominican. Not to compare them for “the best method”, but to experience it. I’ve found that it varies more from priest to priest, rather than from one order to the next.

Part of it is because I wanted to find a parish I felt comfortable with. I admit, at first I was a bit judgemental. During this “parish shopping” period in late '06, I had been on this forum and was, and remain, influenced by Traditional Catholicism.

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.

 

[SFD]

That comment does not take into account the changes in catechesis starting in the early 1970’s and continuing well into the mid 90’s. It is widely accepted that catechetical teachings moved away from a doctrinal focus. That in and of itself is the largest problem with belief in the Eucharist - before Vatican 2 and before the changes in the Mass, the priest was not getting up and giving a sermon on transubstantiation. They are not doing so now either, for the largest part. But the continual blaming of loss of understanding of the Eucharist is constantly being focused on the changes in the Mass, which is simply one more post hoc ergo propter hoc arguement, without any evidentiary foundation…

And your comment disregards the well known axiom, “Lex orandi est Lex Crendendi”…“The Law of Prayer is the Law of Belief”.

Again:
Monsignor G. Van Noort:

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.

The Splendor of External Worship - Rt. Rev. Mons. Chidwick:

The liturgy of Holy Church is not only monumental and inspirational, it is not only the outflowing and outpouring of her living soul, but it is also the fitting expression of her belief. Every ceremony or rite is the vesture proper to the truth it expresses. It is not a part of a drama seeking to impress by its beauty, its suggestiveness or its austerity. It expresses an underlying truth in an impressive manner. It is the language of the Church. By it she speaks to all the saving truths which have been entrusted to her keeping. By it, the-lettered and the unlettered, the child as well as the parent, the sinner as well as the just, the rude barbarian and the untutored savage are instructed, impressed and lifted up to God,- and by it they all, in unison of voice and action, profess the same faith with which they have been blessed. The altar expresses the perpetual and all-saving sacrifice which is offered daily according to the command of Christ: “Do ye this in memory of me.” The lighted candles, the flowers and the incense speak of His presence in the tabernacle Whom we adore. The storied windows and the statuary tell us of the life beyond the grave and bring close to us the saintly company about the throne in Heaven who are our friends, our companions and our intercessors during our journey on earth. The church itself fills us with the beauty, the grandeur, the majesty, the power, the immensity of Him to Whom it is dedicated. The surmounting cross raises our thoughts to the one and only Mediator through whom all blessings flow from our Heavenly Father. When we raise our eyes or clasp our hands, bow the head or bend the knee, sign ourselves with the sign of the cross or bless ourselves with Holy Water, the action brings to our minds and hearts dogmas of faith that profess our faith and love. For this reason the revealed truth, which cannot change, causes our liturgy to move with uniformity and harmony, everywhere essentially the same in all countries and all ages.

Wherever he may be, a child of Holy Church is at home at the Catholic services of the land. He may be in distant Asia or Africa, among people whose habits of thought, language and customs of life are strange and un-intelligible to him, but in their churches, if they be of the household of faith, he is in a familiar House of God and can worship in the same manner as he does at home. It is because they lack revealed and unchanging truth, that this privilege cannot be enjoyed by those outside the fold. “Lex orandi est lex credendi” is an old and true axiom. The law of worship is the law of belief. Where there is no true creed of belief there can be no true and fixed form of worship.