Can a pope promulgate bad liturgy?

[ProVobis]

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.

Yes, they went more than nuclear. But who led them to believe the Pope would relax the rules on the Pill? Maybe the Pope himself. After all, he was relaxing all the other rules, meat absinence, fast before Communion, the loose vernacular in the liturgy, Sat Mass to fulfill your obligation, etc. Furthermore the Pope had already expressed a relaxation of the rules regarding children limitation and had gathered a ton of moral theologians who pretty much decided that the pill was permissible. So it was expected the Pope would act accordingly with his advisors. Had the Pope issued the HV when the Pill was made public, then it might have been a different story but he dragged his feet and stayed ignorant of the attempted hijack of the Church until it was too late.

 

[AlexV]

I would wager the majority of Catholics in the West were ignoring the already-existing bans on artificial contraception long before Humanae Vitae. And, indeed, with all the other changes afoot, the ever-contradictory Paul VI might well have surprised not a few with his refusal to budge on artificial contraception while appearing to budge on everything else.

BUT…it’s always been about the liturgy. The average Catholic connects with the Church through LITURGY. You can’t radically change the way people pray and expect there not to be massive problems.

 

[ProVobis]

Point noted.

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

I thought that it had been answered many times before. I just pointed it out to someone’s post claiming or implying that all prayers in the Mass had Catholic origins.

 

[ethelzguy]

Yes, they went more than nuclear. But who led them to believe the Pope would relax the rules on the Pill? Maybe the Pope himself. After all, he was relaxing all the other rules, meat absinence, fast before Communion, the loose vernacular in the liturgy, Sat Mass to fulfill your obligation, etc. Furthermore the Pope had already expressed a relaxation of the rules regarding children limitation and had gathered a ton of moral theologians who pretty much decided that the pill was permissible. So it was expected the Pope would act accordingly with his advisors. Had the Pope issued the HV when the Pill was made public, then it might have been a different story but he dragged his feet and stayed ignorant of the attempted hijack of the Church until it was too late.

Actually, I thought it was a GOOD sign, when HV came out after all the other “loosenings”. I felt it sent a strong message to the effect of, “While we’ve loosened up a bit, don’t get carried away. We’re still firm on the big stuff…”

 

[AlexV]

Liturgy IS “big stuff”. It’s not just a plaything of a pope (or his commission).

 

[ethelzguy]

Liturgy IS “big stuff”. It’s not just a plaything of a pope (or his commission).

Big stuff that falls under his jurisdiction, however. That is a fact that appears lost on some. I hardly think that the commission saw the liturgy as a “plaything”.

 

[AlexV]

You’d wonder, given the hack job the Pauline Commission did with what they inherited from centuries and centuries past.

But at least the worst of that bad period in the liturgy seems to be over. At least we now know Paul never abrogated the liturgy he tried so hard to make sure would never be celebrated again. Lefebvre claimed that in 1976…nice to see Benedict confirm it in 2007.

 

[strugglingalong]

You’d wonder, given the hack job the Pauline Commission did with what they inherited from centuries and centuries past.

But at least the worst of that bad period in the liturgy seems to be over. At least we now know Paul never abrogated the liturgy he tried so hard to make sure would never be celebrated again. Lefebvre claimed that in 1976…nice to see Benedict confirm it in 2007.

Did John Paul II say it was abrogated? I wasn’t sure…

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[AlexV]

Nope. Paul never said it was abrogated or not abrogated; in a fashion typical for his reign he refused to make an explicit declaration. But DE FACTO, if not DE JURE, it was indeed abrogated. It was certainly made to feel like a dirty secret and a preference for it was called every bad name under the ecclesiastical sun.

Only in 2007 did we finally get an explicit confirmation: nope, sorry, it was never abrogated.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

Pope John Paul stated that the Church didn’t have the power to ordain women. So if the debate was whether it’s dogma or discipline and JPII said it wasn’t discipline, then it’s dogma.

 

[strugglingalong]

Nope. Paul never said it was abrogated or not abrogated; in a fashion typical for his reign he refused to make an explicit declaration. But DE FACTO, if not DE JURE, it was indeed abrogated. It was certainly made to feel like a dirty secret and a preference for it was called every bad name under the ecclesiastical sun.

Only in 2007 did we finally get an explicit confirmation: nope, sorry, it was never abrogated.

Right. Thanks.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[strugglingalong]

Pope John Paul stated that the Church didn’t have the power to ordain women. So if the debate was whether it’s dogma or discipline and JPII said it wasn’t discipline, then it’s dogma.

The issue was the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium…

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[EasterJoy]

This is not a simple question!

Whatever liturgy the Pope promulgates as valid is valid. That doesn’t guarantee that the poetry will be good, that the theology will be widely edifying, that the wording won’t cause any confusion, or that any graces will be particularly fostered*…other than the graces inherent in the Sacrament itself and those which naturally flow towards the soul that humbles itself to dispose itself to any grace available.* I think that distinction is extremely important, for there is no necessary limit to those graces, only the limit our sinfulness puts upon them.

It is also very possible to take a liturgy that could objectively be better (meaning: easier to cooperate with, I suppose) and make it far, far worse by refusing to dispose onesself to the grace God sees fit to make flow from it. No matter how bad a liturgy is, a soul that allows pride free admission can always make it worse!

There are essentials that are guaranteed to be there. In other respects, liturgies can differ widely, even in an objective sense. Still, just as objectively bad music can be very edifying to some, an objectively less skillfully-rendered liturgy can be deeply edifying, too. As long as the liturgy is valid, the willingness and disposition of the individual soul makes all the difference in the world. A soul that approaches the throne of God in humility can still receive the infinite graces inherent even in a poorly-rendered liturgy that is objectively valid.

Nevertheless, the goal should naturally be to seek the most skillfully-rendered liturgy possible, from the human (name removed by moderator)ut by the Magesterium to the human (name removed by moderator)ut by those who celebrate and assist at the actual sacrament. We should not put God to the test by presuming we can afford to be lax!! God supplies everything, and so all glory is due to Him, but God in His grace has desired to include the cooperation of our wills in the final product, starting with the Magesterium and ending with each of us.

 

[ProVobis]

Liturgy IS “big stuff”. It’s not just a plaything of a pope (or his commission).

Indeed. Liturgy is all most Catholics have in connecting with the Church. Churches are basically empty at times other than the Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

The issue was the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium…

Pax Christi tecum.

As AlexV has stated, perhaps we’re too hung up on whether something is infallible or not. Perhaps we should extend that to the validity of the liturgy as well. Just because it’s valid doesn’t mean it’s necessarily to our spiritual advantage; in fact it may be a detriment.

 

[I_Believe]

I thought that it had been answered many times before. I just pointed it out to someone’s post claiming or implying that all prayers in the Mass had Catholic origins.

No post above mine said that. I just said I didn’t see anything non-catholic in the Ordinary.

So what is Jewish about the Offertory prayer(s) ?

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

Of course, they’re Catholic now.

If I’m wrong, please explain. I’m no expert on the Liturgy.

 

[AlexV]

The prayers for the “Offertory” (which isn’t called an Offertory in the new Missal) are indeed based on Jewish blessing prayers for meals. They have zero history of use in the Roman Rite.

 

[strugglingalong]

This is not a simple question!

Whatever liturgy the Pope promulgates as valid is valid. That doesn’t guarantee that the poetry will be good, that the theology will be widely edifying, that the wording won’t cause any confusion, or that any graces will be particularly fostered*…other than the graces inherent in the Sacrament itself and those which naturally flow towards the soul that humbles itself to dispose itself to any grace available.* I think that distinction is extremely important, for there is no necessary limit to those graces, only the limit our sinfulness puts upon them.

It is also very possible to take a liturgy that could objectively be better (meaning: easier to cooperate with, I suppose) and make it far, far worse by refusing to dispose onesself to the grace God sees fit to make flow from it. No matter how bad a liturgy is, a soul that allows pride free admission can always make it worse!

There are essentials that are guaranteed to be there. In other respects, liturgies can differ widely, even in an objective sense. Still, just as objectively bad music can be very edifying to some, an objectively less skillfully-rendered liturgy can be deeply edifying, too. As long as the liturgy is valid, the willingness and disposition of the individual soul makes all the difference in the world. A soul that approaches the throne of God in humility can still receive the infinite graces inherent even in a poorly-rendered liturgy that is objectively valid.

Nevertheless, the goal should naturally be to seek the most skillfully-rendered liturgy possible, from the human (name removed by moderator)ut by the Magesterium to the human (name removed by moderator)ut by those who celebrate and assist at the actual sacrament. We should not put God to the test by presuming we can afford to be lax!! God supplies everything, and so all glory is due to Him, but God in His grace has desired to include the cooperation of our wills in the final product, starting with the Magesterium and ending with each of us.

I do think a liturgy can either assist or block our disposition to receive graces in the Sacrament. For example, it could require far more effort to be better disposed if the prayers are ambiguous and watered-down.

Also, could the Pope ever promulgate a Mass that is invalid? Why or why not?

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[AlexV]

Invalid? Nope. But again, I urge people to move away from worrying about questions of validity and infallibility.

 

[I_Believe]

The prayers for the “Offertory” (which isn’t called an Offertory in the new Missal) are indeed based on Jewish blessing prayers for meals. They have zero history of use in the Roman Rite.

Specifically the “bread of life”, and " spiritual drink" parts ?