Conflicting qutoes from the pope?

[ncstevem]

Do you think these two quotes are consistent?

One quote from Pope Benedict XVI.

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. (Letter to Bishops Accompanying Summorum Pontificum)

As Cardinal Ratzinger:

“What happened after the Council was altogether different: instead of a liturgy fruit of continuous development, a fabricated liturgy was put in its place. A living growing process was abandoned and the fabrication started. There was no further wish to continue the organic evolution and maturation of the living being throughout the centuries and they were replaced – as if in a technical production – by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment.” (Preface to the Gamber book)

“Even the official new books, which are excellent in many ways, occasionally show far too many signs of being drawn up by academics and reinforce the notion that a liturgical book can be ‘made’ like any other book.” The new missal, “was published as if it were a book put together by professors, not a phase in a continual growth process. Such a thing never happened before. It is absolutely contrary to the laws of liturgical growth.” (Ratzinger’s Feast of Faith)

 

[ProVobis]

Not really. The substance of the Mass has not changed, though certainly the externals have. And now we have one Rite and two forms.

And for those who think that his writings as Cardinal were too opinionated and should be discarded, don’t forget he was then as he certainly is now, part of the Magisterium of the Church.

 

[sancte_joseph]

Like ProVobis said no it doesn’t contradict but the language that then Cardinal Ratzinger used was stronger and very much opinionated… something that he probably thought that as Pope he would have to calm down on. Remember that everyone thought that his pontificate was going to be one of strength and hmm well that… they did call him the Pope’s bulldog after all…

 

[Roy5]

Recent Popes seem to have approved of democracy and also endorsed the separation of church and state. However, many non-Catholics 150 years ago were incensed when Pius IX issued his “Syllabus of Errors” (1864) in which he denounced democracy and the separation of church and state and strongly championed Catholicism as the state religion where it was established.
Does this represent a conflict? Or, what?

 

[sancte_joseph]

Recent Popes seem to have approved of democracy and also endorsed the separation of church and state. However, many non-Catholics 150 years ago were incensed when Pius IX issued his “Syllabus of Errors” (1864) in which he denounced democracy and the separation of church and state and strongly championed Catholicism as the state religion where it was established.

Does this represent a conflict? Or, what?

Hmm but those are of different popes… This thread is about alleged conflicts in quotes from the same person… i.e. Our Dear Pope, Benedict XVI (Ratzinger)

 

[Jordan_Francis]

I think, as Pope, he is putting more weight into the question of the Church’s unity. As a Cardinal, he was one voice among many. As Pope, his voice carries far more weight. He wants to emphasize what is continuous between the rites to keep the Church together.

Is this right? I don’t know, I don’t think so. I admire Benedict, but I’d rather we just state the plain facts. The new mass is valid, but a drastic failure of vision and does not live up to the spiritual and historical heritage of the Church. In the Catholic religion, for whom tradition is the veins by which the precious life Blood of the Lord courses through, there should never be such thing as a “new mass” and an “old mass”. The fact that this is indeed what happened can not be undone or covered up. It was a dramatic rupture in all but the official word. Which means it still happened, we just don’t talk about it. This is the very reason Benedict changed the terminology. It’s spin on his part.

The new Mass has possibly ruined the Church’s sacramental historical consciousness. I think we will come to regret this and all the hierarchy who continue to compromise.

 

[ProVobis]

I think, as Pope, he is putting more weight into the question of the Church’s unity. As a Cardinal, he was one voice among many. As Pope, his voice carries far more weight. He wants to emphasize what is continuous between the rites to keep the Church together.

There are some in the Vatican (like Cardinal Arinze) who speak for the Pope in certain matters. Rest assured the Pope has given them the full authoritative weight when they speak in behalf of the Pope and the Church.

I understand the late JPII entrusted a lot of duties to (his very good friend, in fact) Cardinal Ratzinger, including full power to negotiate with Archbishop Lefebvre and others. The Cardinal, in his position as Prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, carried much more authoritative weight than an ordinary bishop.

Just as an aside, how many actually remember that Cardinal Gut officially promulgated the Novus Ordo? It certainly didn’t lack any authority, did it?

 

[Jehoshua]

… they did call him the Pope’s bulldog after all…

God’s Rottweiler:thumbsup:

---

A champion of orthodoxy and opponent of heretics who would seek to corrupt the church. I think the statements are not really contradictory, merely the tone in which they are sent, and it is definitely correct that the ordinary form is valid, and Cardinal Ratzinger never denied that and neither does he now he’s Benedict XVI.

We also must remember that Popes are human they make errors. Papal infallibility only comes into play when they speak ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals.

 

[Bbigam]

Like ProVobis said no it doesn’t contradict but the language that then Cardinal Ratzinger used was stronger and very much opinionated… something that he probably thought that as Pope he would have to calm down on. Remember that everyone thought that his pontificate was going to be one of strength and hmm well that… they did call him the Pope’s bulldog after all…

Isn’t it also possible that the Holy Father’s personal view of the Ordinary Form has developed and changed somewhat since those earlier writings? I don’t mean totally reversed, but maybe he himself was previously focused on the losses and negative changes, and now is focused more on the continuity and the positive changes. Just a thought.

 

[3Sanctus]

Keep in mind the Holy Father has to hold the Church together - trying to bring fornicators, abortionists, contraceptors, adulterers, Freemasons, heretics, and other modernists back into the Church. He’s got an awful lot on his plate, and wants to bring all these modernists back to the One Truth Faith from their ludicrous wanderings of the past fifty years.

 

[ProVobis]

Isn’t it also possible that the Holy Father’s personal view of the Ordinary Form has developed and changed somewhat since those earlier writings?

It’s possible but don’t forget he does have the authority to change or eliminate those things in the OF which he deems can damage the Church.

 

[3Sanctus]

It’s possible but don’t forget he does have the authority to change or eliminate those things in the OF which he deems can damage the Church.

Yes, it’s very important for people to remember the damage done to Holy Mother Church’s faithful over the past 50 years is in now way fallible. It’s all pastoral and can be changed at the simple whim of the Holy Father.

God willing we’ll be closer to getting back on track at the end of the Holy Father’s pontificate (many happy years to him!).

 

[Bbigam]

It’s possible but don’t forget he does have the authority to change or eliminate those things in the OF which he deems can damage the Church.

Certainly he could. In a similar way, John XXIII had the authority to unilaterally promulgate what is now the Ordinary Form.

Yes, it’s very important for people to remember the damage done to Holy Mother Church’s faithful over the past 50 years is in now way fallible. It’s all pastoral and can be changed at the simple whim of the Holy Father.

God willing we’ll be closer to getting back on track at the end of the Holy Father’s pontificate (many happy years to him!).

No, the damage done isn’t infallible (I assume that’s what you meant), but it’s not “pastoral” either. All or most of the damage is the result of disobedience on the part of many priests, bishops, and laity - not the result of any “pastoral” action by Vatican II, John XXIII, or the Popes since then.

 

[3Sanctus]

Certainly he could. In a similar way, John XXIII had the authority to unilaterally promulgate what is now the Ordinary Form.

Pope Paul VI promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae, which was written by the alleged Freemason Annibale Bugnini.

No, the damage done isn’t infallible (I assume that’s what you meant), but it’s not “pastoral” either. All or most of the damage is the result of disobedience on the part of many priests, bishops, and laity - not the result of any “pastoral” action by Vatican II, John XXIII, or the Popes since then.

I would disagree and say the damage is pastoral, but let me be more specific to make up for my vagueness.

There were two types of pastoral action that caused damage following the Second Vatican Council and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae. Pastoral action on the part of the See of Peter in union with the bishops of the world and the pastoral action that saw the decisions made during Vatican II being put into action.

There were definitely things done in a damaging way during Vatican II (while I won’t take particular stances at this point, which is out the scope of this discussion anyway, the fact is at the very least some things in Vatican II documents were stated in such a way as to allow people to go into error while claiming to support those documents - by “go into error” I mean adopt heresy and reject Tradition with a big “T,” by which I mean the infallible Magisterium of the Church); however, you are right that much of the damage has been due to implementation on lower levels than the council itself - that said, the vast majority of the issues that have arisen at lower levels have in some way, shape, or form, been aided in their arising by action taken during the council or in its aftermath by the council fathers and/or the popes who have reigned since the council.

For the record, I am a faithful Catholic and a faithful subject of His Holiness Benedict XVI, just so you don’t mistake my intentions here.

 

[choy]

There are some in the Vatican (like Cardinal Arinze) who speak for the Pope in certain matters. Rest assured the Pope has given them the full authoritative weight when they speak in behalf of the Pope and the Church.

I understand the late JPII entrusted a lot of duties to (his very good friend, in fact) Cardinal Ratzinger, including full power to negotiate with Archbishop Lefebvre and others. The Cardinal, in his position as Prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, carried much more authoritative weight than an ordinary bishop.

Just as an aside, how many actually remember that Cardinal Gut officially promulgated the Novus Ordo? It certainly didn’t lack any authority, did it?

i think what a lot of people miss about the Pope is that he is the head of the Latin Church and head of the entire Church as well. and at some point the Pope has to focus on matters that concerns the entire Church and would let the other congregations tackle the specifics to that of the Latin Church. the Latin Rite is only 1 of 6 Rites in the Catholic Church, and 1 of 22 sui juris Churches, so it makes no sense for the Pope to just concentrate on the Latin Church alone. issues about the Roman Missal need to be handed off to the Congregation for Divine Worship. then its up to the Pope to decide how much involvement he wants with that process

 

[Bbigam]

Pope Paul VI promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae, which was written by the alleged Freemason Annibale Bugnini.

Whoops, sorry, wrong Pope! You’re right of course (about Paul VI, not going to get into a discussion about Bugnini here).

I would disagree and say the damage is pastoral, but let me be more specific to make up for my vagueness.

There were two types of pastoral action that caused damage following the Second Vatican Council and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae. Pastoral action on the part of the See of Peter in union with the bishops of the world and the pastoral action that saw the decisions made during Vatican II being put into action.

There were definitely things done in a damaging way during Vatican II (while I won’t take particular stances at this point, which is out the scope of this discussion anyway, the fact is at the very least some things in Vatican II documents were stated in such a way as to allow people to go into error while claiming to support those documents - by “go into error” I mean adopt heresy and reject Tradition with a big “T,” by which I mean the infallible Magisterium of the Church); however, you are right that much of the damage has been due to implementation on lower levels than the council itself - that said, the vast majority of the issues that have arisen at lower levels have in some way, shape, or form, been aided in their arising by action taken during the council or in its aftermath by the council fathers and/or the popes who have reigned since the council.

For the record, I am a faithful Catholic and a faithful subject of His Holiness Benedict XVI, just so you don’t mistake my intentions here.

Thank you for clarifying. That’s much clearer. I may have overreacted to the term “pastoral” somewhat because I get tired of some people (not you) using it to basically say we can completely ignore the Second Vatican Council (and by extension anything else post-1962).

If it helps to clarify my stance on the Liturgy - I recently bought the full 4 volume set of the modern English Liturgy of the Hours - and a 1962 Roman Missal from Baronius Press.

 

[Aramis]

Most popes have changed their views somewhat once enthroned from their prior views as a cardinal.

The amount is different from pope to pope, but all have had some changes.

At least one was a heretic as a bishop, but taught no heresy as pope…

 

[3Sanctus]

Aramis:

“Alaskan, Catholic. Born Roman Rite, then soundly Ruthenianized.”

I have a friend who has a similar issue.

It’s always nice to see Eastern Catholics in traditional Catholic fora.