Could the Pope suppress the current GIRM of the Ordinary Form?

[Hesychios]

I was inspired by another thread here. Could a Pope, by Motu Proprio, suppress or ban the Novus Ordo by his own authority?

Could he do this to any other liturgy, such as the Ambrosian, the Mozarabic or the Anglican Use?

I hope I phrased the question adequately.

Thanks!

 

[Seamus_L]

Sounds like you’re saying the Pope is only Infallible in the Latin Church.

 

[Hesychios]

Sounds like you’re saying the Pope is only Infallible in the Latin Church.

On the contrary, I believe that he is infallible everywhere or nowhere, there is no in-between!

But this is a question about Universal Jurisdiction, not Papal Infallibility. I was wondering what people think it meant to the Council Fathers in 1870AD. It is a hypothetical question, please understand I only want to know how people interpret the disciplinary powers of the bishop of Rome (according to their best ability). In the other section there is some dispute about it and I thought if I looked here I might get an idea how the more traditionally minded Latin Catholics understand these powers. It seems relevant to most Latin Catholics recent past experience and I hoped many people have had a chance to think about it before now.

I have not, and will not vote on the poll. It’s only up for seven days.

 

[Seamus_L]

I’am sorry. I assumed that first vote was yours.

 

[mystified]

The Pope could make such a move, but it is probably not likely to happen. What we may see is some tweaking from time to time. In fact, the US Bishops have just dealt with changes that are to come about in relation to English trnslations, and with this may come revisins of the GIRM.
There is some effort in some of the Eastern Catholic Churches to make changes in their liturgies, particularly the Maronites who are seeking to return to more traditional liturgy and reduce “Latinization” that has taken place over the centuries. I don’t think the Pope is an instigator/suppressor in this movement.
Papal infalibility has nothing to do with this.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Sounds like you’re saying the Pope is only Infallible in the Latin Church.

Infallibility applies ONLY to matters of faith and morals, and then only under certain carefully defined conditions.

It does NOT apply to a disiplinary matter or prudential judgement.

He’s not divinely protected from executing damfool notions or having bad ideas.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Bp Basil is correct. The pope may consult with anyone he chooses but as head of the Universal Church, he is the final legislator of Canon Law and all other matters of policy within the church. Each of the ministries of the church (Bishops Conferences, the CDF, etc) publish rulings and proclamations under the auspices of the Pope. Each bishop enjoys a certain amount of leeway in his own diocese and since the Second Vatican Council, the tendency has been towards a more collegiate relationship between bishops and the pope, moving away from the previous paradigm of a Papal Monarchy, so to speak. But in the end, the Pope may revoke or change any element of the operation of the church or liturgy without consent. He seeks consent of the Curia, Bishops councils, etc as an act of charity. . What he cannot do is change a Sacrament because they are instituted by Christ, or anything that constitutes a sacrament (matter, form, intent : See Catechism of Trent). He may also not change, add, or delete any article of faith or morals. On the contrary, he takes an oath to promulgate and teach the faith and morals handed to him as part of the Magisterium, the deposit of faith of the church. His infallibility, as expressed by the First Vatican Council, applies only to his teaching of faith and morals handed down to him from previous Popes and Councils. Obedience to the decrees of the Pope are covered under Canon Law as an extension of the Commandments.

 

[Cider]

Is this just a veiled attempt to support the suppression of the TLM that happened after Vatican II?

I can see it now, people respond with " of course he can suppress the NO mass" only to be told, well then the suppression of the TLM was fine too.

 

[Hesychios]

Is this just a veiled attempt to support the suppression of the TLM that happened after Vatican II?

I can see it now, people respond with " of course he can suppress the NO mass" only to be told, well then the suppression of the TLM was fine too.

I can see how that may be a concern to you. If that is so it could influence your response to the poll, if you choose to participate.

Whatever you as a faithful and devoted Catholic decide is OK with me.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Is this just a veiled attempt to support the suppression of the TLM that happened after Vatican II?

I can see it now, people respond with " of course he can suppress the NO mass" only to be told, well then the suppression of the TLM was fine too.

Two points: (1) Quo primam and (2) the Vatican itself determined that the mass of Pius V was not suppressed.

 

[malphono]

I’m not voting in this poll, since none of the options presented quite expresses my thoughts.

The title of the thread and the question posed don’t quite appear to be in sync: suppressing the so-called GIRM is certainly not the same as suppressing the OF. The “GIRM” could be suppressed (more likely modified) with the stroke of a pen. No question there. Suppressing the OF in its entirely would similarly be a matter of internal discipline in the West: after a mere 40 years, same could be said to be not traditional. But it would likely cause some vociferous backlash from the proponents of the less-structured approach to worship embodied in the OF.

In any case, it would seem to me that precedent speaks to the larger question (although I’ll probably regret saying any of this):

(a) The suppression of various Western usages (Gothic, Sarum, etc) occurred only after Trent and then only within the bounds of the “200 year rule” established thereby. To my knowledge, none was suppressed otherwise.

(b) Also to my knowledge, a Pope has never decreed the suppression of any Eastern or Oriental usage. (As well as they should not.) Which leads me to echo what I said in the other thread:

Were Rome to decree the suppression of a valid Eastern/Oriental tradition, would overstep Tradition, and countermand the repeatedly stated positions of many Papal predecessors. How is it possible to decree that what has been considered sacred and holy for centuries is being suppressed? Such action would likely be met with a line of faithful fighting to get to an exit. The Orthodox would have a bonanza.

To expand on that for the West: were Rome to decree the suppression of any of what I will call the “minor” Western usages (“minor” only in the sense of their size and reach) would be to overstep Trent, not to mention causing a bit of a storm on its own: again, how is it possible to say that what has been considered sacred and holy for centuries is now suppressed?

In either case, though, of course there’s a fly in the ointment: Trent came well before the ill-worded statements of Vatican I. I will reserve further comment.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I’m not voting in this poll, since none of the options presented quite expresses my thoughts.

The title of the thread and the question posed don’t quite appear to be in sync: suppressing the so-called GIRM is certainly not the same as suppressing the OF. The “GIRM” could be suppressed (more likely modified) with the stroke of a pen. No question there. Suppressing the OF in its entirely would similarly be a matter of internal discipline in the West: after a mere 40 years, same could be said to be not traditional. But it would likely cause some vociferous backlash from the proponents of the less-structured approach to worship embodied in the OF.

In any case, it would seem to me that precedent speaks to the larger question (although I’ll probably regret saying any of this):

(a) The suppression of various Western usages (Gothic, Sarum, etc) occurred only after Trent and then only within the bounds of the “200 year rule” established thereby. To my knowledge, none was suppressed otherwise.

(b) Also to my knowledge, a Pope has never decreed the suppression of any Eastern or Oriental usage. (As well as they should not.) Which leads me to echo what I said in the other thread:

Were Rome to decree the suppression of a valid Eastern/Oriental tradition, would overstep Tradition, and countermand the repeatedly stated positions of many Papal predecessors. How is it possible to decree that what has been considered sacred and holy for centuries is being suppressed? Such action would likely be met with a line of faithful fighting to get to an exit. The Orthodox would have a bonanza.

To expand on that for the West: were Rome to decree the suppression of any of what I will call the “minor” Western usages (“minor” only in the sense of their size and reach) would be to overstep Trent, not to mention causing a bit of a storm on its own: again, how is it possible to say that what has been considered sacred and holy for centuries is now suppressed?

In either case, though, of course there’s a fly in the ointment: Trent came well before the ill-worded statements of Vatican I. I will reserve further comment.

The question is … “Does the Pope have this authority?” And prudence, common-sense, charity, etc., aside, the answer is Yes. There is no restriction on the Pontiff unless it possibly conflicts with another papal order given in perpetuity, like Quo primam, but even then, there is precedent for a Pontiff to rescind edicts from a previous Pontiff … and even excommunicate a previous Pontiff.

 

[Hesychios]

The title of the thread and the question posed don’t quite appear to be in sync:

You are right.

After I decided to post a poll (considering it a good idea) it took so long for me that my twenty minute limit for editing ran out, and the program would not accept my rephrasing and retitling.

I tried to be as comprehensive as possible with the questions, allowing for several points of view as well as the Quo Primum position on the Mass of Pius V (question #3).

I sorry about the obvious defects.

The Quo Primum position:

“Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other Churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world”

 

[malphono]

The question is … “Does the Pope have this authority?” And prudence, common-sense, charity, etc., aside, the answer is Yes.

That is a matter of opinion. Doubly so for the East and Orient.

There is no restriction on the Pontiff unless it possibly conflicts with another papal order given in perpetuity, like Quo primam, but even then, there is precedent for a Pontiff to rescind edicts from a previous Pontiff … and even excommunicate a previous Pontiff.

I beg to differ, but it’s not as clear-cut as you would make it appear. Yes, an edict can be reversed, but that does not speak to the question of how it would be possible to declare that something considered sacred and holy for centuries is all of a sudden prohibited. It becomes a question of Tradition (upper-case “T”) and not one of simple discipline.

 

[giuseppeTO]

That is a matter of opinion. Doubly so for the East and Orient.

I beg to differ, but it’s not as clear-cut as you would make it appear. Yes, an edict can be reversed, but that does not speak to the question of how it would be possible to declare that something considered sacred and holy for centuries is all of a sudden prohibited. It becomes a question of Tradition (upper-case “T”) and not one of simple discipline.

Mal,

It is clear cut. What document would you suggest exists that restricts the Pope? There is nothing that makes it impossible for the Pope to put prohibitions on or remove prohibitions from something that is traditionally sacred and holy, with the exception again of contradicting articles of faith or morals. The Pope is the author and enforcer of canon Law. He can change it or promulgate a completely new code at his pleasure and without consent or censure.

When I was a youngster, in the 1950’s, I was taught that the Holy Eucharist was the supreme sacrament, the most precious thing that could be found on earth, as it is the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. So sacred is the Sacred Species, that absolutely no one, whose fingers were not consecrated with holy chrism while receiving Holy Orders could touch the Host. It would be sacrilege for a lay person to attempt to do so. One could not even touch the precious metal of the ciborium if you were not at least an Acolyte-level seminarian. Altar boys had to use gloves. The purification process, were a priest to drop a host on the floor, which I witnessed in my youth, took the better part of five minutes to ensure that the smallest crumb was not left. A sacred belief and practice over 1000 years old.

Gone! Overnight! Initially, without even a Papal “by your leave”. There can be no graver example of a sacred, Traditional (with a capital “T”) belief or practice being changed, ultimately by the Pope, who must agree to it.

 

[mardukm]

It is clear cut. What document would you suggest exists that restricts the Pope? There is nothing that makes it impossible for the Pope to put prohibitions on or remove prohibitions from something that is traditionally sacred and holy, with the exception again of contradicting articles of faith or morals. The Pope is the author and enforcer of canon Law. He can change it or promulgate a completely new code at his pleasure and without consent or censure.

When I was a youngster, in the 1950’s, I was taught that the Holy Eucharist was the supreme sacrament, the most precious thing that could be found on earth, as it is the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. So sacred is the Sacred Species, that absolutely no one, whose fingers were not consecrated with holy chrism while receiving Holy Orders could touch the Host. It would be sacrilege for a lay person to attempt to do so. One could not even touch the precious metal of the ciborium if you were not at least an Acolyte-level seminarian. Altar boys had to use gloves. The purification process, were a priest to drop a host on the floor, which I witnessed in my youth, took the better part of five minutes to ensure that the smallest crumb was not left. A sacred belief and practice over 1000 years old.

Gone! Overnight! Initially, without even a Papal “by your leave”. There can be no graver example of a sacred, Traditional (with a capital “T”) belief or practice being changed, ultimately by the Pope, who must agree to it.

Vatican I asserted that the Pope must use his prerogatives to defend and uphold the prerogatives of his brother bishops. How do you reconcile that with your belief that the Pope has the authority to make such changes unilaterally. Would he not be violating the Vatican Council itself if he did that? IOW, please explain your position in light of that restriction placed on him by the Vatican Council.

Blessings

 

[malphono]

It is clear cut. What document would you suggest exists that restricts the Pope? There is nothing that makes it impossible for the Pope to put prohibitions on or remove prohibitions from something that is traditionally sacred and holy, with the exception again of contradicting articles of faith or morals. The Pope is the author and enforcer of canon Law. He can change it or promulgate a completely new code at his pleasure and without consent or censure.

Still a matter of opinion. Canon Law is discipline. Suppression of a liturgy considered sacred and holy for centuries is a matter of Tradition. The two are not equal, not by a longshot.

When I was a youngster, in the 1950’s, I was taught that the Holy Eucharist was the supreme sacrament, the most precious thing that could be found on earth, as it is the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. So sacred is the Sacred Species, that absolutely no one, whose fingers were not consecrated with holy chrism while receiving Holy Orders could touch the Host. It would be sacrilege for a lay person to attempt to do so. One could not even touch the precious metal of the ciborium if you were not at least an Acolyte-level seminarian. Altar boys had to use gloves. The purification process, were a priest to drop a host on the floor, which I witnessed in my youth, took the better part of five minutes to ensure that the smallest crumb was not left. A sacred belief and practice over 1000 years old.

Gone! Overnight! Initially, without even a Papal “by your leave”. There can be no graver example of a sacred, Traditional (with a capital “T”) belief or practice being changed, ultimately by the Pope, who must agree to it.

Yes, ok, I won’t argue (even though I don’t fully agree with the “no graver example” part) but it still doesn’t have anything to do with the matter at hand.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Vatican I asserted that the Pope must use his prerogatives to defend and uphold the prerogatives of his brother bishops. How do you reconcile that with your belief that the Pope has the authority to make such changes unilaterally. Would he not be violating the Vatican Council itself if he did that? IOW, please explain your position in light of that restriction placed on him by the Vatican Council.

Blessings

Mar-

What stands at the end of all dogmatic councils are the resolutions. Here is what V1 said:
**

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

1. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.**

The council gave no other primate or ecclesiastic body the authority censor the Pope. There is no way for anyone in the church to bring a grievance against the Pope (except for heresy, which would be a matter for Bishops to adjudicate but has never been put to practice, to my knowledge) on any of his proclamations. He does not need to submit anything he does to a “vote” - period.

Once again, the only law is Canon Law - which the Pope ‘owns’, and all are bound by the anathemizations of previous councils and popes. And there is nothing in Vatican I that requires the Pope to get any consensus from bishops. There was a time in church history when a council took precedence over the pope but Vatican I cemented the Pope’s ultimate primacy - which was a big problem for the folks who eventually became the “Old Catholics”.

God Bless

 

[giuseppeTO]

Still a matter of opinion. Canon Law is discipline. Suppression of a liturgy considered sacred and holy for centuries is a matter of Tradition. The two are not equal, not by a longshot.
.

Wasn’t the Pius V liturgy effectively suppressed for 30 years after the promulgation of the Pauline Mass in 1970. No one was allowed to say it, except in private?

You still can’t tell me what juridically prevents a Pope from suppressing a liturgy. He has no superior - he is the Vicar of Christ. He has no requirement to submit to anyone else and no one has the right to call him on the carpet or to challenge his proclamation - no Bishop, Cardinal, priest, or laity. (except maybe Abe Foxman ).

 

[malphono]

Wasn’t the Pius V liturgy effectively suppressed for 30 years after the promulgation of the Pauline Mass in 1970. No one was allowed to say it, except in private?

Not in fact, as is evidenced by Summorum Pontificum. But in practice, yes, unfortunately it was effectively suppressed. Interestingly enough, though, that “effective suppression” was due to (willful) interpretation, not by Papal decree. It also survived “in private” thus not breaking the chain of continuity.

You still can’t tell me what juridically prevents a Pope from suppressing a liturgy. He has no superior - he is the Vicar of Christ. He has no requirement to submit to anyone else and no one has the right to call him on the carpet or to challenge his proclamation - no Bishop, Cardinal, priest, or laity. (except maybe Abe Foxman ).

I’ve no idea what Abe Foxman has to do with any of this, but you’re partially right: the Pope has no superior. Except that we are not speaking of juridical matters, but rather to Tradition. There, the Church, as guided by the Holy Ghost, is superior. And further, you have failed to explain how it would be possible for a liturgy considered sacred and holy for centuries to be declared prohibited.