Could the pope throw out the Divine Liturgy?

[bobzills]

So the authority of an Ecumenical Council is no greater than a nihil obstat and imprimatur? Or are cafeteria Catholics really the supreme authority in their own minds?

Still no example given, just the same old argument.

 

[bobzills]

I am just pointing the elephant out in the room that it seems that everyone wants to ignore. I don’t support it, I am simply trying to read the documents how they are written.

Yes, why are they avoiding the elephant in the room - the explicit statements of Vatican I and the officially approved Catholic teaching on the subject.

 

[mardukm]

I am just pointing the elephant out in the room that it seems that everyone wants to ignore. I don’t support it, I am simply trying to read the documents how they are written.

So why do you keep pretending that Vatican 1 did not say that the Pope cannot stand in the way of the divine rights of his brother bishops? If you were really “simply” trying to read the documents as they are written, it seems to me you would take into account everything the Church teaches (including Vatican 2 and the canons) and not myopically focus on some statements that eisegetically prove your opinion.

And why do you purposefully and consistently avoid responding to the posts that refute your position?

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Still no example given, just the same old argument.

No response actually addressing my statement, as usual?

Btw, what does it prove in your imagination that no example is given? I suspect, as usual, you will not respond.

 

[jimmy]

So why do you keep pretending that Vatican 1 did not say that the Pope cannot stand in the way of the divine rights of his brother bishops? If you were really “simply” trying to read the documents as they are written, it seems to me you would take into account everything the Church teaches (including Vatican 2 and the canons) and not myopically focus on some statements that eisegetically prove your opinion.

And why do you purposefully and consistently avoid responding to the posts that refute your position?

Blessings

I am taking everything into account. You are just reading around the facts. You want to believe that there is some restriction on the authority of the Pope but it doesn’t work so you ignore the statements that say clearly that his authority is unrestricted. You use statements that are vague to support your idea that the pope has restricted authority.

I don’t respond to them because they are evasive answers that you give and they don’t come close to answering the question. You take canons and twist them to fit into your theory when in fact they have nothing to do with the issue.

Is there any point in continuing this discussion? No one is going to convince anyone and we are just repeating ourselves.

 

[mardukm]

I am taking everything into account. You are just reading around the facts. You want to believe that there is some restriction on the authority of the Pope but it doesn’t work so you ignore the statements that say clearly that his authority is unrestricted.

You haven’t even given a direct quote from Vatican 1 stating that his authority is “unrestricted” and you can claim that it is? Isn’t it true that your understanding is really just based on impression, but no real direct evidence?

You use statements that are vague to support your idea that the pope has restricted authority.

How is the statement from Vatican 1 that the Pope must use his prerogatives not to stand in the way of the prereogatives of his brother bishops, but rather to uphold and defend them “vague?” Please explain. I do recall that you assumed it referred to the Pope’s defense against secular powers, but you gave no response to my refutation of your assumption, and I based my refutation on the direct text of Vatican 1. Where was your textual support for your assumption?

How is the statement from Vatican 1 that the office of bishop is of divine origin (i.e., “under appointment of the Holy Spirit”) “vague?”

How is the canon I gave that even a motu proprio that violates Tradition and the rights of persons is invalid “vague?”

How were the statements by German and Swiss bishops provided that noted the restrictions on papal authority (the Swiss statement given explicit approbation by Pio Nono himself) “vague?”

How is the statement from St. Bellarmine that we have a right to resist an unjust decree by the Pope “vague?”

How are the various statements from V2 and the canons detailing the rights and prerogatives of bishops “vague?”

How is my quote from HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory regarding the collegiality of the promulgation of the Code of Canons to refute your complaints against its approval by the Pope “vague?”

I don’t respond to them because they are evasive answers that you give and they don’t come close to answering the question. You take canons and twist them to fit into your theory when in fact they have nothing to do with the issue.

Was pointing out that your complaints against the requirement of papal confirmation are simply a rejection of Apostolic Canon 34 “evasive?” Who is being evasive here?

And which canons have I twisted? Is it the Canon that states that even a motu proprio that violates the rights of persons and Tradition is invalid? Is it the canon that states that any bishop can, for the good of his diocese, grant a dispensation even from a universal canon? Is it the canon that states that the Pope must uphold and defend the rights and prerogatives of his brother bishops? Are you claiming I twisted the canons because I refuted your eisegetic understanding of the term “unhindered” as used in Canon Law? Are you claiming I twisted them because I seek to understand Canon Law in light of Sacred Tradition and other texts in Canon Law, and you do not?

Is there any point in continuing this discussion? No one is going to convince anyone and we are just repeating ourselves.

It is being discussed not for the benefit of those who will not listen to reason, but for those who are learning about the issue and will listen to reason. There are many others who read these threads aside from the ones who participate in them.

Blessings

 

[bobzills]

I am taking everything into account. You are just reading around the facts. You want to believe that there is some restriction on the authority of the Pope but it doesn’t work so you ignore the statements that say clearly that his authority is unrestricted. You use statements that are vague to support your idea that the pope has restricted authority.

I don’t respond to them because they are evasive answers that you give and they don’t come close to answering the question. You take canons and twist them to fit into your theory when in fact they have nothing to do with the issue.
.

Correct. And I would add that a main point of their argument is based on fallacious ad hominem reasoning. They cannot give me one simple example of an article which received the nihil obstat and the imprimatur before 1950 and contained anything contrary to Catholic faith. This more or less proves my argument by induction. Every article which has passed the Catholic censorship is in fact in alignment with the official Catholic teaching. I then give you one article which states unequivocally that the Pope has the right to change the liturgy and it is said that this one article is mistaken. there is not one other article which is wrong, it is only this one which defeats the argument of mardukm which is wrong.
Ask yourself this question. Is it reasonable that every other article which has received the nihil obstat and the imprimatur before 1950 gives the correct Catholic teaching on a subject, except for this one article which states that the Pope has the power to change the liturgy?

 

[JohnVIII]

Can I ask how you would respond to the Protestant who uses the same logic to deny any sort of ecclesiastical authority in the Church?

Of course, I am asking this rhetorically.

In my opionion the Protestants took that argument from the Orthodox. Perhaps that’s why at least one prominent Protestant teacher, Dr. Walter Martin, once said that [paraphrasing], “the theology of Pope Gregory the Great is Protestant”! When in fact it is not Protestant but rather it is Orthodox.

 

[JohnVIII]

Please, folks, don’t hijack this thread. If anyone wants yet another interminable “filoque” thread, might be best to start a new one.

Not to be hijacking the thread, but, to me, it is a related issue; because I don’t have an issue with anyone who holds a personal opinion about the filioque, but by putting it in the Divine Liturgy for the confession of all the faithful rises it to a higher level I I do object to this.

 

[malphono]

I am just pointing the elephant out in the room that it seems that everyone wants to ignore. I don’t support it, I am simply trying to read the documents how they are written.

So why do you keep pretending that Vatican 1 did not say that the Pope cannot stand in the way of the divine rights of his brother bishops? If you were really “simply” trying to read the documents as they are written, it seems to me you would take into account everything the Church teaches (including Vatican 2 and the canons) and not myopically focus on some statements that eisegetically prove your opinion.

And why do you purposefully and consistently avoid responding to the posts that refute your position?

jimmy, thanks for the clarification. That’s what I though you were going to say. You make a good point, noting (as I have alluded to in previous posts) that there is definitely an elephant in the room.

marduk, you also make good points noting that there are implied, if not specified, restrictions, and those restrictions are in respect of precedent and Tradition.

The hierarchical ecclesiological model of the Roman Church (“Absolutist”) is fine in and of itself, at least insofar as the West is concerned. This is what most defenders of the “Absolutist” view look at. Of course, as I’m sure I’ve made abundantly clear, I’m not among that group and where I see a problem is when Rome extends that view to encompass the East and Orient. Were it to take the “High Petrine” view here, it would be in conformity with the “spirit of the law” and all that marduk says. Maintaining the “Absolutist” view, though, would certainly make it the “elephant in the room” as jimmy says.

It seems to me that the fact of the matter lies somewhere between jimmy’s position of reading the “letter of the law” and marduk’s position of reading of the “spirit of the law.” From what I know, it appears that despite the “letter of the law” as written, the prevailing practical situation is more in line with the “spirit of the law” and Tradition. Hence we have the acquiescence of certain Oriental and Eastern Churches to the insertion of the filioque, as well as to a variety of other latinizations (whether real or perceived).

But the devil is in the details: the problem with the latter position is that there have been clear exceptions (e.g. the Maronite Patriarchal non-election of 1955 that I mentioned a while). I would like to think that event was a misuse of power which won’t be repeated. But of course there’s no guarantee: it (or something equally – or even more – insidious) could happen again tomorrow.

Which of course brings us full-circle back to the hypothetical question in the OP: based on the “spirit of the law” and respect for precedent and Tradition, it should never happen. Based on the “letter of the law” and disrespect for precedent and Tradition, it certainly could. In which event, as I’ve said several times, there will be a long line of Easterners and Orientals pushing and shoving to get to the nearest exit.

 

[malphono]

Not to be hijacking the thread, but, to me, it is a related issue; because I don’t have an issue with anyone who holds a personal opinion about the filioque, but by putting it in the Divine Liturgy for the confession of all the faithful rises it to a higher level I I do object to this.

Yes, it does, and I’m sorry if the intent of my comment wasn’t clear.

mardukm;5397969:

Sorry, brother. I didn’t read your exhortation before responding to the other posts. I think we can distinguish between the theological debate about filioque, from the textual addition. Perhaps the filioque issue - as far as its textual addition is concerned - may have some relevance to the topic.

Yes, the textual addition does have relevance in principle. That’s really what I meant. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

 

[pickguard1]

I haven’t read through all the posts (only through page 22 or so) but I don’t think anyone has posited this:

The Pope has the authority to “throw out the Divine Liturgy” only so far as it becomes not Catholic. That is, if elements of the Liturgy were to become perverted by heresy, THAT is what the Pope would have the aurhority to “throw out.” As guardian of Tradition and the faith, it would make sense that should any pope at any time in the future abrogate any rite, it would be due to the fact that it isn’t beneficial to the faithful (i.e. it harms their faith), and the decision to do so would be borne out of the guidance of the Holy Spirit. To assume that the Pope, on a personal whim could “throw out” Tradition is, IMHO, nonsense. In the sense I have proposed, it wouldn’t actually BE Tradition anymore, but a corruption that would be getting “thrown out”.

Does this argument make any sense, or am I way off base?

 

[mardukm]

jimmy, thanks for the clarification. That’s what I though you were going to say. You make a good point, noting (as I have alluded to in previous posts) that there is definitely an elephant in the room.

marduk, you also make good points noting that there are implied, if not specified, restrictions, and those restrictions are in respect of precedent and Tradition.

The hierarchical ecclesiological model of the Roman Church (“Absolutist”) is fine in and of itself, at least insofar as the West is concerned. This is what most defenders of the “Absolutist” view look at. Of course, as I’m sure I’ve made abundantly clear, I’m not among that group and where I see a problem is when Rome extends that view to encompass the East and Orient. Were it to take the “High Petrine” view here, it would be in conformity with the “spirit of the law” and all that marduk says. Maintaining the “Absolutist” view, though, would certainly make it the “elephant in the room” as jimmy says.

It seems to me that the fact of the matter lies somewhere between jimmy’s position of reading the “letter of the law” and marduk’s position of reading of the “spirit of the law.” From what I know, it appears that despite the “letter of the law” as written, the prevailing practical situation is more in line with the “spirit of the law” and Tradition. Hence we have the acquiescence of certain Oriental and Eastern Churches to the insertion of the filioque, as well as to a variety of other latinizations (whether real or perceived).

But the devil is in the details: the problem with the latter position is that there have been clear exceptions (e.g. the Maronite Patriarchal non-election of 1955 that I mentioned a while). I would like to think that event was a misuse of power which won’t be repeated. But of course there’s no guarantee: it (or something equally – or even more – insidious) could happen again tomorrow.

Which of course brings us full-circle back to the hypothetical question in the OP: based on the “spirit of the law” and respect for precedent and Tradition, it should never happen. Based on the “letter of the law” and disrespect for precedent and Tradition, it certainly could. In which event, as I’ve said several times, there will be a long line of Easterners and Orientals pushing and shoving to get to the nearest exit.

Very well put, brother Malphono. I would like to make five comments on the portion I highlighted above.

(1) If Tradition, the canons, and other statements from V1 and V2 is no guarantee that the Pope will not violate the rights of his brother bishops or other members of the Church, then neither are they a guarantee that any one bishop of any grade will not violate the rights of his brother bishohps or other members of the Church. A clear example is the diminution of the ordinary bishop to auxiliary status in a certain Church within EO’xy. Another example is the schisms that have occurred in the past within EO’xy over certain liturgical matters or over jurisdiction. Despite the EO overcoming certain divisions, there is certainly no guarantee that they will not happen again for the same reason.

(2) In the Catholic paradigm, one theoretically has to worry about only one bishop violating the rights of other bishops. Outside the Catholic Church, one would theoretically have to worry about multiple bishops violating those rights.

(3) The only way to overcome all the fearmongering is to trust in the Holy Spirit to preserve the Church.

(4) There should be no need for Easterns or Orientals to leave the Catholic communion if the Pope does something that violates the rights of individuals (be they bishops or priests or laity) or Tradition. We have a right to resist such unjust actions as Catholics.

(5) If the Pope or any other bishop violates Tradition or the rights of others, it must not be understood as an abuse of legitimate authority, but an exercise of an act that is outside the legitimate authority that such a bishop actually possesses. It is for the reason that such acts are outside the bounds of legitimate authority whereby Catholics have the right to resist such actions.

What do you think?

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Pickguard1,

I haven’t read through all the posts (only through page 22 or so) but I don’t think anyone has posited this:

The Pope has the authority to “throw out the Divine Liturgy” only so far as it becomes not Catholic. That is, if elements of the Liturgy were to become perverted by heresy, THAT is what the Pope would have the aurhority to “throw out.” As guardian of Tradition and the faith, it would make sense that should any pope at any time in the future abrogate any rite, it would be due to the fact that it isn’t beneficial to the faithful (i.e. it harms their faith), and the decision to do so would be borne out of the guidance of the Holy Spirit. To assume that the Pope, on a personal whim could “throw out” Tradition is, IMHO, nonsense. In the sense I have proposed, it wouldn’t actually BE Tradition anymore, but a corruption that would be getting “thrown out”.

Does this argument make any sense, or am I way off base?

I must say your comment really makes a great impression on me. It makes absolute sense, and is perfectly in line with the actual intentions of Vatican 1, Vatican 2, the canons, and the Tradition of the Church.

Abundant Blessings

 

[malphono]

Very well put, brother Malphono. I would like to make five comments on the portion I highlighted above.

(1) If Tradition, the canons, and other statements from V1 and V2 is no guarantee that the Pope will not violate the rights of his brother bishops or other members of the Church, then neither are they a guarantee that any one bishop of any grade will not violate the rights of his brother bishohps or other members of the Church. A clear example is the diminution of the ordinary bishop to auxiliary status in a certain Church within EO’xy. Another example is the schisms that have occurred in the past within EO’xy over certain liturgical matters or over jurisdiction. Despite the EO overcoming certain divisions, there is certainly no guarantee that they will not happen again for the same reason.

(2) In the Catholic paradigm, one theoretically has to worry about only one bishop violating the rights of other bishops. Outside the Catholic Church, one would theoretically have to worry about multiple bishops violating those rights.

(3) The only way to overcome all the fearmongering is to trust in the Holy Spirit to preserve the Church.

(4) There should be no need for Easterns or Orientals to leave the Catholic communion if the Pope does something that violates the rights of individuals (be they bishops or priests or laity) or Tradition. We have a right to resist such unjust actions as Catholics.

(5) If the Pope or any other bishop violates Tradition or the rights of others, it must not be understood as an abuse of legitimate authority, but an exercise of an act that is outside the legitimate authority that such a bishop actually possesses. It is for the reason that such acts are outside the bounds of legitimate authority whereby Catholics have the right to resist such actions.

What do you think?

Blessings

Oh, I don’t disagree in principle, but then again, I’m not Rome. Anyway, I’m good for a few comments:

Items (1) and (2) would appear to apply to the EO holding to the “Low Petrine” view. As an Oriental, that whole concept is kind of alien to me. It seems to be the “Minimalist” position which is as bad in its own way as the “Absolutist” position.

Item (3), yes of course. But the Holy Ghost doesn’t necessarily intervene with every action taken by Rome nor, for that matter, with those espousing the “Minimalist” position. If it did, there would never have been a reversal, e.g., in the Papal demands for the addition of the filioque text. Nor would there have been a violation of episcopal rights among the EO. Other examples abound.

Items (4) and (5) go right back to what I said earlier today. Yes, such acts would be outside the bounds of legitimate authority, but in point of fact, how would it be possible to resist them? Who would stop it? The “Absolutist” mindset is just that: absolutist. No, the Easterners and Orientals wouldn’t have to leave. On the contrary, we’d be put out. Oh, not in so many words, but if our rights were negated and Tradition violated, we’d have no choice. We’d cease to exist. In other words, it’d end up as a “my way or the highway” situation. The line-up for the exit would be for self-preservation.

 

[bobzills]

I haven’t read through all the posts (only through page 22 or so) but I don’t think anyone has posited this:

The Pope has the authority to “throw out the Divine Liturgy” only so far as it becomes not Catholic. That is, if elements of the Liturgy were to become perverted by heresy, THAT is what the Pope would have the aurhority to “throw out.” As guardian of Tradition and the faith, it would make sense that should any pope at any time in the future abrogate any rite, it would be due to the fact that it isn’t beneficial to the faithful (i.e. it harms their faith), and the decision to do so would be borne out of the guidance of the Holy Spirit. To assume that the Pope, on a personal whim could “throw out” Tradition is, IMHO, nonsense. In the sense I have proposed, it wouldn’t actually BE Tradition anymore, but a corruption that would be getting “thrown out”.

Does this argument make any sense, or am I way off base?

The Pope suppressed the Tridentine Mass which did not have any non-Catholic elements in it. He put in place the New Mass which some Traditional Catholics have objected to at least in part.

 

[pickguard1]

The Pope suppressed the Tridentine Mass which did not have any non-Catholic elements in it. He put in place the New Mass which some Traditional Catholics have objected to at least in part.

But the Tridentine Mass wasn’t abrogated. While I agree that it sufferred (and to an extent still suffers) suppression - at least de facto (not formally) that doesn’t amount to “throwing it out.”

 

[mardukm]

Items (1) and (2) would appear to apply to the EO holding to the “Low Petrine” view. As an Oriental, that whole concept is kind of alien to me. It seems to be the “Minimalist” position which is as bad in its own way as the “Absolutist” position.

Good comment. Ok, let’s keep it “in the family.”

Item (3), yes of course. But the Holy Ghost doesn’t necessarily intervene with every action taken by Rome nor, for that matter, with those espousing the “Minimalist” position. If it did, there would never have been a reversal, e.g., in the Papal demands for the addition of the filioque text. Nor would there have been a violation of episcopal rights among the EO. Other examples abound.

I agree. My point is that if such violations occur, it could not last for long. This is related to #4 and #5. One should remain in the Church and trust that the Holy Spirit in some way will guide the Church out of the mess.

Items (4) and (5) go right back to what I said earlier today. Yes, such acts would be outside the bounds of legitimate authority, but in point of fact, how would it be possible to resist them? Who would stop it? The “Absolutist” mindset is just that: absolutist. No, the Easterners and Orientals wouldn’t have to leave. On the contrary, we’d be put out. Oh, not in so many words, but if our rights were negated and Tradition violated, we’d have no choice. We’d cease to exist. In other words, it’d end up as a “my way or the highway” situation. The line-up for the exit would be for self-preservation.

I believe that is the job of our bishops. I think a lot of Latin bishops are also sympathetic with the plight of Eastern and Oriental Churches. It is in such scenarios (and I place a heavy emphasis on that word to distinguish it from actual reality) that I long for the unity of all the apostolic Churches. With the voice of the bishops of the currently separated apostolic Churches added to our own (as well as the Latin bishops sympathetic to our cause), the Eastern and Oriental Churches will have more “clout” in ensuring the preservation of our particular Traditions. Fear will no longer have a place in the minds of Easterns and Orientals. I would bring to mind the incident of Pope St. Victor and the Easter controversy as the best answer to your questions that I highlighted above.

Blessings

 

[malphono]

I believe that is the job of our bishops. I think a lot of Latin bishops are also sympathetic with the plight of Eastern and Oriental Churches. It is in such scenarios (and I place a heavy emphasis on that word to distinguish it from actual reality) that I long for the unity of all the apostolic Churches. With the voice of the bishops of the currently separated apostolic Churches added to our own (as well as the Latin bishops sympathetic to our cause), the Eastern and Oriental Churches will have more “clout” in ensuring the preservation of our particular Traditions. Fear will no longer have a place in the minds of Easterns and Orientals.

Indeed it is the job of the bishops. But even with all of the above, having “more clout” would only translate into even true semi-autonomy in the absence of Absolutism and all that goes with it.

I would bring to mind the incident of Pope St. Victor and the Easter controversy as the best answer to your questions that I highlighted above.

I had to refresh myself on Pope S Victor, but while what you say is true, it is also true that the event occurred in the 2nd century, long before the “Absolutist” position was assumed by Rome.

As Bishop of Rome, Pope S Victor was fully within his rights to expect that the observance of Easter by any and all Christians in Rome follow Roman custom. It was the old principle of “one city, one bishop.” Sure, he wanted to standardize the observance, and the various provinces were asked to convene Synods, as was done in Rome, about the matter. Evidently, collegiality was still at work. Unless I missed it, I found nothing that gave the final result of the dispute, other than that the custom in Rome (and elsewhere) was finally adopted by the Province of Asia.

 

[bobzills]

Indeed it is the job of the bishops. But even with all of the above, having “more clout” would only translate into even true semi-autonomy in the absence of Absolutism and all that goes with it.

I had to refresh myself on Pope S Victor, but while what you say is true, it is also true that the event occurred in the 2nd century, long before the “Absolutist” position was assumed by Rome.

As Bishop of Rome, Pope S Victor was fully within his rights to expect that the observance of Easter by any and all Christians in Rome follow Roman custom. It was the old principle of “one city, one bishop.” Sure, he wanted to standardize the observance, and the various provinces were asked to convene Synods, as was done in Rome, about the matter. Evidently, collegiality was still at work. Unless I missed it, I found nothing that gave the final result of the dispute, other than that the custom in Rome (and elsewhere) was finally adopted by the Province of Asia.

If a Greek is in Rome, why should he not be able to follow the Greek Orthodox customs? Similarly, the Roman Catholic Church insists that Roman Catholics in Russia should not be required to follow the customs of the Russian Orthodox Church and in fact, the Vatican took great offense when in the Soviet Ukraine, many Eastern Catholic Churches were required to follow the customs and practices of the Orthodox Church.