Could the pope throw out the Divine Liturgy?

[mardukm]

Most definitely NOT at the establishment of Patriarchate. One case in point was in 1955 when, upon the demise of HB Mor Antonious Petrous (Arida) (of thrice blessed memory) Rome appointed a successor. No election. Rien. Nada. Zilch.

I really, really hate to derail this thread, but perhaps this won’t be extensive.

Do you have any more info on the circumstances behind Rome bypassing the election? From what I’ve been able to read over the net, it didn’t raise an eyebrow when this was done. Lebanon was in a very politically sensitive situation during that time, and the Patriarch was very heavily involved in the independence movement (not as a country, but against Arab influence). And Patriarch Meouchi had worked closely with Patriarch Arida for about 7 years before the latter’s death. Isn’t it possible that Patriarch Arida had a prior agreement with the Vatican to appoint Meouchi to the Patriarchate? Given the politically sensitive situation and the necessity of the Patriarch in negotiations, isn’t it plausible that Patriarch Arida offered Meouchi as the best choice to succeed him immediately? After all, Patriarch Arida’s last words before his death were “God protect Lebanon.” Patriarch Meouchi proved to be an excellent choice, and carried on the political and ecclesiastical policies of Patriarch Arida. Did Patriarch Arida have a hand in the appointment of his successor for the good of the country?

Just theorizing. What do you think?

Blessings,
Marduk
Blessings

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Many things thought to be of Sacred Tradition have already been thrown out.

This is a good point, IMO.

One of these reasons I am not a Traditionalist schismatic is because I do NOT believe that the Liturgy constitutes “Sacred Tradition” thus meaning that the Church has no authority to change it.

The idea that the Liturgy can be counted amongst Sacred Tradition is what has led to the loss of so many orthodox Romans because of the change of the Liturgy in the Second Vatican Council.

Clearly, the Church has the authority to change the externals of worship if the bishops see fit.

It seems contradictory to claim that the Pope has the authority to, somewhat drastically, change externals of the Roman Liturgy…but then to claim that the Eastern liturgies are a part of Sacred Tradition and are thus untouchable by the Pope.

Ach! I am starting to feel that old temptation towards Eastern Orthodoxy…

O God, Keep me in Your Holy Church!!!

 

[bobzills]

The Pope has every right and authority to prescribe the liturgical services employed in the Church. This is confirmed by the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Pope:
Go to IV. Jurisdictional Rights and Prerogatives of the Pope
(2) With the pope’s office of supreme teacher are closely connected his rights in regard to the worship of God: for it is the law of prayer that fixes the law of belief. In this sphere very much has been reserved to the sole regulation of the Holy See. Thus

•the pope alone can prescribe the liturgical services employed in the Church. If a doubt should occur in regard to the ceremonial of the liturgy, a bishop may not settle the point on his own authority, but must have recourse to Rome. The Holy See likewise prescribes rules in regard to the devotions used by the faithful, and in this way checks the growth of what is novel and unauthorized.
newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm#IV

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Antonius Lupus,

This is a good point, IMO.

One of these reasons I am not a Traditionalist schismatic is because I do NOT believe that the Liturgy constitutes “Sacred Tradition” thus meaning that the Church has no authority to change it.

The idea that the Liturgy can be counted amongst Sacred Tradition is what has led to the loss of so many orthodox Romans because of the change of the Liturgy in the Second Vatican Council.

The problem with the schismatics was not their belief that Liturgy is part of Sacred Tradition, but their lack of obedience to their Patriarch…

Clearly, the Church has the authority to change the externals of worship if the bishops see fit.

On principle, that is true, but that’s not the issue here. The issue is whether or not one Patriarch has the right to interfere in the affairs of another Patriarch’s Church on this matter which is so dear to each sui juris Church as part of their identity and Sacred Tradition.

It seems contradictory to claim that the Pope has the authority to, somewhat drastically, change externals of the Roman Liturgy…but then to claim that the Eastern liturgies are a part of Sacred Tradition and are thus untouchable by the Pope.

It would seem contradicatory if you believe that there is ONLY ONE Patriarch in the Church, and that all other bishops are simply his “yes-men.” Is that really what you believe? On the other hand, if you believe that there are different Patriarchal Churches, and that each Patriarch has rights to the Traditions of his Church which another Patriarch from another Church cannot interfere with, then it shouldn’t be a problem.

The other important issue is whether or not you can distinguish the bishop of Rome’s role as Patriarch of the Latins, from the bishop of Rome’s role as the Pope (which has different responsibilities, and certainly does not include supressing the rights of other Churches)…

Ach! I am starting to feel that old temptation towards Eastern Orthodoxy.

Don’t you know that the EO also hold their Liturgy in the same esteem as Eastern and Oriental Catholics? In EO’xy you would also find the same principle of one Patriarch not being able to interfere in the affairs of another Patriarch’s Church. So how would you be better off? The big difference is that only in the Catholic Church will you experience the full breadth and depth of the many Traditions that the Church has to offer. In EO’xy, not only will you get only one Tradition, but you will experience a close-mindedness to the other Traditions of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

The Pope has every right and authority to prescribe the liturgical services employed in the Church. This is confirmed by the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Pope:
Go to IV. Jurisdictional Rights and Prerogatives of the Pope
(2) With the pope’s office of supreme teacher are closely connected his rights in regard to the worship of God: for it is the law of prayer that fixes the law of belief. In this sphere very much has been reserved to the sole regulation of the Holy See. Thus

•the pope alone can prescribe the liturgical services employed in the Church. If a doubt should occur in regard to the ceremonial of the liturgy, a bishop may not settle the point on his own authority, but must have recourse to Rome. The Holy See likewise prescribes rules in regard to the devotions used by the faithful, and in this way checks the growth of what is novel and unauthorized.
newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm#IV

You must have stayed up all night looking for this. The source of these statements are works by Juan Rocaberti in the 17th century. It’s papalist tone is apparent, as at this time in history, the Eastern and Oriental Churches, much less the rights and prerorogatives of her Patriarchs, were not even on the minds of Latin scholars. To most Latins at that time, the Latin Church was the ONLY Church in existence (if you can gauge the general ignorance of Latin Catholics about their Eastern and Oriental brethern TODAY, how much worse do you think it was in the 17th century ).

Many Eastern and Oriental Catholics know enough about the old Catholic Encyclopedia to understand that it is primarily a source for LATIN Catholics. I myself use it as a valuable resource to understand the mind of the Latin Catholic Church in the late 19th century, but it is often biased in its articles against the Eastern and Oriental Traditions. So your quotation from that source doesn’t bother me a bit. In short, it is OUTDATED.

Blessings

 

[thunderballs75]

JuanCarlos;5352606:

You make a good point. And stuff like that has happened- the Roman Rite was completely changed in the 60’s.
Not really. Brother Bob implies that he can make such arbitrary changes in the Eastern or Oriental Churches, but he cannot (by divine and canonical obligation). But it is indeed within his rights as the Patriarch of the Latins.

Your original Latin Mass was never lost, AFAIK. Any aberrations in the Mass are due to the experimental tendencies of local

priests and congregations, not the Magisterium.

Blessings

70% of the prayers are gone in the Novus Ordo Missae. So no, we only have 30% of our Mass.

Anyways, I guess the pope could technically do away with the Divine Liturgy. However, that would be disastrous! Not to mention cruel. It’s the only piece of tradition we have left!

 

[Diak]

You must have stayed up all night looking for this. The source of these statements are works by Juan Rocaberti in the 17th century. It’s papalist tone is apparent, as at this time in history, the Eastern and Oriental Churches, much less the rights and prerorogatives of her Patriarchs, were not even on the minds of Latin scholars. To most Latins at that time, the Latin Church was the ONLY Church in existence (if you can gauge the general ignorance of Latin Catholics about their Eastern and Oriental brethern TODAY, how much worse do you think it was in the 17th century ).

Many Eastern and Oriental Catholics know enough about the old Catholic Encyclopedia to understand that it is primarily a source for LATIN Catholics. I myself use it as a valuable resource to understand the mind of the Latin Catholic Church in the late 19th century, but it is often biased in its articles against the Eastern and Oriental Traditions. So your quotation from that source doesn’t bother me a bit. In short, it is OUTDATED.

Blessings

Excellent observations by brother Marduk. I would say outdated is being very generous indeed. Anyone thinking the prescriptions of New Advent are normative has not dealt with a canon lawyer in at least in the last 20 years. I’m not even sure the spirit of Orientalium Dignitas of Pope Leo XIII made it in there.

It has some surprising statements, such as:

Any Latin rite missionary, whether of the secular or religious clergy, who induces with his advice or assistance any Eastern rite faithful to transfer to the Latin rite, will be deposed and excluded from his benefice in addition to the ipso facto suspension a divinis and other punishments that he will incur as imposed in the aforesaid Constitution Demandatam. That this decree stand fixed and lasting We order a copy of it be posted openly in the churches of the Latin rite.

 

[twf]

Thunderballs75:

70% of the prayers are gone in the Novus Ordo Missae. So no, we only have 30% of our Mass

Who is “we”? I hope you realize that the Holy Father has made it very clear that ALL Latin priests have the right to celebrate the Mass according to the norms of 1962? (The so-called Tridentine Latin Mass, or more accurately today, the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Mass). I will in fact be celebrating the great feast of the nativity of St. John the Baptist tonight at a local parish (recently established by my archbishop) totally dedicated to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. We have NOT lost 70% of our prayers!

 

[bobzills]

In short, it is OUTDATED.

Catholic doctrine and teaching does not change in its essentials.
You are in serious error if you think that the Catholic religion is outdated.

 

[thunderballs75]

Thunderballs75:

Who is “we”? I hope you realize that the Holy Father has made it very clear that ALL Latin priests have the right to celebrate the Mass according to the norms of 1962? (The so-called Tridentine Latin Mass, or more accurately today, the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Mass). I will in fact be celebrating the great feast of the nativity of St. John the Baptist tonight at a local parish (recently established by my archbishop) totally dedicated to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. We have NOT lost 70% of our prayers!

The post I was responding to deemed it “your Mass.” So I said “we”.

It may be easy for you to say, because you have a local parish nearby. I’m glad your archbishop is so kind to you guys to do this for you! However the nearest Latin Mass to me is a 40-minute drive. And they only have it once a week! Which is disheartening because there are 5 Catholic churches I could get to within 10 minutes each. Not one has the Latin Mass. It doesn’t matter how much the Holy Father has liberalized the Mass if the priests aren’t willing to do it and the bishop doesn’t care to make them.

Anyways, it would be terrible if they did the same thing to the Divine Liturgy which they did to the Latin Mass. The Divine Liturgy is one of the few reasons I still like being Catholic!

 

[bpbasilphx]

70% of the prayers are gone in the Novus Ordo Missae. So no, we only have 30% of our Mass.

What is your source for this statistic, thunderballs? Are you talking about of the Ordinary or the Proper?

Since many of the days of the proper of the OF have alternate prayers, there would actually be about the same amount in it, if not more.

Anyways, it would be terrible if they did the same thing to the Divine Liturgy which they did to the Latin Mass. The Divine Liturgy is one of the few reasons I still like being Catholic!

I assume you attend the local Melkite Church?

 

[bobzills]

Anyways, I guess the pope could technically do away with the Divine Liturgy. However, that would be disastrous! Not to mention cruel. It’s the only piece of tradition we have left!

This is what is frightening and terrifying to all Eastern Christians, whether they be Eastern Catholic, or Orthodox. The Pope is the last and final authority on all matters of the Church. As we read in the standard Catholic reference work, the Catholic Encyclopedia, which has both the nihil obstat and the imprimatur, and as we read in the declarations of Vatican I, the Pope has the full plenitude of supreme power of jursdiction and doctrine over each and every Church in communion with the Roman Church: “If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, or over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the faithful altogether and individually: let him be anathema.”
The only argument that the apologists here can give is that the words of Vatican I, and the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia do not mean what they say. Now where are we if words don’t mean what everyone else says they mean. According to the apologists, we are ignorant, insincere, lacking in credibility, etc., simply becasue we are quoting from the official documents of the Church. So I don;t see how anyone would buy their arguments, especially the members of the Orthodox Churches? Why should the Orthodox clergy go along with the apologists and agree that the documents of Vatican I have no meaning as related to their concerns?

 

[malphono]

I really, really hate to derail this thread, but perhaps this won’t be extensive.

Do you have any more info on the circumstances behind Rome bypassing the election? From what I’ve been able to read over the net, it didn’t raise an eyebrow when this was done. Lebanon was in a very politically sensitive situation during that time, and the Patriarch was very heavily involved in the independence movement (not as a country, but against Arab influence). And Patriarch Meouchi had worked closely with Patriarch Arida for about 7 years before the latter’s death. Isn’t it possible that Patriarch Arida had a prior agreement with the Vatican to appoint Meouchi to the Patriarchate? Given the politically sensitive situation and the necessity of the Patriarch in negotiations, isn’t it plausible that Patriarch Arida offered Meouchi as the best choice to succeed him immediately? After all, Patriarch Arida’s last words before his death were “God protect Lebanon.” Patriarch Meouchi proved to be an excellent choice, and carried on the political and ecclesiastical policies of Patriarch Arida. Did Patriarch Arida have a hand in the appointment of his successor for the good of the country?

Just theorizing. What do you think?

I don’t think it’s actually derailing the thread, since Rome’s unilateral interference in one aspect could well portend the same in another.

In any event, HB Mor Antonious Petrous was much beloved by the Maronites but, after the demise of PP Pius XI, not particularly so by Rome. But of course I’ve said before that the environment in Rome during period from 1939 through 1958 was not a particularly good one for the Orientals.

Where the idea that Meouchi had “worked closely with Patriarch Arida for about 7 years” comes from I have no clue. Oh, Meouchi was there alright, but not because of any invitation from HB Mor Antonious Petrous. He was there at Rome’s bidding from the start. It was more like “worked closely against” than “with.”

And, no, it’s not possible that Mor Antonious Petrous had any “agreement” with Rome about the succession. To someone who knows both Maronite history and Lebanese history, his reported last words tell a completely different story.

I don’t know that Meouchi proved to be an “excellent choice” for anything. He carried on little, if anything, of the policies of his predecessor. His main interest was, and always had been, Meouchi. I will give him credit for having been a strong personality, which was sorely lacking in his immediate successor, and isn’t all that much different now.

Bottom line is: there were several contenders to succeed Mor Antonious Petrous, but Rome was having none of it. Whoever said the missing election “didn’t raise an eyebrow” must be an ostrich with head buried in the (Roman) sand. Rome appointed a Maronite Patriarch to suit its wishes. Plain and simple. End of story.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

It would seem contradicatory if you believe that there is ONLY ONE Patriarch in the Church, and that all other bishops are simply his “yes-men.” Is that really what you believe?

No, but I was taught to believe that, *"For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has **full, supreme, and universal power over the whole *Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

Lumen Gentium 22

CCC 882

That was the teaching of the Second Vatican Council.

It all seems so contradictory…isn’t a part of the Pope’s role as guide and guardian of the universal church mean that he can, if it was necessary (although I can’t think of an instance where it would be), do away with the external traditions of the Liturgies of the Church?

I am so confused…what you say doesn’t seem to add up to what I have been taught.

Could you please link me to that “Papal Perogatives” thread you are talking about. I want to understand this better.

Sigh 'Tis a difficult thing to be a neophyte Catholic.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Could the Pope declare the Church no longer in existence? Could he infallibly deny the Most Holy Trinity??

The hypothetical scenario being mentioned - doing away with entire Liturgical Traditions of sui iuris Eastern Churches in full Communion with the Pope - is akin to the above.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Could the Pope declare the Church no longer in existence? Could he infallibly deny the Most Holy Trinity??

The hypothetical scenario being mentioned - doing away with entire Liturgical Traditions of sui iuris Eastern Churches in full Communion with the Pope - is akin to the above.

Ah…now things are beginning to make sense a bit.

Could we also say that even if the Pope did have the authority to throw out the DL, it would be a sinful thing and not a prudent exercise of his authority? This is the idea that makes most sense to me…it seems so clear that the Vatican Council defined that the Pope has a universal supreme jurisdiction which he can exercise unhindered. As brother JuanCarlos said, this would allow him to utterly destroy any heresy, and that is why we look to the Papacy as the touchstone of Holy Orthodoxy (alonside Papal Infallibility of course).

However, even still, if we confess one than the other must be confessed. Did not Pope St. Victor I nearly force the Asian Church to do away with Quartodeciminism (sp.)?

 

[thunderballs75]

Could the Pope declare the Church no longer in existence? Could he infallibly deny the Most Holy Trinity??

The hypothetical scenario being mentioned - doing away with entire Liturgical Traditions of sui iuris Eastern Churches in full Communion with the Pope - is akin to the above.

I believe in such cases the pope would be a heretic and could not be an actual pope.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I believe in such cases the pope would be a heretic and could not be an actual pope.

This is the argument used both by sedevacantists AND sedeprivationists.

“A real pope would not have ordered the Novus Ordo Missae. Therefore Giovanni Montini and those who came after him are not real popes.”

 

[bobzills]

Could the Pope declare the Church no longer in existence? Could he infallibly deny the Most Holy Trinity??

The hypothetical scenario being mentioned - doing away with entire Liturgical Traditions of sui iuris Eastern Churches in full Communion with the Pope - is akin to the above.

Yes. But do you think that what was declared in the documents of Vatican I (the plenitude of supreme power of the Pope) and in the Catholic Encyclopedia is a cause for concern for the Orthodox who have thought of reconciliation with Rome?

 

[dvdjs]

Bozills and company seem to think that Orthodox are wary about communion with Rome because the Pope could throw out the Divine Liturgy.

The perspective entirely misses the mark; whether or not such an undertaking would be a licit exercise of Papal power is entirely moot:

There is no rational basis, whatsoever, for asserting that the Pope would throw out the Divine Liturgy. At the same time, there is no historical basis in Orthodoxy for any idea that liturgies are immune from tampering by hierarchs exceeding their authority.

Both ideas also apply to the erection and destruction of particular churches. Could the EP quash the Serbian Patriachate? Yup - it’s even been done.

And so on.

So the issue is really one of faith and trust. If one believes that the Church subsists in the Catholic church, and that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, then all of the hypotheticals raised by Bobzills are really unimportant. And if one doesn’t, then there is no re-union in any case.

As Diak asked, why is this even being discussed?