Could the pope throw out the Divine Liturgy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bobzills
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unfortunately we now have people, particularly in the Melkite Church, making the claim that the Pope is only Infallible in the Latin Church.
Click to expand...
You are 100% correct. I have heard that thousands of times, it is even evident here in the forums. Which is why they can’t be officially catholic while holding such views.
 
dvdjs said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes, but as you mention tampering, this brings to mind the latinisation of the Eastern rite Catholic Churches which was not welcomed by many in the Eastern Churches. Reading the documents of Vatican I, with reference to the power given to the Roman Pontiff, is not a pleasant exercise for many people in the Eastern Churches.
 
bobzills said:
Yes, but as you mention tampering, this brings to mind the latinisation of the Eastern rite Catholic Churches which was not welcomed by many in the Eastern Churches. Reading the documents of Vatican I, with reference to the power given to the Roman Pontiff, is not a pleasant exercise for many people in the Eastern Churches.
Click to expand...
Huh? How is “the latinisation” connected to Vactican I? (HInt: 1692 is before Vatican I). What is the point of your remark, and how is it related to anything you quoted before it?
 
Hello father Deacon Randolph,
Diak said:
…no Pope would ever do such a thing as the poster seems to be implying. I’m not sure why this is even being discussed.
FDRLB
Click to expand...
I believe the question is hypothetical.

In other words what we believe any Pope would or would not do is not the question here.

So, what do you think…was the papacy granted or recognized to have (by Vatican Council I, 1870AD) the right and power to do such a thing, regardless of whether anyone thinks a Pope would? 🙂

Inquiring minds want to know…
 
… who "threw themselves face downward on the ground, and cried out, … I could not care less about the “public opinion” of the enemies of the Church. … Seems like there are a number trying to out-pope the pope, out-saint the saints and … Cardinal Zen · Syriac Catholic Patriarchal Divine Liturgy in St. .
 
bobzills said:
The problem I see with that line of thinking for the Eastern Churches is that according to the first Vatican Council, it looks like the Pope would have the power and authority to throw out the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil and replace it by the New Mass. I don’t see why the Pope would want to have that power or authority and I can see where that would make an Eastern Christian wary of the Roman Church.
Click to expand...

He has the** legal** power to do so - but that would not make such an act a wise one, let alone morally good. Some things he can’t do, such as abolish the episcopate; it is of Divine & not ecclesiastical origin, so to abolish it is beyond the competence of any power on earth.​

For the Pope to “throw out the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil and replace it by the New Mass” would be made even worse by the fact that the reformed Mass is the Eucharistic Liturgy of an entirely different Ritual Church. To borrow feasts is one thing - but to throw out & replace an entire Eucharistic Liturgy is a very different matter.

(BTW, the Roman Eucharistic Liturgy was not the only one to be changed.)
 
When considering the doctrine of Papal Infallibility I think we should avoid hypothetical absurdities, i,e, could the Pope eliminate the DL, could he eliminate Statues in the West, Icons in the East, could he mandate that all clergy East-West wear Hawaiian shirts ? That’s NOT what the Vicar of Christ does. If the Church was run according to the arbitrary whims of one man, we wouldn’t have lasted 2000 years.
 
Dear brother Antonius Lupus,
Antonius_Lupus said:
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.
Click to expand...
Did you have a chance to read the explanation of the term “unhindered” as used in the Canons?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5361149&postcount=61

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Antonius_Lupus said:
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
Click to expand...
As a hypothetical, that would be true. But the Pope does not have this authority as I’ll explain shortly.
…it seems so clear that the Vatican Council defined that the Pope has a universal supreme jurisdiction which he can exercise unhindered.
Click to expand...
First, I hope you read the explanation provided of the canonical use of the term “unhindered.”

Second, brother Rony explained it very well. The universal, supreme jurisdiction of the Pope can only possibly be exercised in the ministry of service. The question is, do you believe that his prerogatives stretch to include actions that are a violation of that purpose? As several others have pointed out:
(1) Do you think that the universal, supreme jurisdiction of the Pope grants him any authority whatsoever to do away with Sacred Tradtiion?

(2) Do you think his universal, supreme jurisdiction grants him any authority whatsoever to break the unity of the Church?

(3) Do you think his universal, supreme jurisdiction grants him any authority whatsever to despoil the rights of Christians?

Please take the time to answer each question individually.
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).
Click to expand...
Rather, GOD’S infallibility is the touchstone of holy orthodoxy, and God grants this Grace to his Church in varied ways, papal infallibility being merely ONE of them.
However, even still, if we confess one than the other must be confessed.
Click to expand...
Apply this principle after you answer my questions above.
Did not Pope St. Victor I nearly force the Asian Church to do away with Quartodeciminism (sp.)?
Click to expand...
And what was the result of that? In any case, the comparison is not proper. As someone else has already intimated, the question of WHEN a certain Liturgy is celebrated is altogether different from the issue of whether a certain Liturgy has the right to exist.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Seamus_L said:
When considering the doctrine of Papal Infallibility I think we should avoid hypothetical absurdities, i,e, could the Pope eliminate the DL, …
Click to expand...
If the question of whether or not the Pope alone can prescribe the liturgical services in any and all of the Churches in communion with him is a hypothetical absurdity, then why is it discussed in the Catholic encyclopedia in an article published with official ecclesiastical approval.?
 
dvdjs said:
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?
Click to expand...
Amen and Amen!!!

Any standard book on rhetoric will tell you that the use of “hypotheticals” as a form of argumentation is completely invalid.

Here’s another one. Can God make a rock he cannot lift? Athiests are fond of using hypotheticals. They think it proves something - what that is, I can’t fathom. Like you said. It is an issue of faith in God guiding His Church.

Blessings
 
Dearest Father Deacon Diak,
Diak said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
WHAT A GEM!!! 👍👍👍 Thank you so much for that quote!

Humbly,
Marduk
 
bobzills said:
If the question of whether or not the Pope alone can prescribe the liturgical services in any and all of the Churches in communion with him is a hypothetical absurdity, then why is it discussed in the Catholic encyclopedia in an article published with official ecclesiastical approval.?
Click to expand...
It’s absurd to think that an imprimatur is a sign of infallibility. You’re a Latin Catholic, for crying out loud! Don’t you know the difference? :rolleyes:
 
LumenGent said:
You are 100% correct. I have heard that thousands of times, it is even evident here in the forums. Which is why they can’t be officially catholic while holding such views.
Click to expand...
I’m sure brother Ghosty, if he is reading this, will have a better gauge of the matter, but I think you may be misunderstanding what you have heard.

Easterns and Orientals will often say that the theological language of certain dogmas is not infallible, and that those dogmas expressed in that theological language applies only to the Laints, But a faithful Eastern/Oriental Catholic will always admit that the essence of the dogma, i.e., the FAITH being expressed in that dogmatic formulation, is infallible.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
“Imprimatur” simply means “Let it be printed.” That’s all–in this case, printed with the approval of a bishop.

“Nihil obstat” means “nothing observed” that was objectionable to faith and morals. It is NO guarantee that the one granting it is in total agreement with the contents.

In any case, there is no reason why, upon further examination or developments, either cannot be withdrawn.

In other words, neither term are cast in concrete or are declarations of infallibility for the contents of the book.

I do not like to say whether the REAL action of someone is an actual sin. However, I can say that IN MY OPINION should the Pope try to suppress any of the traditional Liturgies of the Eastern Churches, it would be an imprudent offence against charity.

And papal infallibility does NOT mean the pope is incapable of such an action.
 
Hesychios said:
Hello father Deacon Randolph, I believe the question is hypothetical.

In other words what we believe any Pope would or would not do is not the question here.

So, what do you think…was the papacy granted or recognized to have (by Vatican Council I, 1870AD) the right and power to do such a thing, regardless of whether anyone thinks a Pope would? 🙂

Inquiring minds want to know…
Click to expand...
No, he does not. He does not have the authority to do something that violates the very purpose for which God established his office. Do you think the Pope has the authority to abolish the Sacraments? If not, why do you think the Pope has the authority to abolish a Divine Liturgy? Despite the opinions of some schismatics, no Pope has ever even abolished the traditional Latin Mass.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Dear brother Gottle of Geer,
Gottle_of_Geer said:

He has the** legal** power to do so - but that would not make such an act a wise one, let alone morally good. Some things he can’t do, such as abolish the episcopate; it is of Divine & not ecclesiastical origin, so to abolish it is beyond the competence of any power on earth.​

For the Pope to “throw out the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil and replace it by the New Mass” would be made even worse by the fact that the reformed Mass is the Eucharistic Liturgy of an entirely different Ritual Church. To borrow feasts is one thing - but to throw out & replace an entire Eucharistic Liturgy is a very different matter.

(BTW, the Roman Eucharistic Liturgy was not the only one to be changed.)
Click to expand...
I agree with 99% of what you say, except the statement that “he has the legal power to do so.” Check the Canons. Brother SyroMalankara gave the quote earlier. It is in the competence of the Patriarchal Synod to approve the Liturgy. At best, the Pope can review it and make suggestions if he feels it necessary.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top