Could the pope throw out the Divine Liturgy?

[Chaldean_Rite]

I said it in a post earlier, I have worshiped in a Maronite Church for about 18 months and talked with the priest on occasion about Maronite history, Eastern Christianity, etc. He and I are still friends. About a year ago, he taught Maronite history classes at the parish and explained how the Latins basically raped the Maronite liturgy, forcing them to burn their liturgical books and embrace Latin Christianity because that was the only way to be Catholic. I think their testimony and the testimony of the Chaldeans too (and other Eastern Catholics) is witness enough of the Pope and the See of Rome being able to fool with the Divine Liturgy. Let’s not kid ourselves here. It HAS been done and to deny it is a great travesty.

In Christ,
Andrew

how does one fool with the Sacrifice of the Mass exactly?

 

[malphono]

how does one fool with the Sacrifice of the Mass exactly?

I haven’t often agreed with Harpazo in this forum, but in this case I do, at least in part. In the past, Rome unilaterally did its job on the rubrics and appearance of the Maronite liturgy, so as to make it look (at least to the casual observer) like a Roman Mass. Thanks to the Holy Ghost, Rome never got exactly what it wanted in the text, (although it did, admittedly, get some of it). That persisted for some 500 years. And then came the post-conciliar neo-latinizations, and we are now in worse shape than ever before. So yeah, Rome fooled with the Holy Qourbono. And, by influence, continues to do so, much to our detriment.

Until the recent Chaldean restoration, the Chaldeans were in a similar situation. Thanks to Mar Sarhad, it was arrested. The Maronites are, much to my dismay, not so fortunate.

 

[mardukm]

I said it in a post earlier, I have worshiped in a Maronite Church for about 18 months and talked with the priest on occasion about Maronite history, Eastern Christianity, etc. He and I are still friends. About a year ago, he taught Maronite history classes at the parish and explained how the Latins basically raped the Maronite liturgy, forcing them to burn their liturgical books and embrace Latin Christianity because that was the only way to be Catholic. I think their testimony and the testimony of the Chaldeans too (and other Eastern Catholics) is witness enough of the Pope and the See of Rome being able to fool with the Divine Liturgy. Let’s not kid ourselves here. It HAS been done and to deny it is a great travesty.

No one denies that it was done. But much more relevant, IMO, is the collusion of the Eastern and Oriental clergy to those things. The Pope did not really have the authority to do it. It’s just that the Eastern and Oriental clergy LET him. If they were not so accomodating, I don’t think it would have happened in the first place.

Our Popes are better now, so there is no rhyme nor reason for all the fearmongering going on by virtue of purely hypothetical situations. It has been a slow process, admittedly, but God works in his own time. Our only job is to have faith in Him (well, not our ONLY job, but you know what I mean )

Blessings

 

[bobzills]

The Pope did not really have the authority to do it.

Disobedience to the Roman Pontiff is an extremely grave offense. The Pope and the ecumenical Councils say that the Roman Pontiff has the plenitude of the full and supreme authority and that he is the last recourse. Clergy who choose to disobey the Roman Pontiff are subject to suspension or excommunication.

 

[bobzills]

Show me just one place in the Catechism, or ANYWHERE which states that the Pope’s power is “UNLIMITED.”

The power of the Pope is unlimited to the extent that no one may impose norms on him to limit the exercise of his full and supreme authority and primacy. For a reference you might want to take a look and read what is posted on the Vatican’s website. For example, what the Roman Pontiff said in his general audience of February 24, 1993:

The Pope Exercises Supreme Jurisdiction
The Roman Pontiff enjoys “full and supreme power of jurisdiction, not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and governance of the Church dispersed throughout the world”
The definition of Vatican I excludes “the possibility of imposing norms on him to limit the exercise of the primacy.”
Vatican I emphasized the fullness of papal power and defined that it is not enough to recognize that the Roman Pontiff “has the principal role.” One must admit instead that he “has all the fullness of this supreme power”
etc.
etc.

 

[SyroMalankara]

These opinions are taking an odd, ahistorical turn. Documents and books show that the Maronites convened various Synods and adopted these practices themselves, albeit with some “persuasion”.

books.google.com/books?id=8Ogp94y8CJgC&pg=PA267&lpg=PA267&dq=Maronite+latinization&source=bl&ots=CVAAZoPlxC&sig=jTm8SVdqKwD4FblZA37tMJ_vF7M&hl=en&ei=0FpESv_lK4KENoKJhc0I&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

The above is a book written from the Syriac Orthodox perspective, and even these, while they emphasize that Rome - at one time or the other - “suggested” these changes, these still show that the Patriarchs and Maronite Synods HAD to convene and accept them for the changes to actually be implemented.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The power of the Pope is unlimited to the extent that no one may impose norms on him to limit the exercise of his full and supreme authority and primacy. For a reference you might want to take a look and read what is posted on the Vatican’s website. For example, what the Roman Pontiff said in his general audience of February 24, 1993:

The Pope Exercises Supreme Jurisdiction
The Roman Pontiff enjoys “full and supreme power of jurisdiction, not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and governance of the Church dispersed throughout the world”
The definition of Vatican I excludes “the possibility of imposing norms on him to limit the exercise of the primacy.”
Vatican I emphasized the fullness of papal power and defined that it is not enough to recognize that the Roman Pontiff “has the principal role.” One must admit instead that he “has all the fullness of this supreme power”
etc.
etc.

So he can ordain women and marry gays, deny the Trinity, suppress the Papacy, declare infallibly that in fact all dogs DO go to heaven, and order that the flock must believe all post-New Testament miracles dogmatically?

 

[mardukm]

The power of the Pope is unlimited to the extent that no one may impose norms on him to limit the exercise of his full and supreme authority and primacy.

Why would anyone need to? The Vatican Council already did that when it asserted that the Pope cannot use his prerogatives in a manner that stands in the way of the prerogatives of his brother bishops. Even more than that, it placed a divine obligation on the Pope to positively use his prerogatives to uphold and defend the prerogatives and rights of his brother bishops. Your “absolute power” scenario violates the teachings of the first Vatican Council.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Disobedience to the Roman Pontiff is an extremely grave offense. The Pope and the ecumenical Councils say that the Roman Pontiff has the plenitude of the full and supreme authority and that he is the last recourse. Clergy who choose to disobey the Roman Pontiff are subject to suspension or excommunication.

What happened during the Easter controversy? No one is bound to follow the Pope in an unjust action.

Canon 38: An administrative act, even if there is question of a rescript given Motu Proprio, has no effect in so far as it harms the acquired right of another, or is contrary to a law or approved custom, unless the competent authority has expressly added a derogatory clause.

You know what a Motu proprio is, don’t you? So even the Church recognizes by its own laws that the Pope does not have absolute power.

 

[bobzills]

What happened during the Easter controversy? No one is bound to follow the Pope in an unjust action.

Canon 38: An administrative act, even if there is question of a rescript given Motu Proprio, has no effect in so far as it harms the acquired right of another, or is contrary to a law or approved custom, unless the competent authority has expressly added a derogatory clause.

You know what a Motu proprio is, don’t you? So even the Church recognizes by its own laws that the Pope does not have absolute power.

According to the address of the Roman Pontiff in his general audience of February 24, 1993:as recorded on the Vatican website:
The power of the Pope is unlimited to the extent that no one may impose norms on him to limit the exercise of his full and supreme authority and primacy.

 

[bobzills]

So he can ordain women and marry gays, deny the Trinity, suppress the Papacy, declare infallibly that in fact all dogs DO go to heaven, and order that the flock must believe all post-New Testament miracles dogmatically?

Are you denying here the dogma of the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff? :Let me explain it to you:
By action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals.
Vatican Council I has defined as “a divinely revealed dogma” that “the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra – that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church – is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church’s consent” (Densinger no. 1839

 

[mardukm]

Are you denying here the dogma of the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff? :Let me explain it to you:
By action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals.
Vatican Council I has defined as “a divinely revealed dogma” that “the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra – that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church – is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church’s consent” (Densinger no. 1839

You’re the one that said that no limit can be imposed on the Pope’s exercise of his supreme authority. Are you now saying that there are indeed limits to the Pope’s prerogatives? Well, then, you’ve finally seen the light!

Besides, the issues of women’s ordination and gay marriage and abortion, and a whole slough of other teachings are not defined dogmas. We accept them on the authority of TRADITION (capital “T”). In the same manner and respect do we approach the issue of the Divine Liturgy. So brother SyroMalankara’s statement was wholly proper in its intent.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

According to the address of the Roman Pontiff in his general audience of February 24, 1993:as recorded on the Vatican website:
The power of the Pope is unlimited to the extent that no one may impose norms on him to limit the exercise of his full and supreme authority and primacy.

Do you mind giving us a direct quote that states ad dictum what you just stated here? I’m betting what you gave here is just another one of your fantastic misinterpretations.

Blessings

 

[bobzills]

Do you mind giving us a direct quote that states ad dictum what you just stated here? I’m betting what you gave here is just another one of your fantastic misinterpretations.

Blessings

It is found on the vatican website. Everything is there.

 

[OhMalley]

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.

The tiny are always always “wary” (and often xenophobic) of the huge. I think a great deal of the negative comments we hear from the East hurled at the West boil down to little more than envy.

 

[mardukm]

It is found on the vatican website. Everything is there.

In other words, it really IS just one of your fantastic misinterpretations. Gotcha.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

The tiny are always always “wary” (and often xenophobic) of the huge. I think a great deal of the negative comments we hear from the East hurled at the West boil down to little more than envy.

Why would we be envious. The Pope is ALREADY a member of our Churches.

Blessings

 

[bobzills]

In other words, it really IS just one of your fantastic misinterpretations. Gotcha.

Blessings

I gave you the reference. Anyone can check that the address is given on the website of the Vatican. Your defense appears to be sarcasm, ridicule and ad hominem arguments.

 

[mardukm]

I gave you the reference. Anyone can check that the address is given on the website of the Vatican. Your defense appears to be sarcasm, ridicule and ad hominem arguments.

Still can’t give a direct quote, I see.

Blessings

 

[bobzills]

So he can ordain women and marry gays, deny the Trinity, suppress the Papacy, declare infallibly that in fact all dogs DO go to heaven, and order that the flock must believe all post-New Testament miracles dogmatically?

Perhaps we should again go over and review the extent of the authority of the Roman Pontiff as far as it concerns what we are talking about::
In the Constitution “Pastor Aeternus”, cap. 3, the pope is declared to possess ordinary, immediate, and episcopal jurisdiction over all the faithful:
We teach, moreover, and declare that, by the disposition of God, the Roman Church possesses supreme ordinary authority over all Churches, and that the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is true episcopal jurisdiction is immediate in its character
As the supreme teacher of the Church, whose it is to prescribe what is to be believed by all the faithful, and to take measures for the preservation and the propagation of the faith.
•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.
• it is his to set forth creeds, and to determine when and by whom an explicit profession of faith shall be made (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. 24, cc. 1 and 12);
• it is his to prescribe and to command books for the religious instruction of the faithful; thus, for example, Clement XIII has recommended the Roman Catechism 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. to all the bishops.
• he can legislate for the whole Church, with or without the assistance of a general council;
• AND MORE
• newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm#III
•