Could the pope throw out the Divine Liturgy?

[bobzills]

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

Blessings

Here is a direct link to the Vatican website where you can find it.
vatican.va

 

[mardukm]

Here is a direct link to the Vatican website where you can find it.
vatican.va

Been there. Read through it during my swim across the Tiber. There’s no mention of unlimited authority or absolute power of the Pope.

You’re doing a really poor job here presenting your case.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Is the record player broken?

Perhaps we should again go over and review theextent 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
•

 

[bobzills]

Been there. Read through it during my swim across the Tiber. There’s no mention of unlimited authority or absolute power of the Pope.

You’re doing a really poor job here presenting your case.

Blessings

Keep looking. You are on the right track. It’s only that you have not yet read the address given to the general audience as I have indicated above.

 

[bobzills]

Is the record player broken?

That was for those people who still do not know what are the extent and scope of the papal prerogatives as outlined by the declaration of Vatican I, and by the general address of the Pontifex Maximus in which the Vicar of Christ explained how the Pope Exercises Supreme Jurisdiction over all the Churches in communion with him.

 

[mardukm]

That was for those people who still do not know what are the extent and scope of the papal prerogatives as outlined by the declaration of Vatican I, and by the general address of the Pontifex Maximus in which the Vicar of Christ explained how the Pope Exercises Supreme Jurisdiction over all the Churches in communion with him.

But you’re just repeating what you stated before and you were already refuted. The most salient point is the fact that these statements from the Catholic Encyclopedia have a 17th century source, when probably 99% of the people had no idea the Eastern and/or Oriental Catholic Churches even existed. So obviously, they refer only to the Latin Church. In the same way, when the Council of Trent taught that the Vulgate is the only acceptable Bible that can be used, it was clarified much later on that such a decree was only intended for the Latin Church, and not for the Eastern and Oriental Churches.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Keep looking. You are on the right track. It’s only that you have not yet read the address given to the general audience as I have indicated above.

The words “unlimited authority” and “absolute power” are not words found anywhere in the website in reference to the Pope. You were probably confusing it with another website?

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

To all “absolute power” enthusiasts:

Looking forward to a response to posts #61, #81, #188, #191, and #205.

The response to post#188 was the cop-out, “look at this website.” And after repeated requests for a statement that states specifically that the Pope has “UNlimited authority” and “absolute power,” the same tired old recording keeps repeating itself.

Blessings

 

[malphono]

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.

Yes, that’s partially true. I say “partially” because the printing of the Missale in 1594 was done in Rome and by Rome, and that is where much of the job was done on the rubrics and appearance of the Holy Qourbono. It’s also where the changes to the text (e.g. the Roman form of the Institution Narrative, removing the causative from the Epiklesis, etc) came about. Albeit that there is a but more history involved in the project of printing the Missal (which I am not about to go into here), the fact is that the changes included in the Missal were imposed. Admittedly the printing was done with the help of the Maronite College, but that doesn’t change the fact of imposition.

For the rest, (e.g., importation of Latin devotions and practices, the near total destruction of the “Ritual” etc), yes, it was done with Synodal agreement, and yet one has to emphasize the word persuasion even there.

 

[mardukm]

Yes, that’s partially true. I say “partially” because the printing of the Missale in 1594 was done in Rome and by Rome, and that is where much of the job was done on the rubrics and appearance of the Holy Qourbono. It’s also where the changes to the text (e.g. the Roman form of the Institution Narrative, removing the causative from the Epiklesis, etc) came about. Albeit that there is a but more history involved in the project of printing the Missal (which I am not about to go into here), the fact is that the changes included in the Missal were imposed. Admittedly the printing was done with the help of the Maronite College, but that doesn’t change the fact of imposition.

For the rest, (e.g., importation of Latin devotions and practices, the near total destruction of the “Ritual” etc), yes, it was done with Synodal agreement, and yet one has to emphasize the word persuasion even there.

I read some excerpts online of a book called “Maronites in History” (I think that was the name). It had a specific section in it called “the Latinization of the Maronites.” It went into detail about how the Maronites did not do a thing to stop the first Latinizations (and it just steamrolled from there). There was even an incident where the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch had a meeting with the Papal legate in the presence of the Maronites. The visit was spurred on by the fact that the papal legate was inspecting the liturgical books of the Maronites (with no indication that this was forced, but that the Maronite Patriarch was very open to it). He found certain portions that did not agree terminologically with the diophysite theology of Rome. The Syriac Patriarch defended the texts in the Liturgical books of the Maronites, but the Maronites would have none of it. It doesn’t seem like anything was forced on the Maronites at all, as far as the Liturgy is concerned.

Later, I’ll try to recover that text from online and give you the author’s name, so we can get your opinion on whether or not that author was representing Maronite history properly (the gentleman was a Maronite, IIRC). The author did mention that later on (in the 18th or 19th century), there were stirrings of wanting to recover the original Syriac heritage. I’ll have to find it and reread it again. I read it several days ago.

Blessings

 

[malphono]

I read some excerpts online of a book called “Maronites in History” (I think that was the name). It had a specific section in it called “the Latinization of the Maronites.” It went into detail about how the Maronites did not do a thing to stop the first Latinizations (and it just steamrolled from there). There was even an incident where the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch had a meeting with the Papal legate in the presence of the Maronites. The visit was spurred on by the fact that the papal legate was inspecting the liturgical books of the Maronites (with no indication that this was forced, but that the Maronite Patriarch was very open to it). He found certain portions that did not agree terminologically with the diophysite theology of Rome. The Syriac Patriarch defended the texts in the Liturgical books of the Maronites, but the Maronites would have none of it. It doesn’t seem like anything was forced on the Maronites at all, as far as the Liturgy is concerned.

Later, I’ll try to recover that text from online and give you the author’s name, so we can get your opinion on whether or not that author was representing Maronite history properly (the gentleman was a Maronite, IIRC). The author did mention that later on (in the 18th or 19th century), there were stirrings of wanting to recover the original Syriac heritage. I’ll have to find it and reread it again. I read it several days ago.

Blessings

That is more-or-less accurate, except that the “inspection” of the liturgical books (more like manuscripts at the time, but that doesn’t matter) was done on Rome’s initiative and not by invitation. No, the Patriarch didn’t officially object, (there was a need for liturgical books: those in use were falling apart), but at the time he really didn’t have much to say about it. “Roma locuta” and all that. And of course Rome at that time was having none of what it considered “Jacobite” texts from the SOC.

The “stirrings” to recover what was lost really started in the 19th century and, as I have already said in another [post=5336853]thread[/post] in this forum, they got “going” so-to-speak, in the early 20th.

 

[bobzills]

That is more-or-less accurate, except that the “inspection” of the liturgical books (more like manuscripts at the time, but that doesn’t matter) was done on Rome’s initiative and not by invitation. No, the Patriarch didn’t officially object, (there was a need for liturgical books: those in use were falling apart), but at the time he really didn’t have much to say about it. “Roma locuta” and all that. And of course Rome at that time was having none of what it considered “Jacobite” texts from the SOC.

The “stirrings” to recover what was lost really started in the 19th century and, as I have already said in another [post=5336853]thread[/post] in this forum, they got “going” so-to-speak, in the early 20th.

Disobedience to the Roman Pontiff is a grave offense and will put one at risk of being subject to severe penalties such as suspension for example.

 

[mardukm]

Disobedience to the Roman Pontiff is a grave offense and will put one at risk of being subject to severe penalties such as suspension for example.

So Easterns and Oriental Catholics in your eyes don’t have any rights. Thanks for letting us know where you’re really coming from. Don’t you have anything better to do than insult Eastern and Oriental Catholics, foster disunity, and paint the Holy Father as an insensitive dictator?

 

[bobzills]

So Easterns and Oriental Catholics in your eyes don’t have any rights. Thanks for letting us know where you’re really coming from. Don’t you have anything better to do than insult Eastern and Oriental Catholics, foster disunity, and paint the Holy Father as an insensitive dictator?

Unfortunately, it is worse than suspension in some cases. For example, it is stated in Vatican I, that if you do not agree that the Pope has the full plenitude of Supreme power over all the Churches in communion with him, then you will be subject to an anathema.

 

[mardukm]

Unfortunately, it is worse than suspension in some cases. For example, it is stated in Vatican I, that if you do not agree that the Pope has the full plenitude of Supreme power over all the Churches in communion with him, then you will be subject to an anathema.

Faithful Eastern and Oriental Catholics accept that the Pope has the full plenitude of supreme authority in the Church. We just don’t believe that this translates to absolute nor unlimited power. If this means that he can exercise his prerogatives to violate the rights of his brother bishops, then he is in violation of the Vatican Councils. The rights of bishops are of DIVINE right, as equally as the rights of the Pope, Didn’t you know that?

In short, the Pope has absolutely no authority to violate the rights of his fellow bishops. A decree by the Pope which violates these rights HAS NO FORCE according to the Canons, so your fearmongering doesn’t disturb me one bit.

 

[malphono]

Faithful Eastern and Oriental Catholics accept that the Pope has the full plenitude of supreme authority in the Church. We just don’t believe that this translates to absolute nor unlimited power. If this means that he can exercise his prerogatives to violate the rights of his brother bishops, then he is in violation of the Vatican Councils. The rights of bishops are of DIVINE right, as equally as the rights of the Pope, Didn’t you know that?

In short, the Pope has absolutely no authority to violate the rights of his fellow bishops. A decree by the Pope which violates these rights HAS NO FORCE according to the Canons, so your fearmongering doesn’t disturb me one bit.

 

[NoWings]

Faithful Eastern and Oriental Catholics accept that the Pope has the full plenitude of supreme authority in the Church. We just don’t believe that this translates to absolute nor unlimited power. If this means that he can exercise his prerogatives to violate the rights of his brother bishops, then he is in violation of the Vatican Councils. The rights of bishops are of DIVINE right, as equally as the rights of the Pope, Didn’t you know that?

In short, the Pope has absolutely no authority to violate the rights of his fellow bishops. A decree by the Pope which violates these rights HAS NO FORCE according to the Canons, so your fearmongering doesn’t disturb me one bit.

I’ve been following along nicely, until this part of the exchange.

If the Maronites simply “let him” then how exactly would they go about not letting him?

Pope: “Okay… I think you should do this and you should change this.”

Eastern Bishops: “No.”

Pope: “Oh… well, all right then.”

I don’t see that happening. I see the pope excommunicating people for disobedience.

I suppose I could be wrong.

 

[mardukm]

I’ve been following along nicely, until this part of the exchange.

If the Maronites simply “let him” then how exactly would they go about not letting him?

Pope: “Okay… I think you should do this and you should change this.”

Eastern Bishops: “No.”

Pope: “Oh… well, all right then.”

I don’t see that happening. I see the pope excommunicating people for disobedience.

I suppose I could be wrong.

The issue is really complicated, IMO. There are so many things to consider in assessing the matter:

(1) At this time, the Syriac Orthodox theology (miaphysite) was considered heresy. It is hard for me to imagine that the Maronites would not have conceded this point at that time. That is why they “let him.”

(2) When the papal legate investigated the manuscripts and liturgical books of the Maronites, he merely noted specific words and phrases that seemed to contradict the diophysite theology of Rome. Conceivably, as far as the Maronite Liturgy was concerned, the change could have been restricted to the removal or replacement of these specific terms and phrases, without a wholesale replacement of the Liturgy itself.

Personally, I believe if the Maronite Church was united on the matter, the Pope would not have excommunicated them if they chose to keep their Liturgy (sans the few words and phrases considered heterodox). The Pope could not have excommunicated them not only because of the principle of the inherent divine rights of bishops, but also because he had a vested self-understanding of his role to preserve the unity of the Church (recall the efforts at reunion with the Eastern Byzantines).

(3) The Maronites were at a distinct disadvantage in comparison to the Eastern Byzantines in communion with Rome. The Eastern Byzantines came into communion through Treaty perserving their rights. The Maronites, on the other hand, claimed to always be Catholic. I think this caused the Latin magisterium to (wrongly) regard the Maronites as nothing more than a satellite of the Latin Church. It’s also possible that during those days, many Maronites had the same (likewise wrong) self-understanding.

Blessings

 

[bobzills]

The Eastern Byzantines came into communion through Treaty perserving their rights.

If the rights of the Eastern Byzantine Catholics were “preserved” by the Treaty of Brest, how come they were required to insert the filioque in the creed in direct violation of the first article of the Treaty: “1.—Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another—we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.”
And if their rights have been preserved, how come an Australian Ukrainian rite Catholic theologian, Dr Andrew Kania, has been criticising the cultural imperialism - of the Roman Church?
cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=5446

 

[malphono]

The issue is really complicated, IMO. There are so many things to consider in assessing the matter:

Yes indeed, it’s rather complicated.

(1) At this time, the Syriac Orthodox theology (miaphysite) was considered heresy. It is hard for me to imagine that the Maronites would not have conceded this point at that time. That is why they “let him.”

The Maronites were more than aware of the (alleged) monophysitism of the Syriac OC at the time: the aftermath of Chalcedon is what gave rise to the Maronite Patriarchate.

(2) When the papal legate investigated the manuscripts and liturgical books of the Maronites, he merely noted specific words and phrases that seemed to contradict the diophysite theology of Rome. Conceivably, as far as the Maronite Liturgy was concerned, the change could have been restricted to the removal or replacement of these specific terms and phrases, without a wholesale replacement of the Liturgy itself.

The parts of the books that were under scrutiny were the Anaphorae. There was no “wholesesale replacement” of the Liturgy. Rather, (a) specific words were, in fact, excised from, and replaced in, certain anaphorae (b) a few anaphorae (and they were not in common use anyway, so this particular item would not have caused much of an uproar) were suppressed due to Rome’s view that they were “tainted” by monophysitism, and (c) the rubrics and appearance of the Holy Qourbono were ultimately changed to make it look like the Roman Mass. That last is often mistaken for “wholsesale replacement” which is most definitely was not.

Personally, I believe if the Maronite Church was united on the matter, the Pope would not have excommunicated them if they chose to keep their Liturgy (sans the few words and phrases considered heterodox). The Pope could not have excommunicated them not only because of the principle of the inherent divine rights of bishops, but also because he had a vested self-understanding of his role to preserve the unity of the Church (recall the efforts at reunion with the Eastern Byzantines).

Yes, and that even if this had been a case of direct Papal order, which is was not.

(3) The Maronites were at a distinct disadvantage in comparison to the Eastern Byzantines in communion with Rome. The Eastern Byzantines came into communion through Treaty perserving their rights. The Maronites, on the other hand, claimed to always be Catholic.

The “disadvantage” had less to do with “unbroken communion” than with the fact that the Maronites were (and still are in a way) a subjugated community. Notice that what Rome did with the Chaldeans was quite similar, and in that case there was no claim of “unbroken communion” but the Chaldeans were (and remain) a similarly subjugated community.

I think this caused the Latin magisterium to (wrongly) regard the Maronites as nothing more than a satellite of the Latin Church.

Wrongly, yes. But it’s still true to an extent. And in many way the Maronites themselves make the matter 100x worse by playing the role of satellite.The plague of Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations is clear evidence of that.