Could the pope throw out the Divine Liturgy?

[mardukm]

Hi Marduk, I am not going to argue over this point with you. I say fine.

I would like you to develop this further for us…

Does the church have a mechanism in place to show an action of the Pope as invalid?

Is there a way for the church at large to address just such an injustice (an invalid action), or is it going to have to grin and bear it?

Thanks
Michael

I would look to Tradition to guide the Church on the matter. History has shown that the Pope can be moved to correct himself by his brother bishops. It seems as simple as that. That would be the informal means to address such an injustice. Even today, it is evident that even local groups of bishops can exercise their influence on the Pope.

Absolute power enthusiasts often like to quote the canon that states there is no appeal or recourse against a judgment or decree of the Pope. But they forget that the very definition of “judgment” and “decree” limits the papal exercise of that prerogative, as explained in an earlier post.

Blessings

 

[SyroMalankara]

Brother Mardukm,

The Syrian Churches do have a concept similar to “auxiliary bishops” - the Chorbishops were originally bishops of countryside churches, who reported to the Metropolitan, consecrated priests, deacons, and minor orders as needed, etc…

Today, the Chorbishop rank is given to (usually married) priests as an honor for outstanding service, they wear all the insignia of a bishop but are not ordained to the episcopate and do not have episcopal faculties - some can ordain to minor orders, with the permission of his bishop.

 

[bobzills]

If the Pope decrees something that violates the rights of his brother bishops, then such decrees have no effect in the Church.

The Pope took away the right of a brother bishop, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was suspended when he wanted to maintain the Tradition of the Latin Mass.

 

[bobzills]

Hi Marduk, I am not going to argue over this point with you. I say fine.

I would like you to develop this further for us…

Does the church have a mechanism in place to show an action of the Pope as invalid?

Is there a way for the church at large to address just such an injustice (an invalid action), or is it going to have to grin and bear it?

Thanks
Michael

I think the Pope is the last recourse, and that there is no recourse beyond his decisions.

 

[mardukm]

The Pope took away the right of a brother bishop, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was suspended when he wanted to maintain the Tradition of the Latin Mass.

That’s not why he was suspended. He wasn’t even suspended for ordaining priests. He was suspended for consecrating bishops without the confirmation of his head bishop - which is one of the most ancient canons of the Church established by the Ecumenical Councils.

 

[bobzills]

That’s not why he was suspended. He wasn’t even suspended for ordaining priests. He was suspended for consecrating bishops without the confirmation of his head bishop - which is one of the most ancient canons of the Church established by the Ecumenical Councils.

No. I’m talking about before 1988.

 

[mardukm]

No. I’m talking about before 1988.

I’m not sure about dates. But I do know that the Pope never suspended him for not wanting to use the NO. It was his own local hierarchy that did so. V2 asserted that the decision to use the NO was in the competence of each countries’ episcopal conference. The episcopal conference had the authority to decide what was best for its flock. If Lefebvre opposed his episcopal conference, then it was that authority that censured him, not the Pope. The Pope, however, did indeed censure him later on for violating an ancient canon of the Church - consecrating bishops without the confirmation of his head bishop (i,e, his Patriarch).

 

[bobzills]

I’m not sure about dates. But I do know that the Pope never suspended him for not wanting to use the NO. It was his own local hierarchy that did so. V2 asserted that the decision to use the NO was in the competence of each countries’ episcopal conference. The episcopal conference had the authority to decide what was best for its flock. If Lefebvre opposed his episcopal conference, then it was that authority that censured him, not the Pope. The Pope, however, did indeed censure him later on for violating an ancient canon of the Church - consecrating bishops without the confirmation of his head bishop (i,e, his Patriarch).

On 29 June 1976, Archbishop Lefebvre was suspended a collatione ordinum
Since he wanted to ordain priests in the old rite. Archbishop Lefebvre, then wrote a letter saying that he did not agree with the modernization of the Church and the New Mass, and was going to stay with the Old Mass. He was then suspended a divinis.
This all occurred 12 years before the ordination on bishops.

 

[dvdjs]

On 29 June 1976, Archbishop Lefebvre was suspended a collatione ordinum
Since he wanted to ordain priests in the old rite. Archbishop Lefebvre, then wrote a letter saying that he did not agree with the modernization of the Church and the New Mass, and was going to stay with the Old Mass. He was then suspended a divinis.
This all occurred 12 years before the ordination on bishops.

FWIW, here’s how it plays on Wikipedia:

On 29 June 1976, Lefebvre went ahead with planned priestly ordinations without the approval of the local Bishop and despite receiving letters from Rome forbidding them. As a result Lefebvre was suspended a collatione ordinum, i.e., forbidden to ordain any priests. A week later, the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops informed him that, to have his situation regularized, he needed to ask the Pope’s pardon. Lefebvre responded with a letter claiming that the modernisation of the Church was a “compromise with the ideas of modern man” originating in a secret agreement between high dignitaries in the Church and senior Freemasons prior to the Council.[76] Lefebvre was then notified that, since he had not apologised to the Pope, he was suspended a divinis,[77] i.e., he could no longer legally administer any of the sacraments.[78]

The difference from the Bobzills version is not subtle.

 

[mardukm]

On 29 June 1976, Archbishop Lefebvre was suspended a collatione ordinum
Since he wanted to ordain priests in the old rite. Archbishop Lefebvre, then wrote a letter saying that he did not agree with the modernization of the Church and the New Mass, and was going to stay with the Old Mass. He was then suspended a divinis.
This all occurred 12 years before the ordination on bishops.

To repeat. he was not suspended for his desire not to celebrate the NO. In that instance you are speaking of, his suspension was due to the fact that he performed ordinations without the consent of the local ordinary. Stop trying to insinuate otherwise. Why are you trying so hard to mislead everyone?

In another thread, you complained that women can’t be ordained. Here, you give the appearance of being a traditionalist. Is it your purpose just to sow discord?

 

[mardukm]

FWIW, here’s how it plays on Wikipedia:

The difference from the Bobzills version is not subtle.

Thanks, brother dvdjs.

 

[Diak]

I think we’ll need to consult Father Deacon Diak on that. I don’t know enough about the topic, though I suspect that if the filioque was introduced, it was likewise by virtue of the participation of the Ukrainian hierarchy. Even today, there is a Ukranian version of the SSPX that seeks to preserve Latinizations (and have been excommunicated, IIRC).

To respond to brother Marduk’s suggestion, I will reiterate that Rome has never ordered, through unilateral Papal decree, any insertion of the Filioque into the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Liturgy since the Union of Brest. As reminded by Magisterial documents lauding the Union, it still stands as written and approved by Metropolitan Mykhayl and the other Kyivan hierarchs. Although I have never seen the actual document, the Carpatho-Rusyn Greek Catholics claim to have the “same deal” with the Union of Uzhorod which came 50 years later.

While Rome may have approved certain liturgical books prepared by local Synods, such as Zamosc or L’viv with the insertion, the insertion itself was done by “internal” latinizations to the Ukrainian and Carpatho-Rusyn liturgical usages. It should be remembered that the Greek Catholics were at that time living in primarily Latin lands under the control of Poland or the Austro-Hungarian Empire. As with several latinizations, the insertion was likely a gesture to appear “Catholic” to overzealous Latin clergy and political leaders who still considered the Greek Catholics to somehow not be really “Catholic”. These gestures did not help the political circumstances of the Greek Catholics, and to some extent diminished the liturgical integrity of the received tradition. Thankfully we are moving away from all of that, especially since the time of Metropolitan Andrey.

The “Ukrainian version of the SSPX” is the Priestly Society of St. Josaphat (SSJ). The SSJ was excommunicated by the UGCC Synod. They have appealed this twice; Rome in good faith accepted the first appeal and remanded the situation back to the UGCC hierarchy for further consideration.

After continued blatant disregard of the episcopal authority of the Synod, including having the ridiculous situation of an SSPX bishop ordaining the SSJ priests for the Ukrainian particular Rite not in their own Rite, but in the Tridentine Latin rite (talk about hybrids…), the UGCC again decreed excommunication. This time it was upheld when the SSJ again appealed to Rome. It should also be noted that a primary clerical support mechanism for the SSJ was provided by the “Transalpine Redemptorists”, who have since fully reconciled with Rome and no longer support any aspect of SSJ activity.

 

[bobzills]

To repeat. he was not suspended for his desire not to celebrate the NO. In that instance you are speaking of, his suspension was due to the fact that he performed ordinations without the consent of the local ordinary. Stop trying to insinuate otherwise. Why are you trying so hard to mislead everyone?

In another thread, you complained that women can’t be ordained. Here, you give the appearance of being a traditionalist. Is it your purpose just to sow discord?

The ordinations were not approved becaseu they were not in the New rite. In fact, the archbishop said at that time: " We cannot change our Credo, we cannot change the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we cannot change our Sacraments, changing them into human works, purely human, which no longer carry the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is because, in fact, we feel and are convinced that in the last fifteen years something has happened in the Church, something has happened in the Church which has introduced into the highest summits of the Church, and into those who ought to defend our faith, a poison, a virus, which makes them adore the golden calf of this age, adore, in some sense, the errors of this age." and this was the reason that he gave for going ahead.

 

[bobzills]

To repeat. he was not suspended for his desire not to celebrate the NO. In that instance you are speaking of, his suspension was due to the fact that he performed ordinations without the consent of the local ordinary. Stop trying to insinuate otherwise. Why are you trying so hard to mislead everyone?

In another thread, you complained that women can’t be ordained. Here, you give the appearance of being a traditionalist. Is it your purpose just to sow discord?

According to Father Baumann: “You must clearly understand that the initial error of the Society of St. Pius X is not the consecration, but a schismatic attitude —to want to judge the Church (i.e. the ordinary Magisterium) which has been there from early on. The sin is one of arrogance, of a lack of humility, of elitism and Sectarianism.” (Fr. Baumann to seminarians 1992-1993)
The objection to the New Mass would be part of the schismatic attitude, would it not?

 

[bobzills]

The “Ukrainian version of the SSPX” is the Priestly Society of St. Josaphat (SSJ). The SSJ was excommunicated by the UGCC Synod. They have appealed this twice; Rome in good faith accepted the first appeal and remanded the situation back to the UGCC hierarchy for further consideration.

After continued blatant disregard of the episcopal authority of the Synod, including having the ridiculous situation of an SSPX bishop ordaining the SSJ priests for the Ukrainian particular Rite not in their own Rite, but in the Tridentine Latin rite (talk about hybrids…), the UGCC again decreed excommunication. This time it was upheld when the SSJ again appealed to Rome. It should also be noted that a primary clerical support mechanism for the SSJ was provided by the “Transalpine Redemptorists”, who have since fully reconciled with Rome and no longer support any aspect of SSJ activity.

Perhaps this topic is noteworthy enough to deserve a thread of its own?

 

[Traditional_Ang]

That’s why I prefer using the terms “reconciliation” or “restoration of communion.”

And it’s also why I use as my signature line…

Bishop Basil:

I suspect we have a misunderstanding of what submission means. When your sheep submit to your authority, they do so out of love for you and recognition of your love for them. At the same time, you’re submitting many of your wishes and desires to the Lord and to them so you can love and serve them. It’s a MUTUAL SUBMISSION in Love and Service. and, You know that you would give your life for any of the members of your flock, just as a husband would give his life for that of his wife.

I’ve been privileged to see this in a couple situations - One involving my recently retired Bishop, which I’ve discussed elsewhere in CATHOLIC ANSWERS.

A Restoration of Communion should only require an acceptance of Doctrine and a willingness to pray and work together. I don’t know how you feel about the lack of Inter-communion between the EO & OO Churches and the Catholic Churches, but I think it’s a crying shame Inter-communion hasn’t been achieved between the TAC and Catholic Churches.

The Hard part is going to be the Restoration of UNITY - the Restoration of ONENESS that I believe will require the acceptance of Authority (on both sides) - That’s why the Authority has be exercised in love, has to be seen as being exercised and love and has to be accepted in love - And why it will be more like a marriage than a “corporation”, bureaucracy or a governmental structure…

I’ll leave this in your capable theological hands.

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[bobzills]

A Restoration of Communion should only require an acceptance of Doctrine and a willingness to pray and work together. I don’t know how you feel about the lack of Inter-communion between the EO & OO Churches and the Catholic Churches, but I think it’s a crying shame Inter-communion hasn’t been achieved between the TAC and Catholic Churches.

In such a restoration of Communion, how would the TAC view the authority and jurisdiction of the Pope? For the topic at hand, would the authority of the Pope extend to mandating changes in the TAC liturgy?

 

[jimmy]

Once again, you say this only by neglecting the teaching of the Vatican Councils that the Pope must uphold and defend the rights of his brother bishops. That’s nothing more than cafeteria Catholicism, brother.

That is the same type of language the govt. uses every time it concentrates more power in itself. “It is for your own protection”. Communism was for the good of the people. But that is not how it turned out.

No man on earth has a right to judge whether the Pope is right or wrong in his actions so it is irrelevant until a pope comes along to reverse his actions and say it contradicted God’s will.

You are accusing me of Cafeteria Catholicism but I am simply reading the statements of the councils as they are. You are trying to interpret around the canons and the statements of the councils and the popes. It has been stated clearly that the Popes authority is universal and it is unhindered. There are no limits. You try to say that he is limited by the rights of his brother bishops but you can’t even establish what these rights are. He certainly doesn’t have a voting right in a council because it has been established that it is up to the pope whether a bishop has a vote in a council or only an advisory role.

If the Pope does so, he has not done it by the authority he is recognized to possess by the Vatican Councils. If the Pope does so, it would be done OUTSIDE the authority that God has given him. That is why, our canons explicitly state that even a motu proprio, if it violates the rights of individuals and Tradition, is invalid. Once again, your position seems to be nothing more than cafeteria Catholicism.

Give the canon. I have never seen a canon that says anything about the possibility of a motu proprio being invalid.

 

[jimmy]

Regarding the authority of bishops to vote in councils, take for example the Synod (which is a type of synod). Here is a statement from Apostolica Sollicitudo:

The Synod of Bishops has, of its very nature, the function of providing information and offering advice. It can also enjoy the power of making decisions when such power is conferred upon it by the Roman Pontiff; in this case, it belongs to him to ratify the decisions of the Synod.

You can ignore this if you want but this is the model of collegiality in the west. Collegiality is at the will of the pope. There are no rules for the process of a council except those established by the pope.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

In such a restoration of Communion, how would the TAC view the authority and jurisdiction of the Pope? For the topic at hand, would the authority of the Pope extend to mandating changes in the TAC liturgy?

Bob:

The ongoing negotiations are secret. There was a deal for Inter-Communion 4 years ago, but I “let the cat out of the bag” before it was consummated, and “All H*** broke loose”. Because of that, I’m NOT at liberty to discuss anything except in general terms.

I can tell you most of those I know within the TAC are pleased with the deal, and the Liturgy we’ve been asked to do is beautiful (I’ve participated & It’s more beautiful than the one we usually do). Pope John Paul II was sensitive to our needs and worked very hard to help us, and Pope Benedict XVI knows the subject and has been sensitive to our needs as well. Most people do not know that the Anglican Use got most of what they asked for, but that they asked for pitiful little.

Most people do not know that the Tridentine Liturgy was translated into English as early as the 16th century, or that the “Rubrics” call for a “Quiet Canon”, which could easily be interpreted to mean a “Reverent Canon”… Some other differences in our version are that the entire congregation joins in with the Acolyte on the Confiteor (English), the priest says his Confiteor aloud & the most of the liturgy is done aloud as well…

There’s a certain symbolism behind doing the Double Confiteor and doing it aloud - It reminds the entire congregation their priest is human and needs their prayers every bit as much as they needs his…

I understand one debate may be over using a 3 year Lectionary, in which case we’d use the IGNATIUS LECTIONARY which is based on the Ignatius Bible NOT the NAB. I’ve made it no secret that I know Fr. Joseph Fessio. I’m going to have to allow you to fill in the blanks…

I hope this answers your question.

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael